Under DEA regulations that took effect June 1, e-prescribing of controlled substances is now permitted in the United States. All the dust has not yet settled, however; APhA joined with other pharmacy associations to suggest ways that the process could be improved. In addition, software developers may need at least a year  to make the updates to computer systems that will allow prescribers to transmit scheduled medication orders, intermediaries to process the prescriptions, and pharmacies to receive them.

DEA has been moving for years toward allowing e-prescribing of controlled substances. The latest push began in June 2008 when the agency announced its intention to create an alternative to manual prescriptions. After the February 2009 economic stimulus act created incentives for increased use of health information technology by physicians, pressure increased for DEA to offer a structure for e-prescribing.

As pointed out in the article, pharmacists may not have to opportunity review a electronically submitted controlled substance prescription for 6-12 months, until this new process has sufficient time to be implemented. However, this is a long overdue - and welcome - policy change.

For additional information from the DEA, navigate your browser to the following site: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/ecomm/e_rx/index.html

Abstract 

Background

Patient satisfaction with medication therapy management (MTM), a required component of the Medicare Part D benefit, is an important outcome to consider when evaluating MTM programs.

Objective

To measure patient satisfaction with a pharmacist-provided telephone MTM program.

Methods

The study design was nonexperimental and cross sectional. A survey was mailed to Scott & White Health Plan Medicare Part D beneficiaries (n=60) who received telephone MTM in 2007. The survey was composed of 15 Likert-scaled questions (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) that assessed satisfaction with MTM. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data analysis. A qualitative content analysis of patients' responses to 3 open-ended questions was also conducted.

Results

The response rate for the survey was 80% (47 of 59). Study participants were 70.8 (±7.9) years old, and most were white (84.1%) and female (54.3%). The alpha coefficient for the satisfaction scale was 0.88. Overall mean satisfaction score was 4.0 (±0.6), with items ranging from 3.6 to 4.3. The highest level of agreement (mean=4.3) was with the following statements: (1) I can easily contact my pharmacist when I have questions or concerns; (2) My pharmacist adequately answers my questions; and (3) I am content receiving MTM over the telephone. The patients agreed least (mean=3.6) with the following statements: (1) When necessary, my pharmacist has encouraged me to receive preventive health care services; and (2) When needed, my pharmacist refers me to other health care providers.

Conclusions

Most of the beneficiaries were satisfied with their MTM care. The positive response to telephone MTM is important because Medicare Part D plans are using the telephone as a method of MTM delivery. Education regarding the pharmacist's role in preventive care and pharmacist follow-up with non-pharmacist health care providers may lead to greater satisfaction levels.