Pharmacists’ perceptions of pay for performance versus fee-for-service remuneration for the management of hypertension through pharmacist prescribing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As pharmacists expand their roles as patient care providers, remuneration must be offered for patient care activities apart from dispensing. Most jurisdictions paying for such services utilize the fee-for-service (FFS) model, while little is known about the role of pay for performance (P4P) within the pharmacy profession. This study aimed to elicit the experience of pharmacists practicing under both models within the Alberta Clinical Trial in Optimizing Hypertension (RxACTION) study in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: Pharmacist participants in RxACTION caring for at least one patient under FFS and under P4P were interviewed about their experiences until data saturation was reached. Interviews were conducted in June-July 2015, with responses audio recorded, transcribed and coded to identify key themes. KEY FINDINGS: Eight pharmacists were interviewed, with three key themes identified: a perceived comfort with the existing FFS model particularly due to its ease related to business planning, the transformative effect of the study on their practices and a preference for future models to consider a blend of both service count- and performance-driven metrics. The degree of influence pharmacists feel they can have on outcomes achieved by patients, the perceptions of patients and other healthcare professionals on outcome-based payment, and concerns with the impact of variable remuneration on the pharmacy business model are concerns raised with P4P in pharmacy practice. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a hesitation to radically transform payment for pharmacists' patient care services towards a P4P model. Efforts to implement P4P should therefore be gradual and accompanied with a robust evaluation plan.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".