Top

Archive | News

Pharmacy Deserts – An Emerging Concept

What are pharmacy deserts?

You’ve heard the term “food deserts” – defined by USDA as, “urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food”. Pharmacy or medication deserts are analogous. The researchers who coined the phrase note they are defined by

“the low availability of the most commonly dispensed prescription medications in these areas.” (Amstislavski et al, 2012).

The concept builds on earlier geographic work examining not only the location of pharmacies, but variations in how pharmacies are stocked in neighborhoods of lower socio-economic status, or neighborhoods with large African-American or Hispanic populations. Researchers (and pharmacy student research assistants) mapped pharmacies in neighborhoods throughout New York City, and obtained information about pricing and stock availability for 13 frequently prescribed medications. They found variability in pricing as well as the pharmacy’s stocking of the prescriptions, and concluded,

“In extreme cases, entire communities could be deemed ‘medication deserts’ because geographic access to pharmacies and the availability of the most prescribed medications within them were very poor.”

Pharmacy deserts

 

Awareness of the role of pharmacies in access to care is growing.

The journal, Health Affairs, just published an article on Pharmacy Deserts in Chicago, “‘Pharmacy Deserts’ Are Prevalent In Chicago’s Predominantly Minority Communities, Raising Medication Access Concerns” (Qato et al, 2014), and the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) picked up on this issue in a commendable way, noting that,

“About 32 percent of Chicago’s 802 communities were “pharmacy deserts,” meaning their residents met the researchers’ criteria for both low pharmacy access and low income.”

They also noted that,

“Between 2000 and 2012, pharmacy disparities worsened. While the number of pharmacies (particularly chains) in majority-white communities increased 20 percent during that time period, there was no such expansion in minority communities.”

These recent studies underscore the importance of taking a broad approach when considering access to care and treatments. Patients with insurance coverage may have limited access to care if they live in neighborhoods without pharmacies, or if the pharmacies in their neighborhood don’t stock needed medications.

If you’re interested in the issue of access to pharmacies take a look at these earlier publications:

  1. Bernstein et al., Disparities in access to over-the-counter nicotine replacement products in New York City pharmacies. Am J Public Health. 2009 Sep;99(9):1699-704.
  2. Cooper H, Bossak B, Tempalski B, Friedman S, Des Jariais D. Temporal trends in spatial access to pharmacies that sell over-the-counter syringes in New York City health districts: relationship to local racial/ethnic composition and need. J Urban Health. 2009;86(6):929-945.
  3. Morrison RS, Wallenstein S, Natale DK, Senzel RS, Huang LL. “We don’t carry that”–failure of pharmacies in predominantly nonwhite neighborhoods to stock opioid analgesics. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(14):1023-1026.

Ebola – Is Public Health an Organized Sport, or Just a Pick-up Game?

The recent Ebola cases and fatality have triggered a collective process of finger pointing as we struggle to understand events and hold someone accountable.

Ebola Public Health

Hence, the television footage of health officials hauled off to Congress, accusatory headlines (“Alarming stumbles by the C.D.C.”) and appointment of czars. In the desire to pin the blame somewhere, notably the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we overlook the essential fact that in the United States public health responsibilities are fragmented among federal agencies, and decentralized throughout state and local government. The laws and regulations governing public health activities at federal, state and local levels is truly wonky terrain, but understanding these details is critical to being able to improve our response to public health emergencies. We need to know who actually has the authority to deal with specific public health functions and who should be held accountable (spoiler alert – it is not the Czar, nor the Secretary at DHHS, nor the Surgeon General, nor the Director of CDC). Often, it is a state health official, local health official or professional organization.

Let’s look at one of the most basic public health functions – disease surveillance and reporting. Reporting is the first step in preventing and controlling the spread of disease. We need to know about cases before we can take actions. One would think it would be mandatory. Not so. The US National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System or NNDSS) is VOLUNTARY. The CDC role in this system is not voluntary, but is limited to receiving reports from states and publishing the data in an annual report.

Who decides which diseases are to be reported? “Public health officials at state health departments and CDC collaborate in determining which diseases should be nationally notifiable.” Do all states collect data on notifiable diseases? “States and jurisdictions are sovereign entities. Reportable conditions are determined by laws and regulations of each state and jurisdiction. It is possible that some conditions deemed nationally notifiable might not be reportable in certain states or jurisdictions.” This means that our national data and statistics on notifiable diseases are incomplete. Are states required to report notifiable diseases to the CDC? “Although disease reporting is mandated by legislation or regulation at the state and local levels, state reporting to CDC is voluntary”. This means that the state and local governments decide and mandate the data that are to be collected, not the CDC, not the federal government. The CDC works within this voluntary network to assemble and publish the best data it can.

