Pharmacist Provider Status Legislation: Projections
Pharmacist Provider Status Legislation: Projections
The state bills provide a framework in which to analyze H.R. 592/S. 314 and forecast their chances of success. Pharmacist provider status alone appears to pose little threat to the bills given the progress of HR2060 and the lack of discussion related to this clause in SB493. This part of H.R. 592/S. 314 is low risk/moderate yield.
Pharmacist autonomy was a point of contention for SB493 opponents, but succeeded following negotiations. H.R. 592/S. 314 language is in line with the successful precedent by defining pharmacist services as those already legal in the states, a moderate risk/high yield inclusion. Compensation provisions may be lynchpin for H.R. 592/S. 314, considering that the only state bill with similar language quickly stalled. The compensation clause is high yield and necessary for sustainability, but also represents the greatest risk due to cost concerns. If precedent holds, this clause could make the bills' success less likely.
What could increase the chances of success for H.R. 592/S. 314? Evidence reveals that the proposed policy offers a technically sound solution to current issues. However, health policy analysis literature reminds us that technically sound does not equal politically viable. A less comprehensive effort that still addresses part of the problem may be superior because of its increased chance of success. For H.R. 592/S. 314, such changes include removal of the compensation clause, focusing solely on pharmacist provider status. This reduces the bills to low to moderate risk while maintaining at least moderate yield by establishing a foundation on which compensation efforts could be revisited.
The interim might afford provider status supporters, especially those within the profession of pharmacy, more time to cultivate an understanding of service value among consumers. Numerous studies have discussed the projected costs and cost savings of pharmacist-provided direct patient care services from scholarly point of view. In comparison, seemingly little has been done to investigate or establish the perceived and true value of these services with patients/consumers. Across health care, consumers are largely shielded from the actual cost of services they receive because of insurance coverage and complicated billing practices. By developing an understanding of service value directly with their patients, pharmacists can accomplish two goals. First, a revenue stream is created with which to support the provision of primary care services while legislative pursuits continue, allowing for direct reimbursement where none currently exists. Second, and arguably more important, consumers who understand and appreciate the value of services they are receiving often become the most powerful advocates for coverage of said services.
Through analysis and understanding of established precedents, H.R. 592/S. 314 supporters can better equip themselves to address challenges to the bills' progress. Because of the necessary focus on costs of pharmacists' patient care services at the federal level, prospects for passage of H.R. 592/S. 314 in their current form are slim, but through communicating the value of such services to Congress and the general public, success is possible. Efforts to secure any meaningful progress are urgent before the momentum for change created by the PPACA fades. State-level bills reveal that there are important gains to be made even where concessions are necessary. Proponents must also remember that as lobbying efforts continue, communicating the value of pharmacist providers to patients is just as important as doing so to political leaders. Both will be necessary for a sustainable future. By being objective, realistic, prepared, and proactive, pharmacist provider status legislation supporters can secure a future where patients across the nation benefit from sustainable access to pharmacist-provided direct patient care services.
Analysis
The state bills provide a framework in which to analyze H.R. 592/S. 314 and forecast their chances of success. Pharmacist provider status alone appears to pose little threat to the bills given the progress of HR2060 and the lack of discussion related to this clause in SB493. This part of H.R. 592/S. 314 is low risk/moderate yield.
Pharmacist autonomy was a point of contention for SB493 opponents, but succeeded following negotiations. H.R. 592/S. 314 language is in line with the successful precedent by defining pharmacist services as those already legal in the states, a moderate risk/high yield inclusion. Compensation provisions may be lynchpin for H.R. 592/S. 314, considering that the only state bill with similar language quickly stalled. The compensation clause is high yield and necessary for sustainability, but also represents the greatest risk due to cost concerns. If precedent holds, this clause could make the bills' success less likely.
What could increase the chances of success for H.R. 592/S. 314? Evidence reveals that the proposed policy offers a technically sound solution to current issues. However, health policy analysis literature reminds us that technically sound does not equal politically viable. A less comprehensive effort that still addresses part of the problem may be superior because of its increased chance of success. For H.R. 592/S. 314, such changes include removal of the compensation clause, focusing solely on pharmacist provider status. This reduces the bills to low to moderate risk while maintaining at least moderate yield by establishing a foundation on which compensation efforts could be revisited.
The interim might afford provider status supporters, especially those within the profession of pharmacy, more time to cultivate an understanding of service value among consumers. Numerous studies have discussed the projected costs and cost savings of pharmacist-provided direct patient care services from scholarly point of view. In comparison, seemingly little has been done to investigate or establish the perceived and true value of these services with patients/consumers. Across health care, consumers are largely shielded from the actual cost of services they receive because of insurance coverage and complicated billing practices. By developing an understanding of service value directly with their patients, pharmacists can accomplish two goals. First, a revenue stream is created with which to support the provision of primary care services while legislative pursuits continue, allowing for direct reimbursement where none currently exists. Second, and arguably more important, consumers who understand and appreciate the value of services they are receiving often become the most powerful advocates for coverage of said services.
Through analysis and understanding of established precedents, H.R. 592/S. 314 supporters can better equip themselves to address challenges to the bills' progress. Because of the necessary focus on costs of pharmacists' patient care services at the federal level, prospects for passage of H.R. 592/S. 314 in their current form are slim, but through communicating the value of such services to Congress and the general public, success is possible. Efforts to secure any meaningful progress are urgent before the momentum for change created by the PPACA fades. State-level bills reveal that there are important gains to be made even where concessions are necessary. Proponents must also remember that as lobbying efforts continue, communicating the value of pharmacist providers to patients is just as important as doing so to political leaders. Both will be necessary for a sustainable future. By being objective, realistic, prepared, and proactive, pharmacist provider status legislation supporters can secure a future where patients across the nation benefit from sustainable access to pharmacist-provided direct patient care services.
Source...