I 

MEDICAID DRUG USE REVIEW 

PROGRAMS 

LESSONS LEARNED BY STATES 

p.sSWCe$ 

#+ % ‘Y 

#’ $ 2 ~ GIBBS BROW

s Inspector General % 

%++,%daa 2 MAY 1995 

OEI-01-9’24)0800 

. 

–—.–— 
OFFICE OF INSPE~OR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 

amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 

programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 

statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and 

inspections conducted by three OIG operating components: the Office of Audit Services, the 

Office of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also informs 

the Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to 

correct them. 

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES 

The OIGS Office of Audit Setices (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 

conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 

Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 

carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 

assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 

The OIGS Office of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 

investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of 

unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions, 

administrative sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud 

control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 

OFFICE OF EVMXJATION AND INSPECI’IONS 

The OIGS Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and 

program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, 

the Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection 

reports generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, 

and effectiveness of departmental programs. 

This report was prepared under the direction of Mark R. Yessian, Ph.D., Regional Inspector 

General, and Martha B. Kvaal, Deputy Regional Inspector General, Boston Region, Office of 

Evaluation and Inspections. Participating in this project were the following people: 

Boston Region Headquarters 

Barry McCoy Mary Beth Clarke 

Craig Schneider 

For additional copies of this report,please contact the Boston regionaloffice by telephone at 

(617) 565-1050 or by fm at (617) 565-3751. 
Depatiment of Health and Human Setices 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

MEDIc, MD DRUG USE REVIEW 

PROGWMS 

LESSONS LEARNED BY STATES / 

‘	 ~ GIBBS BROW 

Inspector General 

‘+?+. L 

“>>%@a MAY 1995 

OEI-01-W-Wm 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


PURPOSE 

This study identifies lessons the States have learned in implementing the Medicaid 

drug use review requirements established by Congress in 1990. 

BACKGROUND 

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) requires State Medicaid 

agencies to implement comprehensive drug use review (DUR) programs to improve 

the quality and cost-effectiveness of drug therapies. Drug use review is a process for 

identi&ing (1) potential safety problems with prescriptions, prospectively, at the time 

of dispensing and (2) questionable patterns of prescribing and/or dispensing problems 

retrospectively through reviews of prescription claims data. The third component of 

drug use review is programs for educating physicians and pharmacists about 

appropriate drug therapies. 

This report begins by identifying nine important lessons learned by States as they have 

developed and implemented DUR programs. Each lesson includes vignettes that 

speci& ways in which some States have applied the lesson. We include those that 

seem to be sufficiently different and important to warrant the attention of other 

States. This report concludes with discussion of several challenges that, if not 

addressed, could undermine States’ DUR efforts in the years ahead. 

We drew on three major sources of information 

discussed in this report: the literature on drug 

and Federal DUR officials and review of their 

DUR programs in six States. 

LESSONSLEARNED BY STAIZS 

Lesson 1: Develop credibledruguse criterik 

for the lessons, vignettes, and issues 

use review discussions with many State 

internal documents; and on-site visits to 

Credible criteria provide an essential foundation for DUR programs. Physicians and 

pharmacists must have confidence that the criteria are based on professional expertise, . experience, and up-to-date, science-based research. States ~ould: 

establish guidelines for the States’ drug use review boards to use when


reviewing criteria; and


obtain feedback on criteria from many sources.


i 
Lemon 2: Be selective in devehpihg and app&ingdruguse cri!eria. 

States’ review of the voluminous pharmacy claims can easily generate extensive data 

and result in information overload. Reviews need to be selective. States could: 

F focus criteria on clinically important areas; and 

k apply only a few criteria at one time. 

Lesson 3: Apply druguse cnkria witha highdegreeof specijicdy. 

States also risk information overload if their criteria are too broadly defined. Highly 

specific criteria can reduce the number of less significant alerts. States could: 

b modi@ or eliminate criteria after reviewing the volume of alerts; and 

k conduct careful pilot tests of the criteria before implementation. 

Lesson 4: EXmnine patternsof thuguse,presm”bin~and dispensing 

Pattern analysis can be valuable for identifying those providers and patients warranting 

intervention and in maximizing the effectiveness of the DUR effort. States could: 

� establish relational data bases to give a broad picture of drug use; and 

b develop profiles of drug use for patients, physicians, and pharmacies. 

Lesson 5: l%esent data in waysthatfacilitatearuz~siyand comectiveaction. 

To be useful, the basic data generated by DUR reviews must be presented to program 

officials and to the providers in ways that are easily understood. States could: 

F display data for providers that compares them with their peers; and 

� report performance data in context. 

Lesson 6:	 Intervenewithprovidimhavingquestionablepnzwibing and diyxmsing 

pmctices in waysthat motivatechange. 

The DUR programs need to intervene in ways that are feasible yet effective in 

influencing providers’ drug therapy practices. States could: 

k tailor intervention letters to the individual and include credible and compelling 

information; and 

� invest selectively in personal contacts with providers. 
Lesson z Foster compliancewi!hpatient counselingrequirements. 

Counseling patients about their drug therapy is important in encouraging appropriate 

drug use. Yet pharmacists confront many obstacles to counseling, and States have 

difficulty monitoring pharmacists’ compliance with the law. States could: 

F use pharmacy inspectors as patients to assess compliance; 

� survey pharmacists and patients by mail; and 

F take punitive actions when necessary. 

Lesson 8:	 Educatephysiciansandphurmacirtsproactivelyabo~ appoptiate prescribing 

and dkpenshg practices. 

States emphasize the educational nature of DUR programs and promote this message


with providers having questionable practices. But States can also adopt preventive


approaches by educating the larger provider community. States could:


k mail special messages to all providers;


� target special training to specific provider groups; and


� use the information superhighway.


Lesson 9: EMabhkhon-going resea~h @orts to helpguide theprogranz 

States rely on a limited knowledge base to guide them. Applied research efforts can be


important for helping DUR programs operate efficiently and effectively. States could:


� evaluate their screening criteria;


k examine sources of alerts by practice setting and location; and


� assess effectiveness of different types of educational interventions.


M4.K)R CHALLENGES FACING STAIE DUR PROGRAMS 

States have been moving ahead with their DUR programs through largely uncharted 

territory. They have crafted many different approaches to DUR and have learned from 

their experience. At the same time, DUR programs face several challenges, which, if not 

adequately addressed by State and Federal leadership, could undermine the effectiveness 

of their efforts in the years ahead. 

Privacy safeguards. 

� Do the programs give adequate attention to privacy safeguards? 

The widespread use of large, automated systems for reviewing Medicaid beneficiaries 

medical and drug histories raises important privacy issues concerning what data should be 

collected and who should have access to these data and under what conditions. 

... 

111 
Protection of poor performers. 

b	 Does the educational focus of the programs unnecessarily inhibit efforts to protect 

beneficiaries ji-om poorly pe~orming providers? 

State DUR programs emphasize educational approaches for improving providers’ 

prescribing and dispensing practices; they rarely pursue punitive actions. The DUR 

programs appear to lack interventions, falling in the middle of this continuum, that could 

help in situations in which a provider’s knowledge base or practice skills raise serious 

questions yet do not warrant referral for possible disciplinary action. 

Education of patients. 

b Are the programs su.ciently focused on patient education? 

State DUR programs focus almost exclusively on educating physicians and pharmacists. 

Helping patients become better informed about their drug therapies receives very little 

emphasis, even though the health care system is being transformed by the growing 

influence of patients in decision making about their medical care. 

Dependence on vendors. 

� Are the programs too dependent on the vendors serving them? 

Most frequently, States rely on vendors to provide the screening criteria, the computer 

software, and other technical know-how essential to DUR efforts. This expertise has been 

invaluable to DUR programs; yet the heavy reliance on vendors raises issues about 

whether States have enough expertise in-house to ensure that the vendors’ work meets the 

States’ own particular needs. 

Problems with Medicaid claims data. 

b	 Do inaccurate, incomplete Medicaid claims data bases serve as a significant constraint 

to the programs? 

Problems with incomplete and/or inaccurate data surfaced in virtually every State we 

contacted. They can make it difficult for DUR programs to be efficient and effective. 

