Variation in Medication Therapy Management Delivery: Implications for Health Care Policy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medication therapy management (MTM) program evaluations have revealed mixed outcomes, with some studies finding favorable outcomes and others finding no differences between patients who received MTM versus those who did not. One possible reason for outcomes variability is differences in delivery of MTM programs. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) provides a framework for how health care organizations can improve care for the chronically ill through 6 elements: organization of health care, delivery system design, clinical information systems, decision support, self-management, and linkages to community resources.

OBJECTIVE: To apply the CCM to understand variation in MTM delivery and formulate policy recommendations.

METHODS: This study used a mixed-methods descriptive analysis of MTM delivery. Investigators conducted visits to a purposeful sample of MTM practices to observe MTM and interview participants. The pharmacists and staff of these practices completed a modified Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC). Pairs of investigators analyzed interview transcripts to identify themes. Demographics and ACIC scores were summarized using descriptive statistics. After analysis, investigators discussed overarching themes and policy implications organized by CCM elements.

RESULTS: Seven practices participated, and 87 participants were interviewed. Based on ACIC scores, MTM patient volume, and payer mix, practices were categorized as Early Maturity Level or Later Maturity Level. From the model, organization of health care themes included whether MTM was the practice’s core competence, belief/confidence in the MTM process, lack of formal rewards, and the influence of organizational goals and external environment. Delivery system design themes pertained to the extent that MTM processes were formalized. Clinical information systems themes were the extent to which systems were influenced by payers, efficiency strategies, and the accuracy and availability of information. In considering clinical decision support themes, alert design limitations and variation in user approaches to alerts based on experience were noted. We observed strong support for patient self-management; when present, barriers were attributed to the patient, MTM provider, or payer. Referral to community resources was minimal. Numerous policy implications were identified.

CONCLUSIONS: Our research identified numerous ways by which MTM delivery varies, particularly by MTM practice maturity level. These findings provide evidence for several policy changes that could be considered to optimize MTM delivery, encourage alignment with the CCM, and promote practice maturation.