Economic Impact of Increased Clinical Intervention Rates in Community Pharmacy A Randomised Trial of the Effect of Education and a Professional Allowance Shalom I. Benrimoj, 1 Jane H. Langford, 1 Geoffrey Berry, 2 David Collins, 3 Roberta Lauchlan, 4 Kay Stewart, 5 Michael Aristides 6 and Matthew Dobson 6 1 Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia 2 Department of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia 3 Department of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 4 Medical Benefits Fund of Australia, Sydney, Australia 5 Victorian College of Pharmacy, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia 6 M-TAG Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia Abstract Objective: To determine the economic impact of an interventional programme aimed to increase the rate of clinical interventions undertaken in community pharmacy. Study design and perspective: A randomised controlled trial of 4 parallel groups of pharmacies, conducted from a government perspective. Economic evaluations were based on savings/costs attributable to healthcare costs avoided, healthcare costs incurred by the pharmacists’ actions, change in medication costs, pharmacy time and telephone calls made by the pharmacist. The study was conducted during November and December 1996 and costings were based on 1997 figures. Interventions: A professional fee-for-service [10 Australian dollars ($A; $A1 = 6.50 US dollars) per intervention] and education (an intensive 1-week course or advanced education) were implemented in an attempt to increase clinical inter- ventions by the pharmacists. Group A pharmacies (n = 10) served as a control group and received neither education nor remuneration; group B received educa- tion and professional remuneration (n = 9); group C had received prior continued education and now received advanced education and professional remuneration (n = 11); and group D received professional remuneration with no education. Main outcome measures and results: The proactive clinical interventions in group C saved a mean of $A85.35 per 1000 prescriptions [95% confidence inter- val (CI) –$A157.11 to $A24.95). This was 4 times greater than savings generated by pharmacies in group B (mean savings of $A25.65 per 1000 prescriptions) and 6 times greater than control pharmacies. A sensitivity analysis which extrapolated results to Australian prescription figures showed that the control group was ca- pable of generating savings in the order of $A2.4 million per year while pharma- cists in group C would save the healthcare system $A15 million per year. ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE Pharmacoeconomics 2000 Nov; 18 (5): 459-468 1170-7690/00/0011-0459/$20.00/0 © Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.