Validity of cost-savings estimates. 

b Are the programs claiming cost savings that rest on weak foundations? 

Estimating cost savings for DUR programs is essential but highly complex and resourceintensive. The HCFA has been developing guidelines to help the States prepare 

meaningful estimates. Yet the situation remains one in which the estimates can be 

misleading about the impact of the DUR programs. 

iv 
Balancebetween cost and quality. 

b Are the cost-saving and quality-of-care objectives of the programs in balance? 

Both objectives are vital to DUR programs. Yet given the cost pressures and the 

complexity of decisions around criteria, screens, and interventions, States face significant 

challenges in ensuring that the programs, in fact, balance both objectives. 

Implications of managed care. 

�	 Are States developing a DLIR infrastructure that will become increasingly in-elevant as 

Medicaid managed care enrollment escalates? 

Thus far, State DUR programs have given little attention to this significant change. Yet 

the implications for them are profound. Medicaid beneficiaries who enroll in these plans, 

many of which provide prescription drug coverage, become the responsibility of the plans. 

Their drug use, and the prescribing and dispensing practices of their health care providers 

are then, in effect, beyond the reach of the States’ DUR efforts. 

v 

— 
� 

� 

� 

� 

TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE


‘m~s~y....... “.. 00 O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i


~ODU~ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I


_ONS ~D BY STA~ 

Credible drug use criteria . . . . . . . . . . 

‘elective application ofcriteria. .-ooo:;:~””””””-”....... . . . . . . . 

!. 4
 Specifici~ ofcriteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Patterns ofuse . . . . . . . . ““””””””-”.............;: ~~~~:~ . 6


8
 Presentation ofdata. o. so:;;: ; “””-”--””-”..........,.. ,..OOO
 . . . . . . . . 10


lnteNentionS With indi~dua]providers . . ..~:::””””” ““” ‘..... . . . . 12


‘atient coLlnSeling requirements . . . . . ..O.. ““” ”- ””. s . . . . . . . . . 15
 Prow”der education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Research . . . . ..o. .o ““”- ”-”. .. I;: I; R;~j; ;; I;~j; ;; I ; 

17


. . . . ..O . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAJOR . . 21
 -~NG~ FACING STA~ DUR PROGWS


k Privacy safeguards . . . . . . . . . . 

b	 . . ...> . ‘rotection ofpoorperformers ..oc .m. .”-” ”-”- . s o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 Education ofpatients o. . .. aa . . . . s ” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 ‘ePendence onvendorso. ..oo .. :: ”” -” ”” ”-. s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 F . . . ..O . . 24


‘rOb]ems ~thMedicaidc]aims data me . . . . . . . . ” ”-------- . . . . . . . . 24


‘a]idiT OfcC)st-Satings estimates . . . . . . . . ““” ”” ””” o . . . . . . . . . E
 25


‘alance between cost andqualiV o... : : ” ” ” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


implications ofrnanagedcare. .me .ao~l:” ““” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26


APPENDIx 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26


A Notes . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

This study identifies lessons the States have learned in implementing the Medicaid drug 

use review requirements established by Congress in 1990. 

BACKGROUND 

State Medicaid programs have been reviewing the outpatient drug use of Medicaid 

beneficiaries for many years. These efforts, while particularly useful in identifying fraud 

and other illegal activities, have been piecemeal and incremental. In 1990, the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA 90) changed the picture considerably.1 It required 

States to take a much more ambitious approach to Medicaid drug use review (DUR) to 

ensure better patient care through drug therapies that are appropriate, necessa~, and 

cost effective. Specifically, it required States to implement, by January 1993, programs 

prospective drug use review (pro-DUR) and counseling by the pharmacist that occur 

before each prescription is dispensed to help ensure appropriate drug therapy for 

the patient; 

retrospective drug use review (retro-DUR) of pharmacy claims data that identify 

patterns of physician prescribing, pharmacist dispensing, and patient drug use that 

may be inappropriate; and 

educational outreach that educate providers about appropriate drug therapies. 

The pro- and retro-DUR reviews are guided by criteria and standards adopted by States 

as benchmarks for determining the appropriateness of drug therapies for particular 

conditions. Prescription claims are screened against these benchmarks. State DUR 

boards, composed primarily of physicians and pharmacists, have broad responsibility for 

reviewing drug review criteria, for guiding the reviews, and for directing interventions and 

other educational efforts with pharmacists and physicians. 

The States have faced many challenges as they have struggled with mounting their DUR 

programs. They have learned some important lessons along the way. No one State, it 

seems to us, serves as a model for how to implement a program from beginning to end. 

Yet, we and HCFA’S Medicaid Bureau, with whom we collaborated in designing this 

study, think some of the lessons learned by the States can be instructive to other States. 

In this report, we focus on these lessons. We intend it to seine as a resource document 

offering vignettes of some States’ experiences so far. Although it is not a definitive 

assessment of what does or does not work, we expect the report can help States learn 

from each others’ experiences and can contribute to their developing effective DUR 

programs. We have geared the report not to the technical specialists, but to those State 

1 

— 
administrators, legislators, board members, and others who deal with DUR policies more 

generally. For this reason, we avoid detailed discussion of the technicalities of the review 

process. 

We begin this report by identifying nine major lessons that have been important in the 

States’ early implementation efforts. Some lessons apply to both prospective and 

retrospective components of a DUR program; some are more applicable to one than the 

other. All are experiences that States described to us or to HCFA, some approaches 

may, in fact, no longer be used. We begin each lesson with a brief introduction that 

highlights its importance for the States’ overall DUR efforts. Then, for each lesson, we 

present selected vignettes that specify ways in which States have applied the lesson. We 

conclude the report by discussing several unresolved issues that, if left unresolved, could 

undermine States’ DUR programs in the years ahead. 

MEZUODOLOGYMD DEFINITIONS 

We relied on three major sources of information for this report: 

E an examination of the literature on drug use review, including pertinent research 

studies, and relevant government documents such as the OBRA 90 legislation, its 

regulations, and States’ own internal reports and their annual reports to HCFA, 

* discussions with many State and Federal DUR officials, including participation in 

three national meetings of State Medicaid DUR program staff, and 

E on-site visits to DUR programs in six States: Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, and Washington. 

The vignettes included here are ones that appear to have potential in multiple States, 

although we recognize that what works well in one State may not work so well in another. 

The criteria we used in selecting the vignettes were rigorous yet inherently qualitative. 

They included: (1) the judgments of the Federal and State officials with whom we 

conversed; (2) our own review of States’ experiences and their supportive materials; 

(3) our consultation with experts having substantial experience with DUR efforts; and 

(4) our own judgment of whether a particular approach or item is sufficiently different 

and important to warrant the attention of other States based on our own considerable 

experience over many years in studying pharmacy issues.z 

We conducted this study in accordance with the Qz.uzZizyStandardfor Ihspec?ionsissued by 

the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

L 
3 

—— 
LESSONS LEARNED BY STATES�

Credible criteria provide an essential foundation to an ef$ective drug use review program. 

Physicians and pharmacists must have confidence that they are based on professional 

expertise, prior experience, and up-to-date science-based research.3 t2therwise, the rationale 

for the effort is likeij to be questioned and compliance undermined. 

Establishing Guidelines for a DUR Board. State DUR boards provide a vital focal 

point for ensuring that criteria used in pro- and retro- DUR efforts are credible. 

Many of the boards have become active in assessing the appropriateness of the 

criteria developed by vendors. Colorado facilitated such an assessment by 

developing a checklist for DUR board members to use in reviewing criteria (see 

box). 

CHECKLISTFOR REVIEWINGDUR CRITERIA 

Amongthe questionsposed in Colorado’schecklistare the following: 

�� Who developed the criteria? Did they get outside reviewfrom practicing 

physiciansand pharmacists? 

�� Howadequate is the literature review? What are their sources? Did they look 

for unlabeledusessupportedbyscientificliterature? 

o	 Howadequatelyis the literature interpreted? What is the qualityof the 

evidence? Did theychoosethe most or least restrictiveinterpretation? Did 

they look for efficacyor cost-effectivenesstudies? Did they considerthe 

populationlimitsof particularstudies? 

