ADVERTISEMENT

Assessment of Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy Utilization in the Indian Health Service

Federal Practitioner. 2020 July;37(7)a:325-330
Author and Disclosure Information

Background: The Indian Health Service (IHS) has an agreement with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that allows IHS to use the VA Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy (CMOP) to send prescriptions to IHS patients. However, there is high variability among IHS facilities in the use of CMOP. Furthermore, there is no available resource that summarizes the relative positives/negatives, challenges/opportunities, and strengths/weaknesses of implementing CMOP.

Methods: A 10-item questionnaire was developed to collect information on various aspects of prescription processing through CMOP. The questionnaire was distributed among the primary CMOP contacts of IHS facilities between December 2018 and January 2019.

Results: The CMOP contacts at 44 of 94 (47%) IHS sites responded to the survey. Of the 347 respondents, 310 (89%) pharmacists were trained in CMOP prescription processing. To get information about CMOP rejections, 53% (185/347) of pharmacists check electronic messages. Twelve (27%) sites utilize technicians in some capacity in the CMOP process. Of the 16 facilities that require patients to request prescriptions to be mailed for each refill request, 8 (50%) do not use any method to designate a CMOP patient. Three sites (7%) have measured patient satisfaction with the CMOP program. Thirteen sites (31%) reported that they are losing insurance reimbursements by using CMOP. The decrease in insurance reimbursements, lengthy prescription processing time, and medication backorders are the most common challenges shared by respondents.

Conclusions: CMOP presents unique challenges to pharmacy workflow but provides many benefits that local pharmacy mail-out programs usually do not possess, such as the ability to mail refrigerated items. Furthermore, it is likely that local programs that utilize mail delivery will increase pharmacy workload. However, there is a lack of objective data to assess the net effect of CMOP on patients. Nevertheless, the successful implementation of CMOP can lead to reduced pharmacy workload while increasing access to care for patients with transportation issues.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is that < 50% of the CMOP-enrolled sites (44 of 94) responded to the questionnaire. It is possible that the facilities that had a significantly positive or negative experience with CMOP were more inclined to share their views. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether the responding sites are an accurate representative sample. Another limitation of the study was the questionnaire design and the reliance on free-text responses as opposed to structured data. The free-text responses had to be analyzed manually to determine whether they fall in the same category, thereby increasing the risk of interpretation error.

Conclusion

CMOP has its unique challenges but provides many benefits that local pharmacy mail-out programs may not possess, such as the abilities to mail refrigerated items and track packages. One must be familiar with CMOP’s various idiosyncrasies to make the best use of the program. Extensive staff education and orientation for new staff members must be done to familiarize them with the program. Nevertheless, the successful implementation of CMOP can lead to reduced pharmacy workload while increasing access to care for patients with transportation issues.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank LCDR Karsten Smith, PharmD, BCGP, the IHS CMOP Coordinator for providing the list of primary CMOP contacts and CDR Kendall Van Tyle, PharmD, BCPS, for proofreading the article.