Reimbursement Models for Pharmacist-Led Clinical Services: A Comprehensive Analysis

Abstract

The landscape of healthcare delivery is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by an imperative to improve patient outcomes, enhance care quality, and control escalating costs. Within this evolving paradigm, the integration of pharmacists into direct patient care roles has emerged as a high-potential strategy to address critical gaps in service delivery, particularly regarding medication optimization and chronic disease management. However, the realization of pharmacists’ full clinical potential is significantly impeded by a complex and often inadequate reimbursement infrastructure. This report undertakes an extensive and detailed analysis of the multifaceted challenges and opportunities associated with reimbursement for advanced pharmacy services. It delves into the historical context and limitations of existing fee-for-service models, dissects the nuances of emerging value-based care frameworks, and critically evaluates various proposed mechanisms to appropriately compensate pharmacists for their cognitive services. Special emphasis is placed on the strategic advocacy required to achieve federal ‘provider status’ for pharmacists, alongside an examination of successful state-level initiatives and innovative models adopted by international healthcare systems and private sector entities. The report concludes by outlining a comprehensive roadmap for establishing sustainable financial mechanisms that not only support but also incentivize the widespread integration and scaling of pharmacists’ indispensable contributions to patient-centered care.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction: The Evolving Role of Pharmacists in Healthcare

The profession of pharmacy has historically been centered on the compounding and dispensing of medications, a role critical for safe and effective drug delivery. However, over the past several decades, the scope of pharmacy practice has broadened dramatically, recognizing pharmacists’ unparalleled expertise in pharmacotherapy and their integral position within the healthcare continuum. Contemporary pharmacists are increasingly involved in direct patient care activities that extend far beyond traditional dispensing, encompassing comprehensive medication therapy management (MTM), chronic care management (CCM), preventive care, transitions of care, and public health initiatives such as immunization and health screenings. This expansion is driven by several converging factors: the growing complexity of pharmacotherapy, the rising prevalence of chronic diseases, an aging population with polypharmacy concerns, and persistent shortages of primary care providers. These factors collectively highlight an urgent need to leverage all healthcare professionals to their fullest extent, particularly those with specialized medication knowledge.

Pharmacist-led clinical services offer a promising solution to many of these challenges. For instance, MTM programs have demonstrated efficacy in reducing medication-related problems, improving medication adherence, and decreasing healthcare utilization, including emergency department visits and hospital readmissions. Similarly, pharmacists engaged in CCM have proven instrumental in helping patients manage complex chronic conditions, optimizing drug regimens, monitoring for adverse effects, and providing essential education and support. Value-based care (VBC) initiatives, which link reimbursement to quality outcomes and cost efficiency rather than service volume, inherently align with the medication optimization services pharmacists provide. By proactively managing medications, pharmacists can directly contribute to improving quality metrics, enhancing patient safety, and lowering overall healthcare expenditures. Despite this compelling evidence of value and demonstrated capacity for positive impact, the widespread implementation and sustainability of advanced pharmacist services remain severely hampered by a fundamental systemic flaw: the absence of adequate, consistent, and standardized reimbursement models. This report therefore seeks to provide an in-depth exploration of the current landscape of pharmacist reimbursement, analyze successful strategies from diverse healthcare environments, and delineate the critical advocacy efforts necessary to forge sustainable financial pathways for pharmacists’ essential contributions to modern healthcare.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Existing Reimbursement Models for Pharmacist-Led Services: Limitations and Gaps

Historically, the financial compensation for pharmacists has been inextricably linked to the dispensing of prescription medications. This traditional framework, while foundational to pharmaceutical care, has proven ill-suited to support and adequately remunerate the cognitive, patient-facing services that define contemporary pharmacy practice. Understanding the limitations of these established models is crucial for appreciating the current reimbursement challenges.

2.1. Fee-for-Service (FFS) Models: A Mismatch for Cognitive Services

Fee-for-service (FFS) is the bedrock of many healthcare payment systems, wherein providers are reimbursed for each distinct service, procedure, or product provided. In the context of pharmacy, this model primarily covers the cost of the drug product itself and a dispensing fee, which is intended to cover the logistical aspects of preparing and distributing the medication. While effective for these transactional elements, the FFS model largely fails to capture the value of pharmacists’ professional judgment, patient counseling, medication review, and care coordination activities. These ‘cognitive services’ – the intellectual labor involved in optimizing drug therapy – are often time-intensive, require advanced clinical knowledge, and demonstrably improve patient outcomes, yet they typically lack a discrete billable code or clear pathway for reimbursement under traditional FFS structures.

For example, a pharmacist conducting a comprehensive medication review (CMR) for a patient on multiple medications, identifying potential drug-drug interactions, recommending dosage adjustments to the prescriber, and providing extensive patient education, might spend an hour or more on this critical service. Under a pure FFS model, this pharmacist would typically receive no direct compensation for this invaluable time and expertise, unless it was bundled into the dispensing fee of an unrelated prescription. This structural limitation creates a powerful disincentive for pharmacists to engage in these vital cognitive services on a broad scale, as they represent an uncompensated time investment. Furthermore, the FFS model inherently incentivizes volume over value, which runs counter to the objectives of modern healthcare systems focused on preventive care and chronic disease management. It perpetuates a reactive rather than proactive approach to patient health, where interventions are reimbursed only after a problem has occurred, rather than for preventing it.