The CDC is fundamentally an information organization. It conducts scientific investigations, analyzes laboratory samples, designs systems for collecting data, prepares and distributes information, publishes reports, and makes recommendations. It has relatively few powers. Authority to close down a restaurant? Local health departments. Authority to close a poultry plant? The US Department of Agriculture. Authority to recall a food item from the supermarket shelves? FDA, and, if it is a meat product, the US Department of Agriculture. What about the authorities to mandate that hospitals train their staff in safe procedures for treating Ebola, or mandate that hospitals maintain supplies of protective gear in the event of an Ebola case? I don’t know the answer to either of these questions, but I am betting that: a) it is different for each state, b) it may not exist in many states, c) the authority, if present, will reside in a hodge podge of state and local sanitation, labor, and health departments (protecting and training staff might be a labor issue as well as a health issue). While the CDC can recommend a certain level of preparedness, it does not have the powers to conduct audits or enforce recommendations. The level of preparedness at hospitals throughout the nation depends largely on decisions taken by hospital administrators to implement CDC recommendations, but there is no process in place to evaluate implementation or to correct inadequate implementation. Our only method of identifying non-adherence to recommendations is the occurrence of a major failure such as the one we have just seen at the hospital in Dallas.

The CDC prestige gives it some level of authority when making recommendations, but we shouldn’t confuse prestige with actual authority. CDC works effectively with states that value its input. In a foodborne outbreak, for example, states have the option of inviting the CDC to help it manage the outbreak – or not. When an outbreak is contained within state lines, the state health department is not required to call on the CDC, and not even required to report the outbreak – and some states don’t. As a result, the US has a calico pattern of statistics regarding foodborne outbreaks. States with strong food safety programs take a proactive approach to tracking down and identifying outbreaks, request CDC assistance with investigations, and report the outbreaks to the CDC; other states do just the opposite. Examine the CDC map that shows foodborne outbreaks by state. States with strong food safety programs have high rates of reported outbreaks! States with weak programs or no interest in reporting show few reported outbreaks. Take the example of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, three bordering states that are fairly similar to each other. In 2012 Ohio and Illinois each reported 1.8 – 5.2 viral foodborne outbreaks per million (on the high end), but neighboring Indiana reported ZERO! Other states reporting zero viral foodborne outbreaks in 2012 include Mississippi, Missourri, Alabama, Arkansas, and West Virginia. The data reflect reporting behaviors rather than the information we need about occurrence of viral foodborne outbreaks.

Ebola public health

Food borne outbreaks, reported by state.

The pattern of fragmentation and decentralization is not limited to data reporting, but is repeated over and over throughout our health care system and public health infrastructure. Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court upheld the rights of states to opt out of the biggest national health initiative of the last 50 years, the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion. The rewards in public health are the rewards of doing interesting and important work. Every CDC employee (or ex-employee) that I have ever known works with amazing dedication and takes their responsibilities with the utmost seriousness. All see themselves as public servants, and I have never heard any of them complain about the lack of resources or any other aspect of their work. Blaming the CDC for our unpreparedness in the face of Ebola is probably the least productive thing we can do right now. Instead, we need to strengthen all the pieces of our decentralized public health network so that every American is protected in times of public health emergencies. Expecting an agency with relatively limited powers, such as the CDC, to be held accountable for failures in a decentralized network won’t get us where we want to be.

Top notch information about the Ebola virus

In the fast-moving events around the current Ebola epidemic, information has been essential. Fortunately, excellent communication and information resources are available. Here’s a quick cheat sheet to find quick and reliable Ebola information.

Begin with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the government agency responsible for providing information on diseases to the public. Their Ebola information page covers Signs and Symptoms, Transmission, Risk of Exposure, Outbreaks, Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment and specific issues Healthcare workers. There’s a chronological timeline, Clinical Guidances, and Communication Resources including factsheets, inforgraphics, Banners, Posters, Videos and more.

Ebola information - contact-tracing, from the CDC

CDC infographic on contact tracing.

The BBC website has plenty of good coverage, covering a lot of material simply and clearly. Their page includes a diagram of the virus and the infection process, a map showing where Ebola deaths have occurred and an interactive visual describing the different parts of the protective Ebola suit.

The leading medical journals provide a mix of resources that include editorials, discussions of ethics, and technical information about the status of research activities. These include The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA, as well as the Lancet with its Ebola resource page, bringing an international perspective.

Improving Medicines for Children in Canada

“Studying medicines in children is always possible and is in their best interests”

A sentiment that can’t be repeated often enough.