�� If a drug group is used for manyclinicalsubsets,are they explicitabout the 

domainof the criteria for each subset? If a subsethas differentdosageor 

duration recommendationsfor use of a drug,is this addressedin each criteria? 

�� For drug interactions,are the definitionsfor “interaction”and “clinical 

significance”clear? Do they note the dosagesat whichinteractionshavebeen 

documented? Do theyconsiderthe sequenceof usingthe drugs? 

�� Can use of the criteria set assistreviewersin suggestingappropriate therapy? 

Other drugs, therapeutic maneuvers, and/or other therapeutic modalities? 

4


—. .— — 
E Obtaining Feedback on Cfitetia. Anopenprocess alloting widespread 

participation canpay big dividends. Itcanprovide aDURprogram with valuable 

insights in developing criteria. It can also foster broad acceptance of the resulting 

decisions. Many boards have moved inthisdirection byseeKng and drawing on 

the advice of professional associations, medical and pharmacy schools, drug 

manufacturers, and individual experts in clinical areas under consideration, 

The process, moreover, can be constructively viewed as a continuing one, involving 

feedback not only in developing criteria, but also in reevaluating them over time. 

The Texas program offers a good case in point. It modified its criteria on the 

concurrent use of two antidepressant drugs after taking into account physician 

responses to its intervention letters. In those responses, physicians whose drug use 

practices were being questioned complained that the maximum dosage levels 

allowed by the State were too low. After consulting with experts, the DUR 

program officials agreed and allowed for higher dosages that were more consistent 

with current thinking about appropriate dosage levels. 

Obtaining feedback on criteria, whether at the outset or after implementation, is 

no less important for DUR criteria directed to pro-DUR than to those concerning 

retro-DUR. This is important to note because pro-DUR criteria often have been 

applied all at once, with little review and testing and with refinements made only 

after numerous provider complaints. 

k	 Facilitating Feedback through a Ballot Process. The Virginia program used a 

mailed ballot to facilitate reviews by the DUR board as well as by medical and 

pharmacy associations, schools, and drug manufacturers. The reviewers received a 

draft set of criteria for comment together with a preprinted form with check boxes 

for responding to questions and selecting options. The form also included room 

for reviewers to provide narrative comments. Shortly thereafter, reviewers 

received a second ballot of the revised criteria. These became the official criteria 

if no other comments were offered. This check box, ballot approach, program 

officials reported, contributed to more consistent and thorough feedback and to 

easier synthesis and analysis of reviewer comments. 

J 
Without carefi.dplanning DUR programs can easily result in information overtoad. l%eir 

review of pharmaqy claims can generate extensive data that severe~ taxes the limited 

resources of the program and the good will of the practicing physicians and pharmacists. 

Some States run monthly screens on all their criteria and produce exceptions far exceeding 

those that they can address. An antidote to such a condition k to gear the program to 

relatively few drug use criteria in clinically important areas. This applies to both on-line 

prospective DUR efforts and to retrospective eflorts. It is particularly important for 

retrospective efforts, which seek to identifi problems after the fact and which call for followup by program stafi to pursue a more selective approach to applying established criteria in 

order to avoid the forernentioned consequences ;f’infonnatz”on overload. 

b	 Focusing on Clinically Important Areas. What bases are to be relied upon in 

defining “clinically important areas?” Wisconsin, in developing about 

20 retrospective criteria, used the following bases to guide its decisions: 

(1) indications in the clinical literature of frequent misutilization, (2) likelihood of


misutilization having a significant impact on quality of care, and (3) likelihood of it


having a major impact on Medicaid expenditures.


Colorado, in developing the eight topics or “modules” that guided its retrospective


effort, took a somewhat different approach. It, too, addressed cost concerns by


focusing on drugs that represent a disproportionate share of Medicaid pharmacy


costs. But in addressing quality concerns, it focused on drugs with high potential


for toxicity and on the use of medications in high-risk populations. The latter


included drugs taken by pregnant women and neuroleptic drugs taken by the


elderly.


Screening Paid Claims Strategically. Among the approximately 20 criteria


developed by Wisconsin, it selected 1 to 3 each month for screening against paid


claims. The State took this approach because it wanted to limit the alerts


identified through the screening process to those it could reasonably expect to


follow up with intervention letters to the providers. With a manageable number of


alerts, it was also able to produce intervention letters that were tailored to the


potential inappropriate drug use identified.


Colorado followed much the same approach, with a similar rationale. In its


screening of paid claims, it rotated among its eight established modules (a ninth


was added recently). This meant that it was highly unlikely that any one module


(for example, drugs in pregnancy) would be applied more than once in a year and


might well not be applied for close to 2 years.


6


—.. 
Washington’s intent to conduct its retrospective reviews strategically led it to 

develop what ithascalled the’’onion’’ approach. Through this approach, the 

program would start out by identifying the ’’onion’’--asignificant therapeutic 

concern based on analysis of claims data that surfaces drugs of high risk, high cost, 

and/or high use. Subsequently, and gradually, the program narrows the focus of its 

analysis by identifying particular layers of the onion for further screening and 

review (see box). 

THE ‘ONION” APPROACI-k 

HIGH-COST ANTIBIOTIC SUSPENSIONS 

Through their screening efforts, Washington 

officials identified high-cost antibiotic 

suspensions as among the most frequently 

prescribed and most expensive drugs paid for 

by the Medicaid program. Upon further 

review, they found that these drugs were 

being used frequently for treating otitis media 

(middle ear infection) in children. This 

practice raised questions because the State’s 

DUR criteria ranked these suspensions as the 

third drug of choice for these children. This 

led to further screening to identifi the 

dimensions of the problem--in particular, to 

identi$ the physicians writing prescriptions 

for the suspensions, their patient caseloads, 

and the volume and type of prescriptions they 

wrote. These data formed the basis for 

subsequent analysis of prescribing patterns 

and of patient drug use. 
Being selective in choosing and applying criteria k essential, but in itself insufficient in 

averting the dangen of information overload. If States fail to incorporate highly specific 

problem definitions into the computer algorithms thq use to screen claims, thty are quite 

likely to generate many false positives and many more alerts than they or providers can 

reasonably address. Indeed, expen”encehas shown thk to be the case in States that use 

broadly inclusive definitions (highly sensitive) in their screening criteria. In one such Statej 

the on-line prospective DUR system has been identifying alerts at the rate of 20 percent. This 

means that one out of every five electronic claims that pharmacists submit result in an 

immediate computerized alert suggesting a possible problem with the prescription. In another 

State, the retrospective DUR ystem has been generating 50,000 alerts a month. Of these, the 

program has been randomly selecting 1,500 to 2,000 for review to determine #the providers 

should be contacted. 

F	 Reducing the Number of Unnecessary On-Line Prospective DUR Alerts. During 

the early period of its on-line system, Pennsylvania was experiencing an alert rate 

of about 20 percent. Too many of these alerts were suspected to be false positives. 

After verifying some of the alerts as being false positives, the State took action to 

make the alerts more meaningful and to reduce the number of alerts to a more 

manageable level (about 10 p&-cent) (see box). 

EFFORTS TO REDUCE PRO-DUR ALERTS 

Pennsylvania modified its screening criteria in three areas: 

�	 Claims for children were often triggering minimum dose alerts. Upon 

inquiry, the State found that the low-dose edits, which had been 

developed for adults, were being applied to children. It decided to bypass 

them for children’s prescriptions. 

�	 The minimum/maximum dosage screens for topical medications, such as 

ointments, were generating many false positive-alerts. The State dropped 

them in these instances because they were irrelevant. 

�	 The computerized algorithm concerning therapeutic duplication for 

psychotherapeutic drugs was generating too many unnecessary alerts. The 

State tightened the problem definition so that alerts have been generated 

only if the prescriptions involve different pharmacies or different 

physicians. 

8

Virginia contributed to a reduction of DUR alerts by deleting all the low-dose edits 

and by keying alerts on drug-drug interactions to only the two most serious levels 

of clinical significance identified in the criteria. 

Illinois also eliminated low-dose edits as a way of removing clinically insignificant 

information from its system and of reducing its prospective DUR alert rate. It 

found that such edits were often being triggered by the common, acceptable 

prophylactic use of antibiotics 1 or 2 days before a surgical or dental procedure. 