2.2. Value-Based Care Models: Promise Yet Unfulfilled Integration

In stark contrast to FFS, value-based care (VBC) models represent a paradigm shift, moving healthcare reimbursement away from service volume and towards patient outcomes, quality of care, and cost efficiency. These models, which include Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs), bundled payments, and pay-for-performance initiatives, aim to align financial incentives with the delivery of high-quality, coordinated care that improves patient health while simultaneously reducing unnecessary costs. Pharmacists, with their deep understanding of pharmacotherapy and their proven ability to optimize medication regimens, prevent adverse drug events (ADEs), improve adherence, and reduce hospital readmissions, are exceptionally well-positioned to contribute significantly to the goals of VBC. Their interventions can directly impact key VBC metrics, such as HEDIS (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set) measures related to chronic disease control (e.g., A1c levels for diabetics, blood pressure control), Star Ratings for Medicare Advantage plans, and overall reductions in healthcare utilization.

Despite this natural alignment, the integration of pharmacists into existing VBC reimbursement structures has been slow and inconsistent. While pharmacists employed directly by integrated health systems, ACOs, or PCMHs may be compensated through salaries or internal budget allocations, their specific clinical services are rarely distinctly billable or explicitly valued within the VBC payment mechanisms themselves. For independent pharmacies or those not directly employed by such entities, participating in VBC models and receiving direct compensation for their cognitive contributions remains a significant challenge. The lack of standardized billing codes, the absence of federal ‘provider status’ for pharmacists, and the complexity of attribution and shared savings calculations often make it difficult to quantify and claim the pharmacist’s specific impact on VBC outcomes. Consequently, while the potential for pharmacists to thrive in a VBC environment is immense, the actual mechanisms for their direct reimbursement are still largely underdeveloped.

2.3. Collaborative Practice Agreements (CPAs): State-Dependent and Variable

Collaborative Practice Agreements (CPAs), also known as physician-pharmacist collaboration agreements, practice protocols, or standing orders, are formal, legal arrangements between pharmacists and physicians (or other authorized prescribers) that define and expand the pharmacist’s scope of practice. These agreements allow pharmacists to perform certain patient care functions that would otherwise be restricted, such as initiating, modifying, or discontinuing medication therapy; ordering and interpreting laboratory tests; and performing comprehensive physical assessments, all under the authority of the collaborating prescriber. CPAs have been instrumental in enabling pharmacists to deliver advanced clinical services in various settings, particularly for chronic disease management.

While CPAs represent a crucial step towards recognizing and leveraging pharmacists’ clinical capabilities, their implementation and corresponding reimbursement structures are highly variable and state-dependent. Each state’s board of pharmacy and medical board determines the specific parameters for CPAs, leading to a patchwork of regulations across the country. This inconsistency creates significant administrative burdens and limits the scalability of CPA-enabled services. More critically, the existence of a CPA does not automatically guarantee reimbursement for the pharmacist’s services. Often, the services provided under a CPA are billed by the collaborating physician or clinic, and the pharmacist’s compensation is an internal arrangement (e.g., salary, hourly wage) rather than a direct bill for their specific intervention. While some states have made progress in allowing pharmacists to bill for services provided under a CPA, this remains an exception rather than the norm. The variability in scope, the administrative overhead, and the inconsistent reimbursement mechanisms mean that CPAs, while powerful tools, are not a universal solution to the pharmacist reimbursement dilemma.

2.4. Cash-Pay and Grant Funding: Limited Scope and Sustainability

Beyond the primary models, pharmacists offering advanced clinical services have occasionally relied on other, less scalable, financial mechanisms. Cash-pay or self-pay models allow pharmacists to directly charge patients for specific services, such as comprehensive medication reviews, smoking cessation counseling, or personalized health coaching. While this model offers autonomy, its reach is inherently limited to patients who can afford and are willing to pay out-of-pocket, typically excluding those most vulnerable or in greatest need of these services. Similarly, grant funding and philanthropic contributions have supported pilot programs and demonstration projects that integrate pharmacists into various care settings. These grants have been vital for gathering evidence of pharmacists’ impact and demonstrating viable service models. However, grants are by their nature finite and do not provide a sustainable long-term solution for systemic reimbursement. They serve as valuable catalysts but cannot replace consistent, scalable payment models.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Emerging Reimbursement Models: Pathways to Recognition and Compensation

The recognition of the limitations within existing reimbursement paradigms has fueled the exploration and development of several emerging models designed to better compensate pharmacists for their cognitive, patient-facing services. These models represent significant strides towards integrating pharmacists more fully into the healthcare payment structure.

3.1. Medicare Part B Provider Status: The Apex of Federal Advocacy

The attainment of ‘provider status’ under Medicare Part B for pharmacists is arguably the most significant and transformative policy objective for the profession in the United States. Under current federal law, Medicare Part B recognizes a specific list of healthcare professionals as ‘providers’ for direct billing purposes (e.g., physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse-midwives, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, registered dietitians, and physical, occupational, and speech therapists). Pharmacists are notably absent from this list, meaning they cannot independently bill Medicare Part B for the non-dispensing, cognitive clinical services they provide, even if those services are within their state scope of practice and are medically necessary.

