<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are you ready for community pharmacy practice standards?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.pharmacist.com/tmenighan/index.php/2009/10/16/are-you-ready-for-community-pharmacy-practice-standards/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.pharmacist.com/tmenighan/index.php/2009/10/16/are-you-ready-for-community-pharmacy-practice-standards/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:09:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve</title>
		<link>http://blog.pharmacist.com/tmenighan/index.php/2009/10/16/are-you-ready-for-community-pharmacy-practice-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-482</link>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:43:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pharmacist.com/tmenighan/?p=436#comment-482</guid>
		<description>Tom, this is a great editorial and does a fine job in ringing the opening bell at what is sure to be a long, hard-fought tussle over the future of MTM-2. However, I think it is all for naught if there is no mandate of reimbursement for these services at retail in some manner, where a majority of MTM opportunties take place. The responsibility of providing retail-based MTM services will fall on the practitioner following mandates from corporate offices at the same time that the number of patients receiving pharmaceutical services continmues to increase. Not to mention current trends in third party reimbursements continue. Maybe capitation is appropriate; the Iowa Medicaid capitation project, one of the many reimbursement projects I have practiced under in my career, may have been three decades ahead of its time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom, this is a great editorial and does a fine job in ringing the opening bell at what is sure to be a long, hard-fought tussle over the future of MTM-2. However, I think it is all for naught if there is no mandate of reimbursement for these services at retail in some manner, where a majority of MTM opportunties take place. The responsibility of providing retail-based MTM services will fall on the practitioner following mandates from corporate offices at the same time that the number of patients receiving pharmaceutical services continmues to increase. Not to mention current trends in third party reimbursements continue. Maybe capitation is appropriate; the Iowa Medicaid capitation project, one of the many reimbursement projects I have practiced under in my career, may have been three decades ahead of its time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

