- Advocate legislatively
- Provide education to members, the public, media and/or specific groups/stakeholders
WHEREAS the Minnesota Restricted Patient Program (MRRP) was developed to contain costs and improve care, it nevertheless can cause irreparable harm to patients by denying them essential medications;
WHEREAS recipients in the MRPP are restricted to one provider to authorize all care, including medications prescribed at hospital discharge;
WHEREAS primary physicians are unavailable at times and so patients fail to have their essential medications covered;
WHEREAS, when patients are unable to receive essential medications such as antibiotics or insulin, they have at times had their discharges delayed or have been readmitted;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Minnesota Restricted Patient Program be modified to only restrict controlled substances this would allow patients to receive essential medications.
Originally submitted resolution
BE IT RESOLVED that…
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that…
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that…
Supporting information
Comments in support (10)
Elizabeth Ingersent – Support however resolution is not grammatically correct – needs punctuation between “substances” and “this”.
Macaran Baird – Patients need access to these medications even if their primary prescriber is out of contact.
Thomas Seaworth – The providers “on call” partners should not be restricted.
Kenneth Ripp – Great common sense resolution.
Nancy Baker – I agree that it should only be the controlled substances that must be managed by the patient’s primary MD.
Dave Bucher – There are many barriers to care with the restricted patient program as it exists. Perhaps an “overhaul” in context of more enlightened awareness of SDOH would be useful at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Erin Westfall – I support this common sense resolution. It can lead to serious harm to patients if they are unable to fill their prescriptions when needed. I believe that there should be no medications under the restricted category, including controlled substances.
Chris Reif – Important for after hours coverage.
Robert Koshnick – I support the resolution as written. The basic concept of the Restricted Patient Program is to identify a primary care provider for patients who abuse the system, a concept that I support. I had a number of patients in this program, and it was useful to me to keep track of my high medical care utilization patients. European systems often require people to choose a primary care provider to coordinate their medical care. My theory is that medical care costs might plummet if everyone had a direct primary care provider to coordinate their medical care.
Keith Johnson – I agree with limiting restriction to controlled substances only. Complete restriction leads to delays in care, suboptimal care, and significant administrative burden on primary care providers.
Comments against (5)
Carrie Link – This resolution doesn’t go far enough. Restricting to controlled substances alone is still a major problem, because patients with chronic pain still need to get their pregabalin refills, and patients with ADHD need stimulants, and these medications have nothing to do with saving system cost by restricting the patient to one provider. The restricted program should not be a proxy for monitoring controlled substances, that’s why the PDMP exists. The restricted program does not benefit patients, and it can be random, requiring patients to travel far distances to see physicians they don’t know, in systems they are never been affiliated with. It is also a burden to physicians. I support the spirit of this resolution completely but I don’t think this change will result in any significant improvement. The restricted program has to go.
Andrew Slattengren – I support the concept of decreasing this program’s ability to cause harm to patients and feel that this program puts inappropriate burdens on the providers who are identified as their restricted provider. The resolution as written does not identify how we define “essential”.
Kim Krohn – This is a serious issue, and I support efforts to modify the program. However I believe the resolutions should be more specific about appropriate changes. The current resolution is too vague.
Glenn Nemec – I do support changes in the program that would strengthen the patient/provider connection. This resolution might help one small slice of that larger problem, but I would prefer to see work that would lead to improving that connection while still avoiding the multiple provider/doctor shopping problems that it was meant to address. The program needs way more work than this.
Margaret Kirkegaard – The program should have an opportunity for patients to get a limited Rx of all medications and then be referred back to their primary care provider for ongoing care coordination. I don’t think that the Resolution as written is useful.