Achieving provider status would allow pharmacists to bill Medicare Part B directly for a defined set of services, such as comprehensive medication therapy management (MTM) for chronic conditions, chronic care management (CCM) services, preventive health screenings, and potentially other services related to managing complex medication regimens. This recognition would not only provide a standardized, national reimbursement mechanism but also formally integrate pharmacists into the federal healthcare team, fostering greater interprofessional collaboration and improving patient access to critical medication expertise. The primary legislative vehicle for this advocacy effort has been the ‘Equitable Community Access to Pharmacist Services Act’ (E-CAPS Act), formerly known as H.R.1770 and S.2477 in previous legislative sessions. This legislation aims to allow pharmacists to be reimbursed under Medicare Part B for certain services, particularly those addressing common infectious diseases (e.g., COVID-19, influenza, RSV), as well as services for testing, therapeutics, and vaccines, delivered in medically underserved areas. The scope of services in E-CAPS is deliberately focused to build momentum, with the broader goal of expanding pharmacists’ overall provider status recognition. Advocacy groups like the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), and the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) have been at the forefront of this effort, educating policymakers on the value pharmacists bring to patient care, particularly in addressing healthcare disparities and optimizing medication use in an aging population with increasing chronic disease burdens. The arguments for provider status emphasize improved patient outcomes, reduced healthcare costs through prevention and medication optimization, enhanced access to care in rural and underserved areas, and increased efficiency of the healthcare system by allowing physicians to focus on other complex medical issues.

3.2. State-Level Initiatives: Paving the Way for Broader Recognition

While federal provider status remains the ultimate goal, numerous states have taken proactive and often innovative steps to expand pharmacists’ scope of practice and establish state-level reimbursement mechanisms for their clinical services. These state initiatives serve as vital proof-of-concept models and demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of pharmacist integration.

One significant example is Maryland, which in 2023 passed landmark legislation (House Bill 568/Senate Bill 428) requiring both Medicaid and state-regulated commercial insurance plans to recognize pharmacists as providers and reimburse for all covered services within their scope of practice, effective January 1, 2024. This legislation represents a comprehensive approach, mandating coverage across multiple payer types for services already permitted under state law, significantly expanding the financial viability of advanced pharmacy services. Other states have also made notable progress:

• Washington State: Has long been a leader, with pharmacists recognized as providers and able to bill for a wide range of services, including medication management and minor ailment prescribing, within their expanded scope of practice. Their system has evolved over decades, providing a robust model for other states.
• North Carolina: Through various legislative actions, pharmacists have gained authority to conduct specific patient assessments, order labs, and manage drug therapy under CPAs, with evolving reimbursement pathways within their Medicaid program and some commercial plans.
• California: Legislation has granted pharmacists advanced practice status, allowing them to initiate and adjust drug therapy under specific conditions, often leading to compensation through managed care plans or health system employment.
• New York: Has expanded pharmacists’ abilities to administer a wider range of immunizations and certain drug products, with corresponding reimbursement through state programs and commercial payers.

These state-level initiatives highlight several key strategies: expanding the legal scope of practice to include more cognitive services, mandating or encouraging state Medicaid programs to recognize and reimburse pharmacists, and leveraging state regulatory authority to influence commercial payers. They demonstrate that localized solutions can significantly advance the integration and financial sustainability of pharmacist-led care, even in the absence of federal action.

3.3. Managed Care Organization (MCO) Contracts: A Growing Avenue

Managed Care Organizations (MCOs), which include health maintenance organizations (HMOs), preferred provider organizations (PPOs), and other integrated healthcare entities, are increasingly recognizing the value of pharmacist interventions, particularly as they assume greater financial risk for patient outcomes. MCOs often contract directly with pharmacists or pharmacy groups to provide targeted services aimed at improving quality metrics, managing chronic diseases, and reducing high-cost utilization (e.g., hospitalizations, emergency room visits). These contracts can take various forms:

• Per-Patient, Per-Month (PMPM) Fees: Pharmacists receive a fixed payment for managing the medication needs of a defined patient panel, incentivizing proactive care.
• Per-Service Payments: MCOs may reimburse for specific services like comprehensive medication reviews, transitions of care medication reconciliation, or chronic disease education sessions, often using existing CPT codes or newly developed codes within the MCO’s system.
• Performance-Based Incentives: Payments may be tied to achieving specific quality targets, such as improved medication adherence rates, blood pressure control, or reductions in adverse drug events for their enrolled members.
• Bundled Payments: Pharmacists’ services may be included as a component of a larger bundled payment for an episode of care (e.g., post-discharge care for heart failure), with internal allocation of funds.

These MCO contracts are often driven by the MCO’s need to meet Star Ratings for Medicare Advantage plans, HEDIS measures for commercial plans, or specific quality targets for Medicaid programs. Pharmacists’ ability to directly impact these metrics makes them attractive partners. The challenge, however, lies in negotiating and standardizing these contracts, as terms can vary significantly between MCOs and regions. Nonetheless, MCO contracts represent a promising and growing avenue for pharmacist reimbursement, particularly for services focused on chronic disease management and medication optimization.

3.4. Integration into Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs)

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs) are fundamental components of the shift towards value-based care. Both models emphasize care coordination, preventive services, and patient engagement with the goal of improving quality and reducing costs for a defined patient population. Pharmacists are natural allies in these structures, given their central role in medication management.

