Let's say we DO get provider status....

[pharmd201389]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Would the chains decide to monetize on this and add this into their metrics? Or will each rph pocket the money themselves?

I know the former is 10x more likely, and that's why I ask; why would we want to be providers?

I remember so many people were happy we can do flu shots now. Lo and behold, we have to do flu shots while having to do 10 waiters and answering doctor calls. All whilst getting paid the same salary.

Now imagine, having a flu target, having a pneumonia target, having a shingles target, and now an MTM target. When will it stop? I for one do not want to be a provider if this is what it will entail.

On the flip side, maybe they will add more tech help and have us just do clinical interventions like Walgreens is attempting to do in the Midwest.....

 

[bacillus1]

It's a good thing for hospital pharmacists, who will now not have to go through collaborative practice agreements for IV to PO, vanc and warfarin monitoring, etc.

 

[zelman]

It's a good thing for hospital pharmacists, who will now not have to go through collaborative practice agreements for IV to PO, vanc and warfarin monitoring, etc.

Not true. Provider status is not prescriptive authority. RN's are providers. They cannot write prescriptions. They CAN get paid for filling a patient's weekly pill organizer (this is considered medication administration).

 

[Digsbe]

I think provider status would open up more clinical jobs and we'll see more use of ambulatory care clinical pharmacists as well. Having more venues to get paid for clinical services and non-dispensing services would be good for the profession and according to data also a good move for patient health and lessening a heavy physician burden in a time of shortage.

 

[confettiflyer]

It's a good thing for hospital pharmacists, who will now not have to go through collaborative practice agreements for IV to PO, vanc and warfarin monitoring, etc.

Not true, authority or not, all hospital clinical activities still have to go through the hierarchy which usually entails physician-based committees and/or boards.

Unless you're at some bizarro place.

 

[BMBiology]

"Provider status" does not mean insurances will pay for your service. Ever wonder why insurances are still not paying for flu shots administered by a pharmacist?

Don't count this as a game changer. It's still a very long way to go.

 

[zelman]

"Provider status" does not mean insurances will pay for your service. Ever wonder why insurances are still not paying for flu shots administered by a pharmacist?

Don't count this as a game changer. It's still a very long way to go.

At this point, I'd estimate that the majority do. And their decision to do so doesn't relate to providership (neologism, trademark pending). Provider status is all about federally funded programs, all of whom already pay for pharmacist administered vaccines.

 

[DelPharm]

The bill is written to create provider status for pharmacists "in medically underserved areas". If it were to pass, I would imagine that most pharmacists wouldn't see a change in their practice setting.

Regarding hospitals, you'll notice that ASHP isn't signed on a sponsor organization for this bill for some of the reasons cited above. What I understand, from the talking to the ASHP president, who is a faculty member at my school, they support the initiated but their goals are geared more towards things like expanded privileging (e.g. prescriptive authority within the scope of their training/practice, expanding scopes of practice etc) and so are investing their time and money to that purpose.