Texas sought to avoid the start-up problems other States have experienced with 

their on-line systems by conducting extensive pilot testing to ensure that the alerts 

generated by its system were significant ones. It involved nearly 80 pharmacies in 

this effort. 

�	 Containing the Number of Retrospective DUR Alerts. In actuality, a highspecificity approach is one that will tend to give a physician the benefit of the 

doubt in borderline cases. For example, as a representative of the Colorado 

program noted, this might mean that in cases where a blood level might ideally be 

monitored within 2 weeks of starting a drug, the screening criterion might allow a 

month to go by before generating an alert. 

In the same context, Wisconsin, once it identified alerts concerning its criterion for 

H2 antagonists (a class of drugs for treating ulcers), would not send an intervention 

letter to a provider unless he/she had alerts generated for at least three patients 

during the 6-month review period. In its FY 1993 annual report, it elaborated that 

such a threshold was “established to identify potential patterns of drug use 

practices, improve the cost-effectiveness of the intervention and reduce practitioner 

and pharmacist aggravation caused by frequent receipt of DUR letters.” 

F	 Relying on the Computer to Trigger Intervention Letters. Applying criteria with a 

high degree of specificity can minimize the need for a review panel to review each 

alert to determine if an intervention letter should be sent. But we found only one 

State, Wisconsin, that actually eliminated that review. Except for a brief 

administrative review to identify any programming errors, it relied on the computer 

to identify the alerts and the interventions. The rationale was that this approach 

reduces the subjectivity associated with manual reviews and minimizes the lag time 

between identification of alerts and intemention with the provider. 

9

A DUR program offers a prime oppo~nity to identijj patterns of questionable practices, be it 

by patients or by providers. l%rough retrospective reviews, which can draw on paid claims 

data as well as on the record of computerized alerts generated by prospective on-line review 

systems, a State can examine drug use longitudinally. It can profile the drug use practices of 

patients, encompassing the various physicians andior pharmacies they visit and encompassing 

various drug use categories and/or disease states. It can also profile the prescribing practices 

of physicians and the dispensing practices of pharmacies, focusing on patients served over a 

period of time and on various drug categories and/or disease states. The information 

obtained through such pattern analysis can be of major value in directing interventions to 

providers or patients warranting serious attention. And, not least of all, it can offer 

compelling evidence of the need for such attention. 

�	 Establishing a Broad Relational Data Base. A necessary starting point for useful 

pattern analysis is establishing a sufficiently inclusive data base that links key data 

elements. Colorado, for instance, has developed a relational DUR data base that 

incorporates information on diagnosis, procedure, hospital stay, patient 

demography and history, prior authorization request, provider, and, most recently, 

Medicare crossover data. 

Illinois has incorporated into its medical history file of Medicaid beneficiaries the 

alert information generated from its on-line prospective DUR system. This adds to 

the retrospective program valuable additional information in profiling not only 

prescribing practices but also dispensing practices. 

� Developing Patient Profiles. This is the most common type of pattern analysis 

conducted by State DUR programs. It serves to identify patients who may be 

experiencing drug therapy problems due to their visiting multiple physicians and/or 

pharmacies. More often, it serves to identify individual physicians who may be 

prescribing inappropriately. 

Massachusetts has found it helpful to append a detailed patient history profile to 

the intervention letters it sends to physicians. For instance, in a recent letter to a 

physician, it identified two drugs that the physician had prescribed for a patient on 

a chronic basis, contrary to standard practice to use them on a short-term basis. 

The attached two-page patient profile identified all drugs prescribed for the patient 

over a period of about 14 months; the strength, quantity, and days-to-refill for each 

drug; the pharmacies and physicians involved; and the various diagnoses made. 

Easy-to-read summary information highlighted the two interacting drugs and 

indicated that, in the review period, the patient had seen two physicians and used 

five pharmacies. 

10

Developing Provider Profiles. Washington’s initiative on high-cost antibiotic 

suspensions focused on the development of physician profiles. The State 

screened claims to identify physicians prescribing the high-cost antibiotic for 

children who were younger than 8 years of age and who had a diagnosis of 

otitis media, to determine the volume and range of the antibiotics these 

physicians prescribed for this diagnosis; and to identi~ the geographic 

location of their practices. Once it aggregated these data, it revealed the 

following patterns: 

Forty-five percent of the prescriptions for these high-cost drugs were written 

by 124 (6 percent) of those physicians prescribing; 

Of all the high-cost antibiotic prescriptions written by these 124, 20 percent 

of them were written by 24 of these physicians. 

The heaviest prescribing of these drugs occurred in three areas of the State. 

Colorado has regularly developed physician (and patient) profiles to help its review 

committee determine whether to send an intervention letter to a physician and to 

help a physician receiving such a letter understand the rationale behind it. The 

following profile developed for a physician specializing in family practice illustrates 

this: over a period of 1 year, he prescribed drugs for 50 patients in the review 

category. Of these patients, 7 were categorized as having a total of 12 “hazard 

problems” because of their drug therapy, with none of the problems falling in the 

most serious of the 3 hazard categories. For five of these seven patients, the 

appropriateness of the drug therapy was questioned because the diagnosis was 

unclear and for two because the dosages used were contrary to the State’s drug use 

criteria. A graph on the provider profile indicated how this physician compared 

with his peers (other specialists in family practice) in terms of the number of 

prescribing problems identified. 

b	 Developing Nursing Home Profiles. In Wisconsin, where about one-third of all 

Medicaid prescriptions have been for nursing home residents, the State for the past 

8 years prepared summary reports of nursing home drug use. The report, sent 

semi-annually to each nursing home, included a number of measures of drug 

quality. Each home, which was peer grouped according to the primary medical 

conditions of its residents, received data comparing it with its peers for each 

measure. The thrust of the effort was educational. With the information provided, 

each nursing home could examine how its pattern of drug therapy compared with 

that in other homes having similar populations and with its own prior practices. 

11

l%e basic data that DUR programs depend on emerge from the screening of claims. This 

screening process typically focuses on therapeutic categories andJor disease states for which the 

State has developed DUR criteria. And it is aimed at the identification of problems, such as 

drug-dreg interactions, drug-disease contradiction, and therapeutic duplication. How 

effectively these problems are then addressed can be greatly in.uenced by the ways in which 

the data obtained fi-om the screens are presented to Medicaid agency officials, to the DUR 

Board, and perhaps most importantly, to the fi-ont-line providers who are prescribing and/or 

dispensing drugs. Eflective presentation calls for meanin@d contex~ not just raw numbers. 

Such context k aflorded, for example, when providers’ pe~onnance k displayed over a period 

of time andior is compared to the pe~ormance of peers. Such context k also afforded when 

the number of alerts generated by the screening process is displayed along with the number of 

claims and patients reviewed for pa~”cular drug categories and problem types. 

b	 Encouraging Change through Peer Comparisons. Consider as a case in point a 

sample summary profile report sent to a Wisconsin nursing home. This report, 

which is for a facility classified in a “geriatric” peer group, begins with basic 

background information comparing the facility to others in the peer group in terms 

of the age of beneficiaries, the level of care they receive, and their main diagnoses. 

Then it provides drug use information for 47 drugs or categories of drugs, using 

an * to designate any situation where the facility is greater than 2 standard 

deviations over the peer group average. Following are a few examples: 

PEER COMPARISONS DRUG USE IN NURSING HOMES 

Drug Group % of Recipients $$/Reeipient Rx/Recipient 

H2 Antagonists 

Your Facility 

Peer Group Average 

ConcurrentUseof NSMIDs 

andH2Antagonists 

Your Facility 

Peer Group Average 

B-12 lZtamins 

Your Facility 

Peer Group Average 

32.7* $238 4.6 

15.4 $222 4.2 

10.2 $433 9.0 

2.9 $273 6.3 

18.1* $37 5.6 

4.0 $19 2.8 

12

Clearly, in this case, the data display encourages the nursing home leadership to ask 

why so many more of its residents are on H2 antagonists and B-12 vitamins than 

residents of other homes. The implication is not that the home should necessarily 

change its practices, but rather that it should at least confirm for itself the 

appropriateness of its practices if it does not change them. 

