Advertisement

Blog Viewer

What is needed for pharmacists to bill directly and get paid for patient care services under the fee for service model.

By Mary Ann Kliethermes posted 01-30-2020 15:43

  

Although pharmacists are using avenues available to bill under fee for service, there remains very few opportunities for pharmacist to directly bill a payer for their services. The majority of pharmacists have their services reimbursed through supervising providers using established patient codes or “incident to”, chronic care management codes or transition

 

A number of years ago when I began to try to figure out how pharmacists could get paid for patient care services I had the opportunity to hear a presentation from Krystalyn Weaver, PharmD, the Director of Policy and State Relations at NASPA (National Association of State Pharmacy Association). The question has essentially been her major focus at NASPA.  She stated that three conditions must occur at the state level and they are as follows:

  • Designation for pharmacists as health care provider in state law.
  • Optimized scope of practice within the state pharmacy practice act
  • Payment for services included within the State Insurance Code

The first requirement for payment is for pharmacists to be considered legal health care providers within the state. This is done through legislation that is passed into law. At least 38 states have code somewhere in their laws that designates pharmacists as health care providers. Ideally it is a statement in the practice act, however it may be in other types of legislation. For example, in Illinois, the pharmacy practice act states pharmacists are health care providers:

Pharmacist” means an individual health care professional and provider….

Illinois also states pharmacists as health care providers in the Heroin & Opioid Overdose Prevention Act PA99-0480

Health Care Professional means…….. or a pharmacist licensed to practice pharmacy under the Pharmacy Practice Act

The second requirement is the pharmacy practice act in the state must include the patient care services that are to be billed. Statements describing pharmacy practice in the act should encompass the services such that a payer can determine the provided service is within the pharmacist’s scope of practice. The statements may be description of services authorized through the states’ collaborative practice agreement. The amount of variability in terminology, scope of practice and elements in both practice acts and the rules for collaborative practice agreements among the states is astonishing. Careful review of the specific state practice act and collaborative practice agreements is mandatory to ensure the services provided are within the pharmacist’s scope of practice as determined by state law.

 

The third requirement is the state insurance code for commercial health care payers, permitted to operate in the state, must require payment of pharmacists for the patients care services they provide within their scope of practice. Each state licenses commercial payers to operate in their state, they also set minimum benefits that the payers must provide the citizens of the state and set rules for operation including who should be paid. For example, the insurance code in Illinois states the following: “(e) Non-institutional provider – means any person licensed under the Medical Practice Act of 1987, as now or here after.” The insurance code in Illinois states only those licensed under the Medical Practice Act must be paid in a non-institutional setting. To date four states have changed state insurance code regulations through legislation to include payment of pharmacist patient care services. They are as follows:

  • Washington: 2015 – SB 5557 – pharmacists as medical providers requiring compensation under major medical insurance for pharmacists providing health services contained in benefits

Tennessee: 2017 Pharmacy, Pharmacists - As enacted, expands to include pharmacists in the prohibition on discrimination by managed health insurance issuers against optometrists, ophthalmologists, podiatrists, and chiropractors solely on the basis of their license or certification……….. if such providers are acting within the scope of their license or certification. - Amends TCA Section 56-32-129

Ohio: 2019 Sec. 1751.91 . A health insuring corporation may provide payment or reimbursement to a pharmacist for providing a health care service to a patient if both of the following are the case : (A) The pharmacist provided the health care service to the patient in accordance with Chapter 4729. of the Revised Code, including any of the following services: (1) Managing drug therapy under a consult agreement with a physician pursuant to section 4729.39 of the Revised Code; (2) Administering immunizations in accordance with section 4729.41 of the Revised Code; (3) Administering drugs in accordance with section 4729.45 of the Revised Code. (B) The patient's individual or group health insuring corporation policy, contract, or agreement provides for payment or reimbursement of the service.

  • Texas: 2019 Sec.A1451.128.AA SELECTION OF PHARMACIST. An insured may select a pharmacist to provide the services scheduled in the health insurance policy that are within the scope of the pharmacist ’s license to practice pharmacy under Subtitle J, Title 3, Occupations Code.
12 comments
195 views

Permalink

Comments

02-18-2020 21:03

We have the "may" language in Ohio which has not resulted in substantial changes in the payment model.  OSHP is currently working with Ohio Medicaid as they re-procure managed care contracts to include pharmacists as providers in the payment model.  I've also been advised that we need to be given Ohio Medicaid provider ID numbers in order to successfully bill.  We are hoping that by the end of 2020, there will be traction and payment as we have demonstrated positive outcomes. 

Currently only CareSource pays Ohio pharmacies (note...not pharmacists) for MTM services.  Otherwise billing as a provider in Ohio has been largely unsuccessful. 