• ACOs: In ACOs, groups of providers share responsibility for the quality, cost, and overall care of Medicare beneficiaries. Pharmacists can contribute significantly by optimizing medication regimens, managing transitions of care to prevent readmissions, providing chronic disease education, and intervening to prevent medication-related problems. Reimbursement for pharmacists within ACOs typically occurs through shared savings models, where the ACO distributes a portion of the cost savings achieved among its participating providers. Pharmacists may be salaried employees of the ACO or receive a portion of the shared savings, demonstrating their direct contribution to cost reduction and quality improvement. The challenge often lies in accurately attributing savings to specific pharmacist interventions.
• PCMHs: PCMHs focus on providing comprehensive, coordinated, patient-centered care. Pharmacists integrated into PCMHs often serve as part of the interprofessional care team, providing direct patient consultations, conducting medication reconciliations, and collaborating with physicians on therapeutic plans. In PCMH models, pharmacists may be salaried employees, or their services may be reimbursed through capitated payments (a fixed payment per patient per month for all services) that the PCMH receives. The emphasis is on team-based care, where the pharmacist’s contributions are essential to the overall functioning and effectiveness of the medical home.

For both ACOs and PCMHs, the key to pharmacist reimbursement lies in demonstrating their direct impact on the organization’s ability to achieve quality metrics and cost savings. This requires robust data collection and strong internal advocacy to ensure that pharmacists’ value is recognized and appropriately funded within these integrated care models.

3.5. Pharmacist Credentialing and Privileging: Formalizing Recognition

An important prerequisite for direct billing and broader integration is the formal credentialing and privileging of pharmacists within healthcare systems. Credentialing is the process of establishing the qualifications of licensed professionals, including education, training, and experience. Privileging is the process by which an organization formally authorizes a healthcare practitioner to perform specific scope-of-practice activities based on their credentials and competence. While common for physicians and nurses, credentialing and privileging processes for pharmacists, particularly for advanced clinical roles, are still evolving.

Formal credentialing and privileging within hospitals, clinics, and health systems grant pharmacists the authority to perform a wider range of clinical functions, such as ordering specific laboratory tests, modifying medication regimens, and documenting interventions directly in the patient’s electronic health record (EHR) in a way that is recognized for billing purposes by the institution. This internal recognition is critical, as it often precedes and supports external payer recognition. It also facilitates internal reimbursement for their services through mechanisms like internal cost centers, departmental budgets, or as a component of overall patient care charges.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Successful Strategies from Different Healthcare Systems: Global and Domestic Innovations

The quest for sustainable pharmacist reimbursement is not unique to the United States. Many countries and individual healthcare organizations have implemented successful models that offer valuable insights and blueprints for future development.

4.1. International Perspectives: Models of Integrated Care

Several countries have made significant strides in formally recognizing pharmacists as integral healthcare providers and establishing clear reimbursement pathways for their clinical services:

• Canada: Canada stands out as a leader in integrating pharmacists into direct patient care with established reimbursement structures that vary by province but share common principles. For example, in provinces like Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, pharmacists are recognized for a range of advanced services. These often include:

  • Medication Reviews and Assessments: Pharmacists are reimbursed for conducting comprehensive medication reviews, identifying drug-related problems, and developing care plans, particularly for patients with chronic conditions or those on multiple medications.
  • Minor Ailment Prescribing: In many provinces, pharmacists can assess and prescribe for a defined list of minor ailments (e.g., uncomplicated UTIs, allergic rhinitis, cold sores), diverting patients from physician offices and emergency departments. These services are often publicly funded.
  • Immunizations: Pharmacists are widely authorized and reimbursed for administering a broad spectrum of vaccines, including influenza, shingles, and travel vaccinations.
  • Chronic Disease Management Programs: Pharmacists participate in provincial programs for conditions like diabetes and hypertension, providing education, monitoring, and medication adjustments, often with specific billing codes.
  • Adaptation and Renewal of Prescriptions: Pharmacists can extend or adapt existing prescriptions to ensure continuity of care. The funding models in Canada are typically a blend of provincial health ministry payments (public insurance), private insurance, and sometimes patient fees, with a strong emphasis on public funding for core clinical services. These initiatives have significantly improved patient access to care, optimized medication use, and reduced burdens on primary care physicians.

• United Kingdom (NHS): The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK has increasingly integrated pharmacists into primary care and community settings to enhance patient access and manage rising demands. Key initiatives include:

  • Pharmacists in General Practice: Under the ‘Pharmacy Integration Fund’ and subsequent initiatives, thousands of pharmacists have been recruited into General Practitioner (GP) practices. These pharmacists conduct medication reviews, manage repeat prescriptions, perform chronic disease management (e.g., for hypertension, asthma, diabetes), and address polypharmacy. Their salaries and associated costs are typically covered through national NHS funding streams and specific contractual arrangements with GP practices.
  • Community Pharmacy Contractual Framework: This framework provides funding for various services delivered by community pharmacies beyond dispensing, such as the New Medicine Service (NMS) for new prescriptions, the Discharge Medicines Service (DMS) for patients transitioning from hospital, and the Hypertension Case-Finding Service. These services are commissioned and reimbursed by the NHS at a national or local level.
  • Minor Illness Management: Similar to Canada, pharmacists are increasingly empowered and reimbursed to manage minor ailments, providing advice and over-the-counter treatments, or referring to GPs when necessary.

• Australia and New Zealand: Both countries have progressive models, with pharmacists providing services like medication reviews (Medication Management Reviews in Australia, funded by Medicare), home medicines reviews, and contributing to chronic disease management programs. They emphasize collaborative care and often utilize government funding for these advanced services.

