Pharmacists' perceptions of pay for performance versus fee‐for‐service remuneration for the management of hypertension through pharmacist prescribing

• Published in: The International journal of pharmacy practice 2017-10, Vol.25 (5), p.388-393
• Main Authors: Rosenthal, Meagen M., Desai, Nimisha, Houle, Sherilyn K.D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Alberta; Attitude of Health Personnel; community pharmacy; Drug stores; Fee-for-Service Plans - economics; Humans; Hypertension; Hypertension - therapy; Pay for performance; Pharmacists; Pharmacists - economics; Pharmacists - psychology; prescribing; professional practice; Professional Role; Reimbursement, Incentive - economics; Remuneration
• ISSN: 0961-7671; 2042-7174
• DOI: 10.1111/ijpp.12330

Objectives As pharmacists expand their roles as patient care providers, remuneration must be offered for patient care activities apart from dispensing. Most jurisdictions paying for such services utilize the fee‐for‐service (FFS) model, while little is known about the role of pay for performance (P4P) within the pharmacy profession. This study aimed to elicit the experience of pharmacists practicing under both models within the Alberta Clinical Trial in Optimizing Hypertension (RxACTION) study in Alberta, Canada. Methods Pharmacist participants in RxACTION caring for at least one patient under FFS and under P4P were interviewed about their experiences until data saturation was reached. Interviews were conducted in June–July 2015, with responses audio recorded, transcribed and coded to identify key themes. Key findings Eight pharmacists were interviewed, with three key themes identified: a perceived comfort with the existing FFS model particularly due to its ease related to business planning, the transformative effect of the study on their practices and a preference for future models to consider a blend of both service count‐ and performance‐driven metrics. The degree of influence pharmacists feel they can have on outcomes achieved by patients, the perceptions of patients and other healthcare professionals on outcome‐based payment, and concerns with the impact of variable remuneration on the pharmacy business model are concerns raised with P4P in pharmacy practice. Conclusions This study reveals a hesitation to radically transform payment for pharmacists’ patient care services towards a P4P model. Efforts to implement P4P should therefore be gradual and accompanied with a robust evaluation plan.