Another example of the use of peer group comparisons is the letter that Washington 

sent to the top 24 users of antibiotic suspensions in treating children with otitis media. 

Each letter included a table that profiled the physician’s prescribing pattern over the 

course of a year in treating such children and, where possible, comparing it with other 

physicians in the State. It gave particular attention to a costly drug (we call it 

Drug X) that was not the State’s first drug of choice under its DUR criterion. 

Following are excerpts from the table sen~ to one physician: 

PEER COMPARISONS: 

ONE PHYSICIAN’S USE OF HIGH-COST ANllBIOTICS 

PrescribingPattern Your Practice Peer Average 

Ranking amongst prescribers on 

total number of RX for Drug X 

Number of patients treated under 

age 8 

Number of patients with otitis media 

% of otitis to total clients 

?4. of Drug X to total antibiotic drugs 

% of Drug X for otitis compared to all 

antibiotic RX for otitis 

Number of times Drug X only was used 

Number of times 1 other RX was used 

before Drug X 

Number of times 2 or more RX used 

before Drug X 

Number of times Drug X was used first 

and then another RX was tried 

#1 

600 

205 

48% 28?40 

4770 31% 

73% 58% 

137 

20 

6 

42 

13

>	 Assessing the Effects of Prospective DUR Alerts. Maryland started its on-line 

pro-DUR program in Janua~ 1993. From the beginning, it has produced a 

monthly report summary of the on-line alerts generated to pharmacies in 

response to claims they submitted electronically for payment. These reports 

distinguish “pro-DUR alerts,” which represent advisory information to a 

pharmacy, from “Early Refill Alerts,” which represent a claim denial unless the 

State overrides the denial upon appeal from the pharmacy. 

Following is information from Maryland’s 1993 annual report to HCFA: 

COMPARISONS OVER TIME CLMW?JPRO-DUR ALERTS 

Month Total Claims Pro-DUR Early Refill All Alertsas 

Jan 311,593 

Feb 30~381 

Mar 39~132 

Apr 325,182 

May 325,372 

Jun 318,442 

Jul 308,065 

Aug 384,928 

Sep 31~691 

Ott 335,197 

Nov 408,667 

Dec 343,636 

Alerts Alerts %Ofclainls 

Total ‘IoNot Filled TotaI % Overridden 

by State 

51,243 41.9 11,421 14.5 20.1 

46,614 28.5 1Q521 14.6 18.6 

49,387 1.3 15,102 14.3 16.2 

64,458 23.4 13,621 16.7 24.0 

49,986 6.9 16,281 15.8 20.4 

41,114 1.8 12,757 16.2 16.9 

42257 7.9 12,354 1%2 17.7 

53,594 6.6 16,603 17.9 18.2 

42,661 2.1 12,682 16.9 1%4 

43,155 1.7 14,652 15.8 17.2 

49,212 1.6 16,836 17.5 16.2 

45,255 1.4 14,705 16.3 IZ4 

These monthly reports offer valuable perspective to the DUR board and to the 

Medicaid agency leadership. Most pointedly, they show that early in the first 

year of implementation pharmacies often responded to the nonmandatory alerts 

by not filling a prescription; but, by year’s end, they had settled into a pattern 

where they seemed to pay little attention to these alerts. Throughout the year, 

the level of all alerts--mandatory and nonmandatory--remained quite steady in 

the 16-17 percent range, as did the level of State overrides of early refill alerts. 

14

l%e essence of DUR programs ii to improve the prescribing and dispensing practices of 

providers. To do that, the programs must intervene--whether through letters, telephone 

dticussions, orpemonal visits--in ways that influence providers to change their practices, 

where necessa~, for the long term. Even # States do everything else well, the overall DUR 

effort can fail if the programs lack an effective intervention strategy. The challenge to 

State DUR programs has been to adopt approaches that are feasible, yet effective in 

getting the attention of providers and motivating changes in their prescribing behaviors. 

b	 Designing Compelling Letter Interventions. Sending letters to those with 

questionable practices is the most common intervention of retrospective DUR 

programs. It is also one that can be easily dismissed by providers unless States 

carefully tailor their approach, Montana has personalized its letters to 

physicians and pharmacists and included specific information about the patient 

in question (such as a claims-constructed medical history) and suggestions for 

drug therapy alternatives. The letters bear the signature of the medical director 

of the Montana/Wyoming Foundation for Medical Care, the Medicare Peer 

Review Organization, which contracts with the State for the DUR education 

program. 

Some States write physicians not only about particular patients, but also about 

the physicians’ own prescribing practices. Recently, 700 physicians in 

Pennsylvania received “packets” of information about their prescribing-. practices 

for H2 antagonists (see box). 

A LETfERINTERVENTIONTOPhysicians 

Thepacketssentto Pennsylvania physicians withquestionable prescribing forH2antagonistsincluded 

o A personalized lettersignedbythePresidentofthePennsylvaniaMedicalSociety(PMS); 

o A 12-monthprofileofthepatient’sdruganddiagnosishistorythatidentifiestheprimaryand 

secondarytherapeuticproblemsandcitesrelevantreferencesinthemedicalheratur~ 

o ReprintsofrelevantarticlesappearinginrecentmedicaljournalsincludingtheStatementofthe 

NationalInstitutesofHealthConsensusConference; 

o	 A one-page,multi-colored flyerforphysiciansto returnto PMSrequestingadditionalgeneral 

information, professional consultation witha clinicalpharmacistonthePMSstaff,orlaminatedwail 

chartsor pocketcardsforeachofninecommonly useddrugclassesincludingtheH2antagonists. 

15

— 
The letters came from the Pennsylvania Medical Society, which runs the DUR 

education program for State Medicaid agency. Both agencies believe this 

arrangement enhances the credibility of the educational interventions with 

physicians. 

Both Montana and Pennsylvania include “RSVP” forms with their intervention 

letters for the physicians to reply to the drug therapy issue in question. 

Pennsylvania has sent follow-up letters via certified mail to those physicians not 

responding to the initial letter. These States have reviewed the immediate 

RSVPS from the physicians and have followed up with subsequent claims 

analysis after 6 months, even 1 or 2 years later, to see the extent to which the 

intervention influenced long-term changes in the physician’s prescribing 

behavior. 

�	 Investing in Personal Interventions. These types of interventions, whether 

telephone discussions or personal visits, are costly and labor intensive. States 

use them more selectively than letters. 

Both physicians and pharmacists in Illinois can receive telephone calls from the 

DUR program’s consulting pharmacist or physician. In recent months, the 

State has identified about 50 patient cases a month for this type of intervention. 

It selects the cases from its retrospective profiling efforts as well as from 

information generated by its pro-DUR help desk staffed by pharmacists. The 

cases typically will be those revealing some inconsistencies in the case 

management of patients; often they will involve patients who have visited 

multiple pharmacies and/or physicians, The conversations serve as a useful 

vehicle for obtaining feedback from providers, for clarifying drug therapies, and 

for conveying the priorities and concerns of the State DUR program. 

The Massachusetts DUR program has regularly used face-to-face meetings with 

providers. It routinely profiles physicians to identi~ those warranting a more 

personal educational intervention. The profiling focuses on their prescribing 

patterns in five therapeutic drug classes, such as anti-ulcer drugs, broadspectrum antibiotics. The program then compares the individual’s prescribing 

patterns with expected patterns for each drug class. A personal intervention 

may be chosen for those who deviate from the expected pattern, who see a 

significant number of Medicaid patients, and whose prescribing patterns suggest 

that even small changes would significantly improve the quality and costeffectiveness of their prescribing. Pharmacists working under contract with the 

DUR program conduct the “counterdetailing” visits. They completed about 

100 visits last year. 

16

Counseling patients in the pharmacy when they fill their prescriptions can be an effective 

way to foster appropriate use of drugs. For that reason, most States have mandated 

counseling and other pro-DUR requirements for all patients, 4 not just for Medicaid 

beneficiaries as the Federal government requires. Yet pharmacists confront many 

obstacles to providing counseling: insufficient patient information, difficulties 

communicating with physicians, inadequate clinical pharmacy skills, and limited 

reimbursement for clinical services.5 And State pharmacy boards, which typically monitor 

compliance as part of their periodic on-site inspections, have dificulty verijjing whether 

pharmacists are actual~ canying out the counseling requirements. 