These international examples underscore the benefits of government recognition and funding for pharmacist-led services, demonstrating improved health outcomes, enhanced accessibility, and greater efficiency within their respective healthcare systems. They provide a clear roadmap for how pharmacists can be integrated and compensated as essential providers within a publicly funded or heavily regulated healthcare environment.

4.2. Private Sector Initiatives and Integrated Delivery Networks

Beyond governmental initiatives, innovative private sector organizations and integrated healthcare delivery networks (IDNs) in the U.S. have also pioneered successful models for pharmacist reimbursement:

• Employer-Sponsored Health Plans: Large employers, often self-insured, are increasingly recognizing the impact of medication non-adherence and suboptimal drug therapy on their employees’ health and their healthcare spending. Some employers directly contract with pharmacists or pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that employ pharmacists to offer advanced medication management services, health coaching, and wellness programs to their employee base. Reimbursement here is typically through a direct fee-for-service payment from the employer or a capitated payment for employee population management.

• Health Insurance Companies (Commercial Payers): While lagging behind government programs, a growing number of commercial health insurance companies are establishing partnerships with pharmacies and pharmacists to offer specific clinical services. For instance, some Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, Humana, and Aetna have pilot programs or established contracts that reimburse pharmacists for MTM services, diabetes education, or medication adherence programs. These arrangements often involve unique billing codes developed by the payer or the use of existing CPT codes with specific modifiers. The incentive for these payers is typically to improve quality measures (e.g., Star Ratings), reduce downstream medical costs, and enhance member satisfaction.

• Integrated Delivery Networks (IDNs): Large health systems, which often include hospitals, clinics, and employed physicians, have been leaders in integrating pharmacists into their internal care teams. In an IDN, pharmacists may be salaried employees within primary care clinics, specialty clinics (e.g., cardiology, oncology, diabetes), or emergency departments. While they may not generate direct billable revenue under traditional FFS, their value is recognized through their contributions to the IDN’s overall financial performance. This includes:

  • Reduced Readmissions: Pharmacists play a critical role in medication reconciliation and patient education during transitions of care, significantly reducing costly hospital readmissions.
  • Improved Quality Metrics: Their interventions contribute to improved HEDIS scores and other quality indicators, which can lead to higher performance payments for the IDN.
  • Optimized Drug Therapy: Pharmacists ensure appropriate and cost-effective medication use, leading to savings on drug expenditures and preventing adverse events.
  • Enhanced Provider Productivity: By managing medication-related issues, pharmacists free up physicians and other providers to focus on diagnosis and more complex medical concerns.

  In IDNs, pharmacists’ salaries are justified by the value they create across the system, demonstrating a ‘value capture’ model rather than a direct reimbursement model for individual services. This internal recognition can serve as a powerful model for demonstrating value that can eventually translate to external payer recognition.

• Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs): Although PBMs have historically focused on drug acquisition and claims processing, many now offer MTM services as part of their comprehensive offerings. They contract with pharmacists (either directly employed or through networks of community pharmacists) to provide CMRs, targeted medication reviews, and adherence interventions. Reimbursement to pharmacists in these models is typically a fee per service or a capitated rate for a specific patient population, driven by the PBM’s need to demonstrate value to their plan sponsors (employers, health plans) and improve medication-related outcomes.

These diverse strategies, both international and domestic, demonstrate that when the value of pharmacist-led care is recognized, whether through public funding mandates, private contracts, or internal health system allocations, sustainable reimbursement models can be developed and successfully implemented.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Advocacy Efforts for Achieving Provider Status: A Concerted and Multifaceted Campaign

Achieving comprehensive provider status for pharmacists at the federal level, particularly under Medicare Part B, and expanding reimbursement at the state level, necessitates a concerted, sustained, and multifaceted advocacy campaign. This effort involves legislative initiatives, the strategic involvement of professional organizations, robust grassroots engagement, and coalition building with allied healthcare groups.

5.1. Legislative Initiatives: The Federal Battleground

The primary battleground for federal provider status has been the United States Congress. The ‘Equitable Community Access to Pharmacist Services Act’ (E-CAPS Act), formerly known as H.R.1770 and S.2477 in the 118th Congress (2023-2024), is a crucial legislative effort. This bipartisan bill aims to recognize pharmacists as providers under Medicare Part B for specific services related to testing, therapeutics, and vaccines for infectious diseases (like COVID-19, influenza, and RSV) in medically underserved areas. While not a comprehensive provider status bill for all pharmacist services, it represents a significant step forward, aiming to establish a precedent and demonstrate pharmacists’ value within the federal payment system. Its scope is strategically focused on areas where pharmacists have demonstrably stepped up, particularly during public health emergencies.

Successful legislative advocacy requires:

• Bipartisan Support: Gaining co-sponsorship from members of both major political parties is essential to demonstrate broad appeal and viability.
• Data and Evidence: Presenting compelling data on the positive impact of pharmacist interventions on patient outcomes, cost savings (e.g., reduced hospitalizations, ER visits), and improved access to care, especially for vulnerable populations.
• Budgetary Impact Analysis: Demonstrating that expanding pharmacist services can be budget-neutral or even cost-saving in the long run, rather than merely adding new costs to the Medicare program.
• Targeted Messaging: Crafting messages that resonate with legislators’ priorities, such as rural health, chronic disease management, and pandemic preparedness.

Continued and renewed introduction of such legislation in successive Congresses, along with persistent lobbying, is vital. This process is often slow, requiring sustained pressure and education for new and incumbent policymakers.

