| There is an
assumption made by pharmacists that when a
third-party company electronically accepts a
prescription for reimbursement at a specific
dollar amount, the pharmacist will receive a check
for that same amount. This seems to be a
reasonable assumption, but is it true?
The NCPA Foundation
through its Research Grant Program awarded a grant
to explore this issue to researchers at the
University oft Arkansas for Medical Sciences
(UAMS) College of Pharmacy. The researchers found
that initially few of the pharmacies in this study
reconciled their third-party reimbursement
statements and that significant dollars were lost
as a result of not reconciling these claims. The
results of the study are excerpted
below.
METHODOLOGY
Seven
independent pharmacies in central Arkansas
participated in the study. The pharmacy owners
served as clinical preceptors for senior pharmacy
students enrolled in a doctor of pharmacy
curriculum at the UAMS College of Pharmacy.
Students sided in the reconciliation process and
data evaluation.
The study evaluated all insurance reimbursement
checks received at each pharmacy during a
three-month period. When a reimbursement check was
received by the pharmacy, the researchers
retrieved prescription records for the period
covered by the check.
The amounts listed on the pharmacy books as due
and payable by the insurance company (i.e.,
approved amounts),
|
|
plus any copays from patients,
were compared to the amounts actually paid by the
insurance company. When discrepancies were noted,
the researcher recorded the company name, date,
and any differences in dollar amounts. If claims
were denied or returned as pending, the reason for
the denial or pending status, if stated, was
recorded.
Additionally, researchers kept records on the
time involved in performing the reconciliation,
the average days from billing to reimbursement,
and the total number of prescriptions billed to
each insurance company during the period of the
study. At no time during the study was patient
confidentiality breached. The researchers
collected no patient-specific data.
Descriptive statistics (e.g., mean and standard
deviation) were calculated for all cost
information. Claims from 20 insurance companies
were reviewed at the seven pharmacies. The total
number of insurance claims reviewed was 21,068.
The total number of claims with a difference
between approved amount and amount paid was 206
(i.e., approximately 1 percent). There was great
variation in the dollar amounts of the
differences,
which ranged from $53.99 in a
pharmacy's favor to a $359.30 loss to the
pharmacy. However, on average, the pharmacies lost
$20.68 + $6.15 (95 percent confidence interval for
average difference [CI]) each time a difference
occurred (see Table 1).
DISCUSSION
Payors rarely offered explanation for the
differences. Out of 206 differences |
|
examined, reasons were given in only 12 cases
(5.8 percent). When explanations were offered,
they typically could be placed in one of four
categories: a) patient not covered; b) a pharmacy
adjustment; c) an online claim charge; and d) a
point-of-service transaction fee. Obviously,
depending on the reason for the difference, some
of these claims could have been resubmitted for
payment or billed to the patient. Whether or not
the pharmacies rebilled the claims or received any
monies due was outside the scope of this
study.
UAMS students and the authors
spent a total of 24.5 hours over the course of
three months performing reconciliation activities
at the seven pharmacies. The effort translates to
each pharmacy needing to spend approximately 1.17
hours or 1 hour and 10 minutes each month
performing reconciliation activities.
In Arkansas, the average technician is paid
between $8 and $10 per hour. Therefore, the
average cost per month to perform reconciliations
on claim reimbursements would be $9.35 to $11.67
for a total cost per year of 112 to $140. This is
a very conservative estimate of time and cost
because a ) information collected for this survey
was in excess of the information that would
normally be considered during a routine
reconciliation; b) once the person assigned the
job of reconciliation learned the process, less
time would be required; and c) some idle time
exists for present employees that could be used
performing claims reconciliation, instead of
hiring another person to do these tasks.
|