Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38205457›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Written Communication From Pharmacy Benefit Managers: Is It Helpful?

Lily G Cessna, Lynne J Goebel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lily G CessnaInternal Medicine, Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Huntington, USA.
Lynne J GoebelInternal Medicine, Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Huntington, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPhysicians are experiencing greater burnout due to excessive time spent on paperwork. Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are adding to this problem by sending excessive mail to physicians. This study examined these mailed communications to determine their frequency and if the physician acted upon them. We hypothesized that few of these mailings would be helpful to the physician.

methodsFrom July 2021 to May 2023, we collected all written communications from PBMs to a single geriatrics outpatient physician. We sorted this information by specific PBM, by communication category, if it resulted in an intervention, and if communications were repeated.

resultsWe found that out of 263 communications, 17 (6%) resulted in interventions made by the physician. Notices of nonformulary prescriptions (35%, N=6/17) and drug-drug interactions (35%, N=6/17) (p=0.001) resulted in interventions most frequently. The Beers list notifications did not result in intervention. Forty-one percent (108/263) of communications were repeated, and almost half of these were for recommendations (N=52/108, 48%), a category that did not result in frequent interventions.

conclusionOur hypothesis that only a small number of communications were helpful to physicians was supported. A physician will more likely make interventions if the suggestion is regarding a nonformulary prescription or a drug-drug interaction. Interestingly, notification of a medication on the Beers list did not result in a geriatrician's action. Feedback to PBMs on which communications are most helpful may decrease the amount of paperwork received by physicians and aid in combating burnout.

Indexed as

beers listburnoutcommunicationsdrug-drug interactionspharmacy benefit managers

Identifiers

PMID38205457
PMCPMC10777337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.