5.2. Professional Organizations’ Pivotal Roles

National and state professional pharmacy organizations are the driving force behind provider status advocacy. Their coordinated efforts are indispensable:

• American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP): ASHP advocates for pharmacists in hospitals and health systems, emphasizing their role in complex patient care, medication safety, and transitions of care. Their advocacy agenda consistently includes provider status, highlighting the value of pharmacists in integrated care teams and their ability to improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs within institutional settings. They provide data and policy analysis to support legislative efforts.
• American Pharmacists Association (APhA): As the largest national professional organization for pharmacists, APhA champions the overall advancement of the profession. Their ‘Provider Status’ campaign focuses on all pharmacists, particularly those in community settings, advocating for federal recognition to enable billing for MTM and other essential patient care services. APhA engages in direct lobbying, develops comprehensive policy papers, and mobilizes its members for grassroots action.
• National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA): NCPA represents independent community pharmacists and is a fervent advocate for provider status, emphasizing the role of community pharmacies as accessible healthcare hubs, particularly in rural and underserved areas. Their advocacy often highlights how provider status would enable small businesses to expand clinical services, improve local health, and create sustainable business models.
• Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP): AMCP focuses on optimizing patient outcomes through managed care pharmacy. They advocate for payment models that recognize pharmacists’ contributions to medication management and value-based care within health plans and integrated systems, providing valuable perspectives on the economic benefits of pharmacist services.
• National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS): Representing chain community pharmacies, NACDS advocates for policies that enable pharmacists within these accessible settings to provide expanded clinical services and be appropriately reimbursed, emphasizing their role in public health and convenience.

These organizations collaborate through coalitions like the ‘Provider Status Coalition’ to amplify their message, share resources, and coordinate legislative strategies. They conduct policy research, develop legislative language, organize congressional briefings, and engage with federal agencies (e.g., CMS, HHS) to promote understanding and acceptance of pharmacists’ expanded roles.

5.3. Grassroots Advocacy: The Power of the Profession and Patients

While professional organizations lead the strategic charge, grassroots advocacy from individual pharmacists, pharmacy students, and crucially, patients, is vital for demonstrating widespread support and influencing policymakers. Legislators often respond most effectively to direct communication from their constituents.

• Pharmacists and Pharmacy Students: Engaging in activities such as:

  • Legislative Visits: Scheduling meetings with elected officials (or their staff) at their local offices or in Washington D.C. to share personal stories of how pharmacist interventions have improved patient care.
  • Letter-Writing Campaigns/Emails: Regularly sending personalized letters or emails to representatives and senators, advocating for specific bills like the E-CAPS Act.
  • Social Media Advocacy: Using platforms to share articles, success stories, and calls to action, tagging legislators and relevant committees.
  • Professional Day at the Capitol: Participating in state-level pharmacy association events to collectively lobby state legislators.

• Patient Testimonials: The most powerful advocacy often comes from patients themselves. Sharing stories of how pharmacists have saved lives, prevented hospitalizations, improved chronic disease management, or enhanced quality of life due to medication optimization provides invaluable anecdotal evidence that complements data-driven arguments. Patient advocacy groups are increasingly vital partners in this effort.

This grassroots effort transforms abstract policy discussions into tangible human impacts, making a compelling case for legislative action.

5.4. Coalition Building: Strength in Numbers

Achieving provider status and broader reimbursement requires moving beyond internal pharmacy advocacy. Building strong coalitions with other healthcare provider groups and patient advocacy organizations significantly strengthens the message and increases political leverage.

• Physician and Nurse Organizations: Gaining the support or at least the neutrality of physician and nursing organizations is crucial. Demonstrating that pharmacists’ expanded roles are collaborative, reduce physician burden, and enhance patient care (rather than encroaching on other professions’ scopes) can transform potential opposition into allies.
• Patient Advocacy Groups: Organizations representing specific disease states (e.g., American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association) or broader patient populations can be powerful advocates, emphasizing how pharmacists improve access to care and outcomes for their members.
• Public Health Organizations: Highlighting pharmacists’ contributions to public health initiatives (e.g., immunizations, pandemic response, opioid crisis mitigation) can garner support from public health bodies and policymakers focused on population health.

By uniting diverse voices under a common goal of improving healthcare, coalition building magnifies the impact of advocacy efforts and broadens the appeal of pharmacist provider status to a wider range of stakeholders.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Sustainable Financial Mechanisms for Pharmacist-Led Services: A Holistic Approach

Establishing sustainable financial mechanisms for pharmacist-led services requires a holistic approach that moves beyond traditional dispensing fees and embraces innovative payment models, robust data collection, and integration into the broader healthcare financing structure. The goal is to align reimbursement with the demonstrated value and impact of pharmacists’ cognitive contributions.

6.1. Blended Payment Models: Flexibility and Comprehensive Compensation

Future reimbursement models are likely to be ‘blended,’ combining elements of various payment structures to comprehensively compensate pharmacists for their diverse services. This could involve:

• Fee-for-Service for Specific Encounters: Retaining FFS for discrete, well-defined clinical services, such as a comprehensive medication review (CMR) using an expanded CPT code, a specific immunization administration, or a targeted medication review for a particular drug class.
• Capitated Payments for Population Management: A per-patient, per-month (PMPM) payment for managing the medication needs of a defined panel of patients (e.g., all patients with diabetes, or all high-risk patients with polypharmacy). This incentivizes proactive, ongoing management rather than reactive episodic care.
• Performance-Based Incentives: Payments tied to achieving specific quality metrics (e.g., improved A1c, blood pressure control, reduction in medication-related hospitalizations) or cost savings for the managed population. This aligns pharmacist incentives directly with patient outcomes and overall healthcare system goals.