The Council of Canadian Academies just released their report, Improving Medicines for Children in Canada, and while the title indicates a focus on Canada, much of the report is relevant to goal of improving medicines for children everywhere.

Children have historically been excluded from clinical trials and drug research to protect them from the risks of research.

As a result, there is a lack of information about medicines and how they affect children at different ages and stages of development. Throughout, the panel stresses the importance of including children in research,

The assumption that children must be protected from research is misguided. Children should be protected through research. Despite the many challenges to research with children, a range of methods and designs are increasingly accepted as ethically and scientifically sound. Demonstrating safety and efficacy of a medicine in studies with children is always feasible and desirable. It is now globally recognized that the medical community, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies have an ethical responsibility to design, conduct, and report on high-quality studies of medicines in children.

Key findings

As with so much of the report, the key findings are applicable in the US, Europe and elsewhere. As they note,

  • Children take medications, many of which have not been proven safe and effective for their use.
  • Children respond to medications differently from adults; thus, medicines must be studied in children and formulated for children.
  • Studying medicines in children is always possible and is in their best interests.

The panel reviewed a comprehensive body of information and brings together relevant science from several disciplines. As such, it provides a cogent synthesis of the many issues around pediatric medication use. It begins with a description of the current environment and regulations, variation in children’s response to medications, issues around formulation, and covers current approaches to studying efficacy in children, monitoring and studying the safety of drugs used by children, and a thoughtful discussion around practices to support safe and effective products for children.

Off-label use

The overview of the current environment provides this useful chart summarizing different types of off-label practices, with examples of both the authorized (on-label) and off-label use.

Medicines for children

Off-label practices

Variability in response to medications

Chapter 3 includes this schematic of the factors affecting variability in children’s responses to medications.

 

Medicines for children

CCA schematic – drug response in children

They return to this issue in their conclusions, as they underscore the affect of human development from infancy to youth, and its affect on clinical pharmacology,

As children progress from infancy through to adolescence, a number of significant developmental changes occur. These changes impact how their bodies deal with medications (pharmacokinetics) and how medications, in turn, affect their bodies (pharmacodynamics). These factors cannot be accommodated by simply adjusting an adult dose. The physiological systems that process drugs change over time, with the most dramatic age-related physiological changes taking place during the first year of life. A newborn will respond to a drug differently than an adolescent will, and this variability in response is not a linear progression but rather a dynamic process dependent on age, weight, the drugs and conditions involved, and individual and environmental factors.

The report concludes with a fervent call to action,

Children’s right to health includes a right to medicines that are well-studied and approved for use in their age group. Children deserve timely and equitable access to safe and effective treatments and care, including participation in research.

The Expert Panel on the State of Therapeutic Products for Infants, Children, and Youth was chaired by Dr. Stuart MacLeod, Professor of pediatrics at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

Pharmacy practice and health disparities

Pharmacy practice may affect racial and ethnic health disparities through any one of three pathways

The pharmacy and health disparities

When we think about the most frequent interactions in pharmacy practice – filling and dispensing prescriptions – it isn’t immediately obvious how racial and ethnic disparities might manifest themselves, or how the pharmacy can affect health disparities. Research about such disparities in pharmacy practice is in its early stages, and we are just beginning to learn about ways in which these disparities might occur.

Pharmacy and health disparities

infographic for Chapter 5, which highlights the three ways racial and ethnic health disparities may arise in pharmacy practice.

Chapter 5 of “What Pharmacists Need to Know About Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities” describes the research emerging in three areas:

Racial or ethnic differences in disease conditions, response to medication, or use of medication

Advances in genomics and pharmacogenomics have provided information about the genetic distribution of traits linked to disease and to drug metabolism. Pharmacists working with different populations may encounter different prevalences of certain conditions, as well as differences in patient responses to specific medications.

Racial and ethnic differences in health literacy or understanding about health and medications

Racial and ethnic groups vary in their understanding about their health and the medications prescribed for them. This variation may result from differences in education, language limitations, or cultural issues.

Racial and ethnic differences in access to pharmacy care

The issue of access to care encompasses a broad range of factors, including access to health insurance, income, coverage by Medicare and other insurers. It also encompasses broader definitions of access. Geography and transportation limit people’s ability to access many types of services, including pharmacies. If a person doesn’t live near a pharmacy or has no access to transportation, their access is limited. Similarly, if the pharmacy in their neighborhood does not stock what they need, their access to the care they need is limited.

More about the role of pharmacists in eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities in the book, “What Pharmacists Need to Know About Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities”.