Publicly funded remuneration for the administration of injections by pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The administration of injections has become an increasingly common addition to pharmacists' scope of practice. Four Canadian provinces, all US states and a number of other countries have regulations allowing pharmacists to administer injections. However, the extent to which such services are remunerated is unknown. METHODS: We contacted regulatory and advocacy organizations within those jurisdictions where pharmacists are authorized to administer injections to identify publicly funded programs that pay pharmacists for these services, as well as details of the eligible drugs/vaccines. Patient or private insurer payment programs were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 281 organizations we contact-ed, 104 provided information on a total of 34 pharmacist vaccination programs throughout Canada, the United States, England, Wales and Ireland. Converted to 2013 Canadian dollars, remuneration averages $13.12 (SD $4.63) per injection (range, $4.14-$21.21). All regions allow pharmacists to bill for administration of the influenza vaccine, while some states allow for a number of other vaccines. Alberta has the broadest range of injections eligible for remuneration. DISCUSSION: Despite evidence of increased vaccination rates in areas allowing pharmacist administration of injections, the availability of publicly funded remuneration programs and the fee offered vary by more than 5-fold across North America and the United Kingdom. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-administered injections have great public health potential. The range of injections eligible for remuneration should be expanded to include a wide range of vaccines and other injectable drugs, and remuneration should be sufficient to encourage more pharmacists to provide this service.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".