Thank you for your wisdom Dr. Kliethermes!

02-12-2020 13:46

Thanks for the information, Mary Ann! This is helpful information as states move forward with pursuing provider status to ensure that payment for services is feasible!

02-10-2020 13:33

I appreciate your expertise and insight on this important topic. Payment for direct patient care services continues to be challenging. It is helpful to know which states have addressed this and the type of language being used within the insurance code as we work to advocate for similar support in Utah.

02-06-2020 12:36

​Thank you for your overview of such an important topic.  As so many pharmacists are working toward provider status at the state level, it is important to know how the language needs to exists in multiple places in order to be truly effective.  It is exciting to see so many states moving forward and hope to see mine get there soon!

02-04-2020 10:51

​Thanks Kristie.  I am glad to add another state to the list! I would love to know if the "may" is working for pharmacists to get paid for direct billing to Commercial insurances in Oregon.

02-04-2020 10:25

​This is great Mary Ann! Very concise and great summary of optimal steps that need to be taken.

02-04-2020 10:23

​Great review and straight to the point. Thanks Mary Ann!

02-03-2020 20:17

Thank you, Mary Ann!  This is a concise, yet thorough review.  It's also timely as our multi-state health system is working to make sure everyone has the same core understanding.  

To add to the list of states with pharmacists included in the state insurance code, Oregon added this language in 2017 (although, we have the "may" language rather than the "must").  

Notwithstanding any provisions of a health benefit plan as defined in ORS 743B.005 (Definitions), whenever the plan provides for payment or reimbursement for a service that is within the lawful scope of practice of a pharmacist, the insurer may provide payment or reimbursement for the service when the service is provided by a pharmacist. [2015 c.362 §8]
Note: 743A.051 (Services provided by pharmacist) was added to and made a part of the Insurance Code by legislative action but was not added to ORS chapter 743A or any series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

 

Kristy Butler, PharmD, BCACP, FASHP, FOSHP
Manager, Primary Care Clinical Pharmacy Services – Oregon Region
Providence St. Joseph Health - Providence Medical Group

02-03-2020 09:58

​Thank you Todd. Certainly payers may choose to pay pharmacists as they have done in Minnesota due to the great work of pharmacists demonstrating the value of their work.  I believe it is in Minnesota where a 12:1 ROI for pharmacist patient care services helped convince the payer.  Maybe a better phrasing would be payers are obligated to pay pharmacists in the state for services within their scope of practice when such language is mandated in state insurance code.

02-03-2020 08:30

Excellent overview!

02-01-2020 10:22

Mary Ann - thanks for the summary.  One quick clarification to offer, which may stem from an unintended interpretation.  You have written that "... the state insurance code for commercial health care payers, permitted to operate in the state, MUST require payment of pharmacists for the patients care services they provide within their scope of practice." Maybe its just phrasing, but I interpret this to suggest that health plans in a state can't pay pharmacists via fee-for-service if the state insurance code doesn't explicitly reference pharmacists in the code.  

While its true that health plans must pay if the the insurance code includes this expectation, I didn't want readers to be left with the impression that a health plan can't provide payment without a change in the insurance code in the other 46 states that haven't adopted this language and that the only strategy available is to seek a change in the state insurance code.  I'm sure its true in other states, but in Minnesota, we have health plans that have opted to describe in their benefits the services provided by pharmacists they will pay for.  They provide payment  to pharmacists via fee-for-service payments, sometimes in concert with performance-based incentives for quality. This decision is independent to what the is stated in the state insurance code and is a plan-by-plan decision.
Todd Sorensen

02-01-2020 09:01

Thank you Dr. Kliethermes for the most concise summary of pharmacist services reimbursement essentials I have ever seen!  Including examples of progress we're making in various States also highlights the importance of acting locally and thinking globally.  Provider status is not a matter of if, but when, and as the number of States enacting exciting initiatives continues to grow we will certainly reach a critical mass, or tipping point.  This excellent mini-tutorial also prompts me to reflect on the progress we've made in Minnesota in relationship to these three basic requirements.  In 2005, our Legislature enacted the Medication Therapy Management Care Law (§256B.0625, Subd. 13h) to compensate pharmacists for providing comprehensive MTM services for Medicaid and Minnesota Care patients in both state-run and commercial payer plans without the need for a referral.  And with the increase in value-based payments of ACO's and other Alternative Payment Models, payers continue expanding coverage for MTM services beyond Medicaid recipients so that we keep getting closer everyday to meeting all three of these reimbursement requirements.
Keep up the great work to everyone who is working tirelessly in your own back yards to incorporate comprehensive MTM services provided by pharmacists as a standard healthcare benefit!
Brian J. Isetts, RPh, PhD, BCPS.
Professor, University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy, and,
Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel Advisor.