TY - JOUR
T1 - Retrospective drug utilization review software systems
T2 - Perspectives of state Medicaid DUR directors
AU - Armstrong, Edward P.
AU - Proteau, Diane
PY - 1996/10
Y1 - 1996/10
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine the desirability or perceived need of retrospective drag utilization review (DUR) software system characteristics. DESIGN: A 32-item questionnaire. SETTING: Ambulatory DUR directors covering more than 33 million patients. PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid DUR directors from 49 states and the District of Columbia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five-point Liken scale measures of importance of system and vendor characteristics. RESULTS: A 100% response rate was achieved. Respondents rated the ability to change or modify criteria as very important and thought it was important to receive criteria sets from software vendors. Respondents believed cost-savings methodologies should be clearly defined and false positive DUR criteria should be minimized. CONCLUSIONS: Through the implementation of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, considerable experience in ambulatory DUR programs has been achieved. Respondents believed the ability to change DUR criteria was very important and they thought it was important to have a set of criteria supplied from software vendors. Critical issues of criteria development, cost-savings methodologies, minimizing false positive criteria, and outcomes assessment from DUR programs were important issues to DUR directors.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine the desirability or perceived need of retrospective drag utilization review (DUR) software system characteristics. DESIGN: A 32-item questionnaire. SETTING: Ambulatory DUR directors covering more than 33 million patients. PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid DUR directors from 49 states and the District of Columbia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five-point Liken scale measures of importance of system and vendor characteristics. RESULTS: A 100% response rate was achieved. Respondents rated the ability to change or modify criteria as very important and thought it was important to receive criteria sets from software vendors. Respondents believed cost-savings methodologies should be clearly defined and false positive DUR criteria should be minimized. CONCLUSIONS: Through the implementation of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, considerable experience in ambulatory DUR programs has been achieved. Respondents believed the ability to change DUR criteria was very important and they thought it was important to have a set of criteria supplied from software vendors. Critical issues of criteria development, cost-savings methodologies, minimizing false positive criteria, and outcomes assessment from DUR programs were important issues to DUR directors.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029768081&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029768081&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/106002809603001004
DO - 10.1177/106002809603001004
M3 - Article
C2 - 8893113
AN - SCOPUS:0029768081
SN - 1060-0280
VL - 30
SP - 1088
EP - 1091
JO - Annals of Pharmacotherapy
JF - Annals of Pharmacotherapy
IS - 10
ER -