�	 Assessing Counseling Practices By “Shopping”. Pharmacy board inspectors in 

Washington “shopped” pharmacies to assess compliance. Presenting themselves 

as patients, the inspectors visited 108 randomly selected pharmacies to fill a 

prescription for an anti-hypertensive drug. Fifty-nine percent of the pharmacies 

provided these “patients” with either written or verbal information about their 

prescription. In half the pharmacies, the “patients” also purchased an over-thecounter asthma medication that is contraindicated for concurrent use with the 

anti-hypertensive drug. In these instances, about one in four pharmacies 

warned the “patients” against using the two medications together. The 

pharmacy board used the results as baseline data on counseling practices. The 

study also spurred the board and the pharmacists’ association to work together 

to identi& approaches for ensuring that pharmacists receive further training on 

counseling requirements and techniques. 

F	 Surveying Practices By Mail. The Virginia DUR program surveyed a random 

sample of Medicaid pharmacy providers about clinical/cognitive services. The 

sumey was conducted in 1992 before implementation of the on-line, pro-DUR 

system. Thus, the survey provided useful information to the DUR program 

about the extent of prospective DUR services being offered across the State 

and about the obstacles hindering pharmacists from complying more fully with 

the requirements. 

The Colorado DUR program surveyed beneficiaries participating in the 

Medicaid Primary Care Physician Program. It posed questions concerning the 

type of pharmacies used by the beneficiaries and the nature of the services 

provided by pharmacists. 

�	 Warning Violators. Texas has been one of the few States to have taken more 

punitive actions against pharmacies for violations of counseling requirements. 

The pharmacy board issued nearly 100 warning notices last year for violations 

of rules governing prospective DUR. Inspectors noticed these violations during 

17 
the periodic, on-site inspections of pharmacies. Though these warnings have not 

been formal disciplinary actions, the pharmacies had to respond to the 

pharmacy board within 30 days about how the violations were to be corrected. 

The board, in turn, has followed up with unannounced visits to some violators 

to check whether they have come into compliance. 

The Texas pharmacy board follows a somewhat different process for those 

pharmacies for which it receives complaints about lack of counseling. In these 

instances, the board has sent the pharmacy a certified warning letter reminding 

the pharmacy/pharmacist of the pro-DUR and counseling rules. A second 

complaint triggers an investigation, which may involve an undercover operation 

in which investigators pose as patients. The board has initiated three 

disciplinary actions. One case resulted in a $1500 fine; two cases are pending. 

The board has said it is prepared to take stronger actions ranging from larger 

fines to possibly license suspensions or revocations. 

F	 Sanctioning Pharmacies. The Iowa pharmacy board formally sanctioned three 

pharmacies for reasons that include failure to provide effective counseling. It 

revoked the license of one pharmacy and closed another completely. Each case 

involved multiple violations of pharmacy and/or controlled substance laws, 

including a lack of counseling or inappropriate counseling. The board also 

levied two $25,000 fines on a single pharmacy. The first fine resulted from 

dispensing errors and lack of counseling and drug use reviews. The second fine 

resulted from the pharmacy having violated their probation from the first fine 

and for other dispensing errors. The pharmacy board has been pursuing 

sanctions against other pharmacies as well. These cases have come to the 

board’s attention through complaints from consumers and pharmacists. 

18

State agencies emphasize that DUR programs are intended to be educational in nature. 

l%ey reinforce thk message in their interventions with individual providers identified for 

some questionable practi”ce. They can convey this message as well through educational 

outreach to the la~er communi~ of practicing physicians and pharmacists. Broadly 

directed, proactive outreach can alert providers to potential problems in drug therapy, 

provide them with information on how to address those problems, and, in so doing have 

significant preventive value. 

F	 Mailing Special Messages. Kentucky has been developing “Therapeutic 

Algorithms” with input from Medicaid physicians and pharmacists, academics, 

and professional organizations across the State. It recently sent to all Medicaid 

providers the first algorithm for treating acute urinary tract infections. The 

State views this process as an educational approach that can improve patient 

care and reduce Medicaid costs; use of the algorithms is not mandatory. Topics 

for these algorithms focus on diseases that affect many Medicaid beneficiaries, 

cost the program substantial sums of money, and reflect considerable variation 

in treatment approaches. Others will deal with pain management, otitis media, 

and hyperlipidemia. Outcome analyses will assess the effectiveness of this 

approach. 

Medicaid providers in Colorado received guidelines for evaluating and treating 

insomnia through the Medicaid Pharmacy Newsletter. The guideline described 

various behavior modification techniques, types of benzodiazepine drugs and 

their characteristics, and a process for discontinuing hypnotic therapy with a 6-

week schedule for tapering dosages. 

Other States, including Virginia, Washington, and Pennsylvania, make regular 

use of newsletters/journals of the professional associations or the State 

Medicaid agencies themselves to make educational information broadly 

available to providers. These approaches target only Medicaid providers in 

some instances; in others, the publications reach a broader audience of 

associations’ members. 

�	 Training and Consulting for Providers. Several States have been targeting 

special groups of providers for specific training on drug therapy issues. 

.	 The Pennsylvania Medical Society, under contract with the Medicaid 

agency, has been leading seminars for hospital staff in those areas of the 

State, such as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia; that have many Medicaid 

beneficiaries. It has also sponsored free, day-long seminars for 

19 
physicians onpresctibing therapies forminori~ patients. Some training 

activities are offered with Continuing Medical Education credits as 

incentives to physicians to participate. 

.	 Vermont has conducted special seminars for the residents in training at 

the University of Vermont Medical Center. The retrospective reviews 

were generating many alerts that the DUR staff were able to associate 

with the hospital’s residents. A DUR board member, who is also a staff 

pharmacist at the medical school, collects these alerts and periodically 

discusses them with the students. 

.	 Wisconsin has trained pharmacists and nurses in long-term care facilities 

about identification and treatment of depression in the elderly. 

.	 Pennsylvania operates a toll-free telephone line at the Medical Society 

for inquiries about drug therapies from providers. A clinical pharmacist 

is available for consultation as well, 

F	 Cx.mnecti.ngThrough the Information Superhighway. At least two States are 

examining the potential for reaching large numbers of providers through 

automated information systems. 

Washington has long used an automated bulletin board system for


communicating with Medicaid physicians; more recently it has been available to


pharmacists. Listings include policy memoranda, billing instructions, physician


provider numbers, the Medicaid drug formulary, and information on new drug


products. Review criteria may well be added after they are updated in 1995.


Iowa is exploring ways to tap into various telecommunications systems


available in the State. A state-wide, fiber optic network, capable of


transporting interactive, two-way audio, video, and data signals, is now up and


running for various educational purposes. And the University of Iowa, too, has


a telemedicine capability that may be a cost-effective mechanism useful to the


DUR program for sharing information with physicians and pharmacists across


the State.


20

A relative~ limited knowledge base is available to he~ guide DUR boards and State 

ojficials. l%us, it is veiy important for States to incorporate applied research efforts into 

their DUR programs to help them operate efficiently and effectively. Ideally, results from 

research based on operating expen”encescould (1) inform deckions about criteria, 

screening strategies, interventions, and the like, and (2) ofler oppotiunities for 

disseminating and discussing the results with the professional communities. 

b	 Evaluating Screening Criteria. Maryland uses its “DUR Analytic Reports” to 

assess the effects of~ts pro-DUR sc~eening criteria. These reports focus on the 

frequency of criteria ex~eptions over a 10-~3 month period. First the 

exceptions are aggregated by drug class (e.g., H2-receptor antagonists) and 

then, within each drug class, criteria 

adverse drug-drug interactions, etc.). 

graphs together with a narrative that 

for action (see box for excerpts from 

DUR ANALYTICREPORT 

NOV 93- AUG 94 

criteria 

Drug-drug all ACEIs 

interaction 

lithium benazepril 

m ~z 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

element (e.g., therapeutic duplication, 

The data are presented in tables and 

highlights concerns and recommendations 

one report). 