A blended model offers flexibility, allowing pharmacists to be compensated for both episodic interventions and continuous patient management, while also incentivizing positive health outcomes.

6.2. Risk-Sharing Agreements: Aligning Incentives with Outcomes

As healthcare shifts towards greater financial accountability for patient outcomes, pharmacists can increasingly participate in risk-sharing agreements. Within Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), bundled payment initiatives, or other value-based contracts, pharmacists can contribute to shared savings or downside risk models. For example:

• Shared Savings: If an ACO achieves cost savings while maintaining or improving quality targets, pharmacists (as part of the care team) could receive a portion of those shared savings, directly acknowledging their contribution to cost efficiency.
• Bundled Payments: Pharmacist services could be an integral, explicitly recognized component of bundled payments for specific episodes of care (e.g., acute myocardial infarction, joint replacement). The bundled payment would cover all services related to that episode, including medication management provided by a pharmacist, with internal allocation ensuring appropriate compensation.

These models tie pharmacist compensation directly to the financial success of the broader healthcare entity, demanding robust data to demonstrate their impact on cost and quality.

6.3. Direct Contracting and Employment within Integrated Health Systems

For integrated delivery networks (IDNs), hospitals, and large clinic groups, direct employment of pharmacists for advanced clinical roles represents a proven and sustainable model. In this scenario, pharmacists’ salaries are part of the overall operational budget, justified by their contributions to:

• Reduced Readmissions: Pharmacists on discharge teams can significantly lower readmission rates, which have substantial financial penalties under programs like Medicare’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP).
• Optimized Drug Costs: Pharmacists manage formularies, promote generic substitutions, and ensure appropriate medication selection, leading to millions in drug cost savings for the system.
• Improved Quality Metrics: Their interventions contribute to higher HEDIS scores and other quality indicators, enhancing the system’s reputation and potentially increasing performance payments.
• Enhanced Physician Capacity: By offloading medication management tasks, pharmacists free up physicians to see more patients or focus on more complex diagnostic and procedural care, thereby increasing clinic revenue.

While not ‘reimbursement’ in the traditional FFS sense, this model demonstrates how pharmacists’ value can be financially recognized and sustained within organizations that understand the holistic impact of medication optimization.

6.4. Technology-Enabled Services: Expanding Reach and Efficiency

The increasing adoption of telehealth and digital health platforms offers new avenues for pharmacist-led services and their reimbursement. Pharmacists can deliver comprehensive medication management, chronic care management, and patient education remotely, improving access, especially for rural or homebound patients. Reimbursement for these services could be integrated into existing telehealth billing codes (e.g., CPT codes for virtual visits) or new codes specifically developed for remote pharmacist consultations. This expansion into digital health enhances efficiency, reduces geographical barriers, and can potentially lower the cost of delivering care, making pharmacist services even more attractive to payers.

6.5. Metrics and Outcomes Measurement: The Imperative for Data-Driven Advocacy

Regardless of the specific reimbursement model, the sustained financial viability of pharmacist-led services hinges critically on the ability to consistently and convincingly demonstrate their value through robust metrics and measurable outcomes. Without concrete evidence of improved patient health and/or cost savings, advocating for new reimbursement pathways or sustaining existing ones becomes incredibly challenging. Key areas for measurement include:

• Clinical Outcomes: Improvements in disease markers (e.g., A1c levels, blood pressure, LDL cholesterol), reduction in adverse drug events (ADEs), improved medication adherence rates.
• Healthcare Utilization: Reductions in emergency department visits, hospitalizations, readmission rates, and preventable outpatient visits.
• Cost Savings: Direct savings from optimized medication regimens (e.g., generic substitutions, reduced waste), and indirect savings from avoided hospitalizations or ED visits.
• Patient Satisfaction: Improved patient understanding of their medications, enhanced self-management capabilities, and overall satisfaction with their care team.
• Provider Workflow Efficiency: Quantifying the time saved for physicians and nurses when pharmacists manage medication-related issues.

Investing in data collection systems, conducting rigorous outcome studies, and leveraging electronic health records (EHRs) to document interventions and their impact are non-negotiable for future reimbursement success. Professional organizations, academic institutions, and individual practitioners must collaborate to build a compelling and continuously updated evidence base for pharmacists’ value.

6.6. Expanding Collaborative Practice Agreements with Embedded Reimbursement

Building upon existing CPA frameworks, future efforts must focus on developing standardized templates and state regulations that explicitly link CPA-enabled services to direct reimbursement. This means:

• Specific Billing Codes: Advocating for the creation or adoption of CPT codes that pharmacists can bill directly when performing services authorized under a CPA.
• Payer Recognition: Working with state Medicaid agencies and commercial payers to ensure that services provided under CPAs are covered benefits when delivered by pharmacists.
• State Mandates: Encouraging states to follow Maryland’s lead in mandating payer recognition and reimbursement for pharmacist services within their scope of practice, especially for those delivered under CPAs.

