{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02889760970388869, 'fraction_numerical': 0.026400285408490903, 'mean_word_length': 5.272930648769575, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Current Procedural Terminology Codes for Medication Therapy Management in Administrative Data.

BACKGROUND
Three pharmacist-specific Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes exist to facilitate medication therapy management (MTM) reimbursement (codes 99605, 99606, and 99607). However, no studies have used CPT codes in administrative claims databases to identify subjects who have received MTM services.


OBJECTIVE
To assess the prevalence of MTM services provided, using CPT codes identified in an administrative dataset.


METHODS
A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a subset of Medicare Part D individuals from the IBM MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Research Databases (2009-2015). Researchers identified beneficiaries who received MTM services using CPT codes 99605, 99606, and 99607.


RESULTS
Of the 16,483,709 individuals in the dataset, only 3,291 had CPT codes indicating that they received MTM services, representing an overall prevalence of 0.020%.


CONCLUSIONS
The use of CPT codes as an indicator of MTM service provision resulted in far lower MTM utilization rates than in published literature. Reliance on CPT codes to identify MTM services in administrative claims is not recommended, given that it limited the researchers' ability to properly identify patient receipt of such services. More accurate methodologies are warranted for identifying MTM use and its effects on patient outcomes.


DISCLOSURES
This work was supported by Pharmacy Quality Alliance; Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, NJ); and SinfoniaRx. The funding sources had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, writing the report, or decision to submit the article for publication. Tate, Chinthammit, and Campbell completed this work during their employment at the University of Arizona. Pickering was an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance at the time of this study. Black is employed by Merck. Axon reports grants from the Arizona Department of Health Services and the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; Campbell reports a grant from the Community Pharmacy Foundation; Chinthammit reports fees from Eli Lilly; Black has received a grant from Merck; Warholak reports grants from the Arizona Department of Health Services and Novartis, all unrelated to this study. Taylor reports grants from Tabula Rasa Op-Co, during the conduct of the study, and from the Arizona Department of Health Services, outside the conduct of this study. This research was accepted as a poster presentation at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual Meeting, May 16-20, 2020, in Orlando, FL, but was not presented due to the COVID-19 pandemic. An abstract was published in Value in Health, 2020;23(Suppl 1):S305.