ANGIOTENSIN CONVERTING 

ENZYME INHIBITORS (ACEJS) 

Total Total # Exceptions 

# l&ceptions per 100 Rx 

I& 

94,831 2,096 2.21 

2,135 103 4.82 

::: “:: ::-

o The criteria “K+ supplements without K+ wasting diuretics” is not implementable by 

prospective DUR. A message could be added to a “K+ supplement” criteria that states “check to 

be sure patient is also taking a K+ wasting diuretic” or, alternatively, this criteria element could 

be ‘Witched off.” 

o Finally, benazepril occurs as an outlier in virtually every criteria element (Note: not all 

criteria included here) analyzed.. .All benzepril criteria should be checked to ensure correct 

implementation and to determine if there is something specific about benazepril that would make 

its use unusual when compared to other ACE inhibitors. 

21


——— 
The DUR board relies on these “Analytic Reports” when deciding whether or 

not to change the criteria, whether to modify their implementation, or whether 

to pursue educational interventions with providers. 

�	 Assessing Alerts by Practice Setting. Iowa’s Drake University used DUR data 

to examine therapeutic screen failures by geographic location of the prescriber. 

The profiles from a group of prescribers whose drug regimens failed the 

computerized therapeutic and utilization criteria screens were compared with a 

control group of prescribers whose profiles passed the screens. The study 

concluded that prescribers located in more rural settings were more likely to 

fail the criteria screens and that patients in nursing homes were more likely to 

receive inappropriate prescriptions. 

�	 Identi&ing Physician Preferences. The Pennsylvania Medical Society, under 

contract with the Medicaid agency to run the educational component of the 

DUR program, spent its first year researching the views of practicing physicians 

across the State. It conducted nearly a dozen focus groups and surveyed nearly 

3,000 randomly selected physicians. The Society asked physicians for 

suggestions and ideas about how it could best convey information about 

appropriate drug therapies, how it could intervene effectively with them, and 

which topics and therapies were of most interest to them. This research 

informed the strategies developed for the DUR educational program. 

�	 Examinkg the Effectiveness of Interventions. One research project in 

Colorado focussed on approaches for improving physicians’ awareness of the 

costs of various nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), commonly 

used for treating arthritis. The goal was to increase the use of the low-cost 

NSAIDS in uncomplicated cases. The intervention group of physicians received 

letters together with individual practice profiles, comparison data with peers, 

and cost information for the various NSAIDS. The control group of physicians 

received no information on their NSAID prescribing. The follow-up analysis 

indicated that the intervention group reduced the cost of their NSAID therapy 

more than did the control group. Researchers concluded that receiving 

detailed information was a significant influence in changing physicians’ 

prescribing practices. 

Wisconsin evaluated the effectiveness of letters with different provider groups 

in reducing the use of an antiplatelet agent. Researchers sent letters to 

physicians only in one group, to pharmacists only in a second group, and to 

both pharmacists and physicians in a third group. Post-intervention analysis 

compared outcomes among these groups and with a control group who had no 

intervention. The research confirmed that sending letters to both physicians 

and pharmacists was significantly more effective in reducing use of the 

antiplatelet agent than sending letters only to physicians or to pharmacists. 

22

MAJOR CHALLENGES FACING STATE 

DUR PROGRAMS 

one of the often-mentioned tenets of American federalism is that State governments 

can serve as laboratories for experimentation. This certainly has been the case for 

State DUR programs, Moving ahead in largely uncharted territory, States have been 

crafting many different approaches to DUR and have been learning from their 

experience. Through this report, we attempt to increase awareness of some of the 

major lessons they have learned. 

We can not close, however, without also discussing some concerns we have identified 

about the current state of DUR programs. In so doing, we draw on our considerable 

experience in examining DUR issues over many years and, more specifically, on 

obse~ations we made and comments we heard during our inquiry for this study. We 

raised these concerns at a recently held symposium on Medicaid DUR issues that 

involved representatives from most States and received considerable feedback 

reinforcing their importance.G They present challenges that, if not addressed 

adequately by State and Federal leadership, could undermine the effectiveness of 

DUR programs in the years ahead. We present them here, in the form of questions, 

with the intent to stimulate thinking about how they might be constructively addressed. 

Privacy safeguards. 

ti Do the programs ~“veadequate attention to privacy safeguards? 

The widespread use of electronic claims data by Medicaid DUR programs raises 

major questions concerning the collection, management, and disclosure of such data. 

How much and what kind of data can be collected on beneficiaries? Who can have 

access to such data and under what conditions? What safeguards are necessary to 

prevent unauthorized access? Such questions were beginning to gain major attention 

in 1989 as the Federal government was preparing to implement the (subsequently 

terminated) Medicare DUR program.7 As Medicaid DUR programs gain momentum 

and visibility, the very same questions are likely to surface.8 And many do not seem 

to be adequately prepared. The kind of controversy that can easily arise through the 

development of electronic data bases is illustrated in a recent Boston Globe story with 

the headline: “HMO puts confidential records on-line: Critics say computer filekeeping breaches privacy of mental health patients.”9 

Protection of poor performers. 

~	 Does the educational focus of the programs unnecessari~ inhibit efforts to protect 

beneficiaries from poorly performing providers? 

23
State DUR programs stress what they can do for providers, not to them. This 

approach, they hold, is more likely to generate improved performance than is a 

punitive one. Accordingly, when they identify questionable prescribing or dispensing 

practices, their subsequent contact with the provider is almost always strictly 

informational, with no follow-up action actually required of the provider. On rare 

occasions, when a particularly egregious practice is identified, the DUR program will 

refer information on the provider to a State medical or pharmacy board or to the 

Surveillance and Utilization Review component of the Medicaid agency. 

But what happens when serious questions are raised about a provider’s knowledge 

base and/or practice skills, but they are not serious enough to call for referral for 

possible disciplinary action? The DUR programs appear to devote little attention to 

crafting responses tailored to such situations. They could, for instance, require a 

provider to take certain remedial actions, such as participating and satisfactorily 

completing a course addressing proper prescribing or dispensing practices. This kindof mid-range response, which is essentially educational in nature, would help protect 

patients from poor care and, from the providers’ perspective, would still be 

educational in nature. 

Education of patients. 

� Are the programs su.ciently focused on patient education? 

In a far-reaching survey on the future of medicine, The Economist recently concluded 

that patients are beginning to assume control over the health care system.l” As 

medical and information technology continue to develop, the traditional authority of 

health care professionals is diminishing and patients are gaining influence over 

decisions concerning their medical care. State DUR programs, however, pay little 

attention to this significant transformation. Their educational efforts, in accord with 

Federal direction, focus almost strictly on physicians /and to a lesser degree on 

pharmacists. The challenge of helping patients become more informed participants in 

their own drug therapy is seldom addressed. The time seems to be right to examine 

this situation and to search for ways of incorporating patient education as an 

important component of DUR programs. 

Dependence on vendors. 

~ Are the programs too dependent on the vendors serving them? 

The intent here is not to dismiss the contributions of vendors carrying out contracts 

with State DUR programs. They provide valuable expertise, much of it of a highly 

technical nature, to nearly all aspects of the DUR programs. But an outside observer 

can not help but notice that often the State agencies lack the internal expertise to 

ensure that the work of the vendors is being tailored to the particular needs of the 

States. As a result, important decisions about the development and use of criteria, 

about the nature and scope of interventions, and about the thrust of educational 

24 
initiatives are sometimes being left to vendors. In some States, the DUR boards seem 

to provide some of this leadership, but typically their participation is too infrequent 

(often only quarterly meetings) to play more than an advisory role. 

Problems with Medicaid claims data. 

�	 Do inaccuracies and omissions in the Medicaid claims data bases serve as a 

significant constraint to the programs? 

Unquestionably, problems with the accuracy and completeness of data often limit the 

effectiveness of DUR programs. We heard reference to them in just about every 

State we contacted. How extensive and consequential the problems are, however, is 

unclear. We did hear that one large State has not been sending out any intervention 

letters to providers identified through its retrospective screening process because of 

concerns about the accuracy of the claims data being screened. For the most part, the 

concerns that State officials cited about accuracy focused on improperly coded 

diagnostic information. But they also pointed to an array of other inaccuracies 

concerning data provided on such important matters as provider number, provider 

specialty, drug code, and Drug Enforcement Administration number. In some cases, 

such inaccuracies existed alongside significant omissions in the claims data submitted. 

