January 7, 2016
Novel Controls on Physician Dispensing
by Mark Pew
In the cat-and-mouse game over physician dispensing of drugs (which can extend treatment and inflate prices), Nevada may have the answer.
As you know, I’m not a fan of physician dispensing. In limited cases, there can be benefits from patient compliance and convenience and from immediate treatment. However, my opinion is that in most cases physician dispensing creates a motivation to continue prescribing (because revenue to the physician is at stake) and causes patient safety issues (by bypassing the people who really understand drugs — pharmacists and pharmacies — and possibly not taking into account drug interactions).
On top of that, physician dispensing can increase lost time by an injured worker, as documented in a study of Illinois. When evaluating the differences between physician-dispensed and non-physician-dispensed medications, the study found:
- For physician-dispensed, non-narcotic drugs — medical costs ▲ 39%, indemnity costs ▲ 27%, lost-time days ▲ 34%, average total claim ▲ 31%, # of prescriptions = 2.99
- For physician-dispensed narcotic drugs — medical costs ▲ 78%, indemnity costs ▲ 57%, lost-time days ▲ 85%, average total claim ▲ 64%, # of prescriptions = 3.20
Several states have tried to combat inappropriate physician-dispensing over the past few years, using fee schedule and rules and even felonies as countermeasures. Some efforts have been successful, while others have just created a continuing cat-and-mouse game for repackagers and physicians vs. payers.
Well, effective Jan. 1, 2016, Nevada instituted its own type of reform, specific to workers’ comp. The bill does not appear to be ambiguous or up for interpretation. The bill (SB 231) was signed by the governor on May 27, 2015, but the intended (and unintended) ripple effects started last Friday. Read the entire act here. To highlight:
- Section 1.1.a – A “provider of healthcare” can only provide an initial 15-day supply of Schedule II or III controlled substances to an injured worker. Note that this excludes pharmacists and hospitals, both reasonable carve-outs. Any subsequent such controlled substances must be dispensed by a pharmacy. Excellent.
- Section 1.1.b – The “provider of healthcare” dispenser must include the original manufacturer’s national drug code (NDC) on bills and reports. Good. This doesn’t necessarily fix the issue of repackagers becoming “manufacturers” of unique (previously unnecessary) dosages and inflating prices, but …
- Section 1.1.c – A repackaged drug must not be used. Booyah.
- Section 1.1.d – For outpatient care, a non-prescription drug will not be reimbursable. Excellent.
While not all dangerous or clinically inappropriate drugs are Schedule II or III, these new rules should certainly make a dent in direct dispensing of those that are. This bill does not outlaw physician dispensing, but it does remove revenue motivation so a “provider of healthcare” will focus on the most clinically appropriate care (which may not be a drug). Working as a team, the “provider of healthcare” and the pharmacist should determine what, if any, drugs are clinically appropriate for the injured worker/patient.
It will be interesting to see how the repackaging industry responds. For an example of the state of the industry in Nevada, check out this website. (Nine uses of the word “revenue” on the repackager’s home page. Hmmmm.)
If you operate in Nevada, keep your eyes and ears open. And if you see reactions, please let us all know!