The determinants of physician and pharmacist utilization and equity of access under Korean universal health insurance

This study examines the social and behavioral determinants of two types of primary care, seeing a physician or a pharmacist, for Koreans and evaluates the equity of the Korean national health insurance system. The study applies the Aday and Andersen access framework to cross-sectional data from the 1992 Korean National Health Interview Survey (N = 21,841).^ The study found that in Korea, the elderly were most likely, and children least likely, to have used physician services. Women, household heads, those in small families, and the less educated were more likely than their counterparts to use physician and pharmacist services. Health status and need were important determinants of Koreans seeing a doctor or a pharmacist. Differences in need substantially accounted for the original differences observed between subgroups. Resources associated with having insurance coverage, a regular source of care, and place of residence (rural/urban) ameliorated to some extent the subgroup differences in the use of physicians' and pharmacists' services among Koreans. They were also major independent predictors of access. Having insurance remains a particularly important predictor of who uses physician services. Among the insured, trade-offs in the use of physician and pharmacist services were found in the current system, i.e., uninsured and poor Koreans were more likely to use pharmacist services, while insured and rural Koreans were more likely to use doctor services. Among the insured, cost sharing rates are lower for physician than for pharmacist services. Self-employed persons were less likely than government and industrial workers to use physician services. An underlying expectation under universal health insurance was that the Korean health care system would be equitable. The research results, however, did not fully support this expectation.^ The policy implications of these findings are that measures are required to extend insurance coverage to the uninsured, to equalize differences in benefit packages between health plans, and to expand the availability of physicians in rural areas. Further research is also needed to understand those who do not currently have a regular source of care and why and the access barriers that may exist for selected demographic subgroups (those in large families and unmarried or divorced/widowed persons). ^

The evolution and assessment of pharmaceutical care: Structure, processes, and outcomes

The evolution of pharmaceutical care is identified through a complete review of the literature published in the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, the sole comprehensive publication of institutional pharmacy practice. The evolution is categorized according to characteristics of structure (organizational structure, the role of the pharmacist), process (drug delivery systems, formulary management, acquiring drug products, methods to impact drug therapy decisions), and outcomes (cost of drug delivery, cost of drug acquisition and use, improved safety, improved health outcomes) recorded from the 1950s through the 1990s. While significant progress has been made in implementing basic drug distribution systems, levels of pharmacy involvement with direct patient care is still limited.^ A new practice framework suggests enhanced direct patient care involvement through increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of traditional pharmacy services. Recommendations advance internal and external organizational structure relationships that position pharmacists to fully use their unique skills and knowledge to impact drug therapy decisions and outcomes. Specific strategies facilitate expansion of the breadth and scope of each process component in order to expand the depth of integration of pharmacy and pharmaceutical care within the broad healthcare environment. Economic evaluation methods formally evaluate the impact of both operational and clinical interventions.^ Outcome measurements include specific recommendations and methods to increase efficiency of drug acquisition, emphasizing pharmacists' roles that impact physician prescribing decisions. Effectiveness measures include those that improve safety of drug distribution systems, decrease the potential of adverse drug therapy events, and demonstrate that pharmaceutical care can significantly contribute to improvement in overall health status.^ The implementation of the new framework is modeled on a case study at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. The implementation of several new drug distribution methods facilitated the redeployment of personnel from distributive functions to direct patient care activities with significant personnel and drug cost reduction. A cost-benefit analysis illustrates that framework process enhancements produced a benefit-to-cost ratio of 7.9. In addition, measures of effectiveness demonstrated significant levels of safety and enhanced drug therapy outcomes. ^

Costs and quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics

Medication reconciliation, with the aim to resolve medication discrepancy, is one of the Joint Commission patient safety goals. Medication errors and adverse drug events that could result from medication discrepancy affect a large population. At least 1.5 million adverse drug events and $3.5 billion of financial burden yearly associated with medication errors could be prevented by interventions such as medication reconciliation. This research was conducted to answer the following research questions: (1a) What are the frequency range and type of measures used to report outpatient medication discrepancy? (1b) Which effective and efficient strategies for medication reconciliation in the outpatient setting have been reported? (2) What are the costs associated with medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (3) What is the quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (4) Is medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics cost-effective from the clinic perspective? Study designs used to answer these questions included a systematic review, cost analysis, quality assessments, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Data sources were published articles in the medical literature and data from a prospective workflow study, which included 150 patients and 1,238 medications. The systematic review confirmed that the prevalence of medication discrepancy was high in ambulatory care and higher in primary care settings. Effective strategies for medication reconciliation included the use of pharmacists, letters, a standardized practice approach, and partnership between providers and patients. Our cost analysis showed that costs associated with medication reconciliation practice were not substantially different between primary care clinics using or not using electronic medical records (EMR) ($0.95 per patient per medication in EMR clinics vs. $0.96 per patient per medication in non-EMR clinics, p=0.78). Even though medication reconciliation was frequently practiced (97-98%), the quality of such practice was poor (0-33% of process completeness measured by concordance of medication numbers and 29-33% of accuracy measured by concordance of medication names) and negatively (though not significantly) associated with medication regimen complexity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for concordance of medication number per patient per medication and concordance of medication names per patient per medication were both 0.08, favoring EMR. Future studies including potential cost-savings from medication features of the EMR and potential benefits to minimize severity of harm to patients from medication discrepancy are warranted. ^