For instance, one State reported that about one-third of its pharmacy claims being 

submitted were missing a physician provider number.11 

Validity of cost savings estimates. 

� Are the programs claiming cost savings that rest on weak foundations? 

Documenting cost savings is an essential element of DUR programs. The HCFA, in 

accord with congressional requirements, calls for cost savings to be included in the 

States’ annual DUR reports. More significantly perhaps, State governments, in their 

quest to contain escalating Medicaid costs, look to the programs to contribute to cost 

savings and to document their success in doing so. Other than on the most obvious 

kinds of matters, such as eliminating a duplicate prescription, the job of developing 

sound estimates, particularly with little data available linking DUR interventions to 

medical outcomes, is highly complex and resource intensive. Yet, this does not lessen 

the imperative to arrive at such estimates. What happens, therefore, is that States 

often claim savings associated with their prospective DUR alerts to pharmacists or 

their retrospective interventions to physicians that fail to take into account indirect or 

deferred costs associated with a reversed drug claim or a changed prescribing practice. 

The HCFA has recognized the vulnerability of this situation and has helped to address 

it by supporting the development and distribution of a set of guidelines on estimating 

the impact of DUR efforts.12 But the situation remains one that can offer 

misleading indications of the impact of DUR programs, 

25

Bakmee between cost and quality. 

� Are the cost-saving and quality-of-care objectives of the programs in balance? 

Saving costs is a vital component of DUR programs. So, too, is improving drug 

therapy. It is certainly possible that DUR initiatives can help contain costs as they 

improve drug therapy. Many appear to be developed with this intention. Yet, in 

devising DUR efforts, choices are made that weight the emphasis given to the 

respective objectives. These are reflected in decisions on what drug use criteria to 

develop, what ones to apply in the screening process and how often, and what degree 

of specificity to use in applying the criteria. What may seem to be mundane decisions, 

often shrouded in the complexities of computer algorithms, can, in fact, involve 

significant choices on DUR objectives. Given the cost pressures noted earlier, the 

cost-saving objective surely looms large in this process. The concern here is not 

necessarily that quality will be sacrificed. We saw no such indications. More possible, 

perhaps, is that providers and patients will come to perceive DUR programs primarily 

as mechanisms to contain costs and only secondarily to foster more effective use of 

prescription drugs. As an example, prospective DUR programs that trigger alert rates 

of close to 20 percent for pharmacy claims can clearly contribute to this perception. 

Implications of managed care. 

b	 Are States developing a DUR injiastructure that will become increasingly irrelevant 

as Medicaid managed care enrollment escalates? 

Medicaid managed care enrollment is rising sharply. From 9.5 percent of the eligible 

population in June 1991, it increased to 23.2 percent in June 1994. Given the high 

level of interest in managed care and the Federal waivers facilitating Medicaid 

enrollment in managed care, the proportion almost certainly will continue to rise; by 

the year 2000 it could reach about 50 percent of the eligible population.13 

Thus far, State DUR programs have given little attention to the implications of this 

trend for their own efforts. But the implications are profound and warrant immediate 

consideration. Many of the managed care plans include prescription drug coverage. 

As Medicaid beneficiaries join such plans, they are, in effect, lost to the DUR 

program, with the plan assuming the responsibility (and risk) for cost-effective drug 

therapy. This development could, in fact, allow for improved drug utilization review, 

more effectively tied in with overall medical care. Managed care, in short, is not 

necessarily in conflict with good DUR. But State DUR programs appear to have little 

understanding of the nature and scope of the drug utilization review that occurs under 

the auspices of managed care organizations (MCOS). Some States are moving in the 

direction of asking MCOS for drug encounter data. But such efforts have barely 

begun and here, too, there is little understanding of whether they are likely to be 

effective. 

26

APPENDIX A


NOTES 

1.	 Public Law 101-508, November 5, 1990, (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 

1990). 

2. Our studies on pharmacy issues include: 

Medicare Drug Utilization Review, (OAI-01-88-00980), April 1989. 

ti”vacy Implications of the Medicare prescription Drug Benefitk Electronic 

Claims Processing System: A Management Adviso~ Repoti, 

(OAI-01-89-89170), April 1989. 

Physician Drug Dkpensing: An Overvi@v of State Regulation, 

(OAI-01-88-00590), May 1989. 

State Disc@line of Pharmacists, (OAI-01-89-89020), July 1990. 

Symposium on Drug Utilization Review Issues: Proceedings, 

(HHS-1OO-89-OO21),August 1990. 

Symposium on Drug Utilization Review Issues: Summa~ Report, 

(OEI-O1-89-89O1O), August 1990. 

l%e Clinical Role of the Community Pharmacist, (OEI-01-89-89160), 

November 1990. 

The Clinical Role of the Communi~ Pharmacist: Case Studies, 

(OEI-01-89-89161), November 1990. 

Promotion of Prescription Drugs Through Payments and G@s, 

(OE1-01-90- 00480), August 1991. 

Point-of-Service Claims Management Systems for Medicaid, 

(OEI-01-91-00820), May 1992. 

prescription Drug Advertisements in Medical Journals, 

(OEI-01-90-00482), June 1992. 

A-1

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

Prescription Drug Promotion Involving Payments and Gijs: Physicians’ 

Perspectives, (OEI-01-90-00481), July 1992. 

Ina 1994 report, Health Systems Research pointed out the considerable 

variation that exists in the scope, detail, and relationship of DUR criteria to the 

scientific literature. It also noted that State officials and DUR board members 

often “know very little about the quality of the DUR criteria used in 

prospective and retrospective DUR interventions.” See Health Systems 

Research, Recommendations for Improving the Quality and Effectiveness of State 

Medicaid Drug Utilization Review Activities, a paper submitted to the Office of 

Medicaid Management, Health Care Financing Administration, February 28, 

1995. 

National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, Patient Counseling Requirements, 

Park Ridge, IL, 1993. 

See OIG, l%e Clinical Role of the Community Pharmacist, 

American Drug Utilization Review Symposium, San Antonio, Texas, 

February 16-19, 1995. 

We addressed raised and addressed these questions in an earlier report. See 

OIG, fi”vacy Implications of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit’s Electronic 

Claims Processing System: A Management Advisory Report. 

Section 456.703 (h) of 42 CFR 456 calls for States to establish policies on


confidentiality of patient-related data that are consistent with Federal


confidentiality requirements, State pharmacy practice acts, and State pharmacy


board guidelines. And Section 5350 of the State Medicaid Manual issued by


the Federal government stipulates that the “use or disclosure of information


concerning applicants and recipients is restricted to purposes directed related to


administration of the title XIX State plan.” These instructions provide some


guidance to States, but sill call for much interpretation as States rely


increasingly on electronic claims information.


Boston Globe, March 7, 1995. The visibility generated by the newspaper


coverage led the medical director of the HMO cited to offer the following


comment: “We may well need to change our guardrail around patient


confidentiality. Regardless of what our doctors think they need to know, we


have to pay attention to what our patients want them to know.” Boston Globe,


9 March 1995.


“A Survey of the Future of Medicine,” The Eeonornis~ 19 March 1994,


pp. 1-18.


A-2 
11.	 An early 1994 review of State DUR programs conducted for HCFA also raised 

questions about the quality of data available for DUR programs, Its focus, 

however, was on the quality of data available to evaluate the performance of 

the programs. See Elizabeth Donnelly Appel, Health Systems Research, 

Recommendations for Improving the Quality and Effectiveness of State 

Medicaid Drug Utilization Review Activities, February 28, 1994, p. 5. 

12.	 David Zimmerman, Ted Collins, Earlene Lipowski, David Kreling, and Joseph 

B. Wiederholt (Consultants to Shepard Patterson, Inc.), Guidelines for 

Estimating the Impact of Medicaid D~ (Contract #500-93-0032), 

August 1984. 

13.	 Lee Partridge, “Medicaid and Managed Care,” Washington Memo, American 

Public Welfare Association, February 1995, pp. 13-20. 

A-3