By formalizing reimbursement within the CPA structure, states can significantly expand access to pharmacist-led care without waiting for federal action.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Challenges and Future Outlook

Despite significant progress and growing recognition, several formidable challenges remain in fully realizing the integration and sustainable reimbursement of pharmacists into direct patient care:

• Workforce Readiness: Ensuring that the pharmacy workforce is adequately trained and confident in delivering advanced clinical services, particularly in areas like chronic disease management and physical assessment. This requires reforms in pharmacy education and robust continuing professional development programs.
• Interprofessional Collaboration: Overcoming historical professional silos and fostering genuine interprofessional collaboration among physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. This involves mutual understanding of scopes of practice, shared decision-making, and effective communication channels.
• Technological Infrastructure: Ensuring seamless integration of pharmacists into electronic health records (EHRs), allowing for comprehensive documentation, easy communication, and efficient billing. Interoperability remains a significant hurdle.
• Policy Complexity and Variability: The patchwork of state laws regarding scope of practice, credentialing, and reimbursement creates a highly complex environment that hinders widespread adoption and scalability.
• Public Awareness: Educating the public and patients about the evolving roles of pharmacists beyond dispensing. Many patients are still unaware of the clinical services pharmacists can provide, limiting demand and adoption.

The future outlook for pharmacist reimbursement is cautiously optimistic. The undeniable evidence of pharmacists’ value in improving outcomes and reducing costs, coupled with an increasing demand for accessible healthcare and chronic disease management, creates a powerful impetus for change. The momentum generated by state-level successes and ongoing federal advocacy for provider status suggests a gradual but inevitable shift towards greater recognition and compensation. As value-based care models mature and technology advances, pharmacists are poised to play an even more central role in optimizing medication use and enhancing public health. The path forward requires persistent advocacy, continued demonstration of value, and a commitment to innovation in payment models.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

8. Conclusion

The integration of pharmacists into direct patient care represents one of the most promising avenues for enhancing healthcare outcomes, improving patient safety, and alleviating the pervasive strain on primary care providers in the contemporary healthcare landscape. Pharmacists possess an unparalleled expertise in pharmacotherapy, making them indispensable members of the patient care team for managing complex medication regimens, preventing adverse drug events, and optimizing chronic disease management. However, the full realization of this potential remains constrained by a persistent and multifaceted challenge: the inadequacy and inconsistency of current reimbursement models that largely fail to compensate pharmacists for their critical cognitive services.

This comprehensive report has underscored the limitations of traditional fee-for-service models, which are inherently ill-suited to value non-dispensing clinical interventions. It has explored the promising, yet often underdeveloped, mechanisms within emerging value-based care frameworks, highlighting the natural alignment between pharmacists’ contributions and the goals of quality improvement and cost reduction. A detailed examination of state-level initiatives and successful international models, particularly in Canada and the the United Kingdom, provides compelling evidence and practical blueprints for how comprehensive pharmacist integration and equitable reimbursement can be achieved. Crucially, the report has emphasized the strategic and collaborative advocacy efforts required to secure federal ‘provider status’ for pharmacists, recognizing this as a pivotal step towards standardizing reimbursement and fully integrating pharmacists into the national healthcare payment system. Beyond provider status, the development of sustainable financial mechanisms demands a blend of innovative payment models, including capitated payments, risk-sharing agreements, and a greater emphasis on direct employment within integrated health systems. Fundamental to the success of all these strategies is the relentless collection and dissemination of robust data, unequivocally demonstrating the economic and clinical value proposition of pharmacist-led care.

In essence, unlocking the full potential of pharmacists is not merely a professional aspiration but a strategic imperative for a more efficient, equitable, and patient-centered healthcare system. It necessitates a collaborative commitment from pharmacists, professional organizations, policymakers, and patients alike to champion and implement the systemic changes required. By establishing fair and consistent reimbursement, we can ensure that pharmacists are empowered to deliver the full spectrum of their expertise, ultimately transforming patient care and advancing public health nationwide.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. (2025). 2025 Advocacy Agenda. Retrieved from ashp.org
• American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. (2025). Provider Status Means More than Medicare Part B. Retrieved from news.ashp.org
• American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. (2023). States Expand Pharmacist Provider Status CMM. Retrieved from news.ashp.org
• American Pharmacists Association. (2023). National Pharmacist Organizations Applaud House Introduction of Provider Status Legislation. Retrieved from news.ashp.org
• American Pharmacists Association. (2023). Provider Status is About Patients. Retrieved from pharmacist.com
• American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. (2025). 2024 Advocacy Wins and What’s Next in 2025. Retrieved from ashp.org
• Maryland Pharmacists Association. (2023). Advocacy. Retrieved from marylandpharmacist.org
• Summit Health Advisors. (2025). Summit Health Advisors Receives $98,000 Grant to Enhance Pharmacist Reimbursement Models. Retrieved from prnewswire.com
• Wikipedia. (2025). Collaborative Practice Agreement. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org
• Wikipedia. (2025). Joint Commission of Pharmacy Practitioners. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org
• Wikipedia. (2025). American Association of Psychiatric Pharmacists. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org
• Wikipedia. (2025). Texas Pharmacy Association. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org
• Canadian Pharmacists Association. (2024). Scope of Practice. Retrieved from pharmacists.ca
• NHS England. (2024). Pharmacy Integration Programme. Retrieved from england.nhs.uk
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2024). Value-Based Programs. Retrieved from cms.gov
• American Medical Association. (2024). CPT Code Updates. Retrieved from ama-assn.org
• Joint Commission. (2024). Accreditation and Certification. Retrieved from jointcommission.org