Association between distance to community health care facilities and COVID-19-related mortality across U.S. counties in the COVID-19-vaccine era.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has caused tremendous damage to U.S. public health, but COVID vaccines can effectively reduce the risk of COVID-19 infections and related mortality. Our study aimed to quantify the association between proximity to a community healthcare facility and COVID-19 related mortality after COVID vaccines became publicly available and explore how this association varied across racial and ethnic groups. RESULTS: Residents living farther from a facility had higher COVID-19-related mortality across U.S. counties. This increased mortality incidence associated with longer distances was particularly pronounced in counties with higher proportions of Black and Hispanic populations.

Racial disparities in access to health care infrastructure across US counties: A geographic information systems analysis.

Infrastructure system in the U.S. have been shown to be linked to social and health inequities. We calculated driving distance to the closest health care facility for a representative sample of the U.S. population using ArcGIS Network Analyst and a national transportation dataset, and identified areas where Black residents have a longer driving distance to the closest facility than White residents. Our data demonstrated that racial disparities in access to health care facilities presented large geographic variation. Counties with significant racial disparities were concentrated in the Southeast and did not correspond to counties with a greater proportion of the overall population >5 miles to the closest facility, which were concentrated in the Midwest. This geographic variation demonstrates the need to adopt a spatially explicit data driven approach in the design of equitable health care facility establishment that address the specific limitations of the local infrastructure.

Association of Research and Development Investments With Treatment Costs for New Drugs Approved From 2009 to 2018.

Importance: Drug companies frequently claim that high prices are needed to recoup spending on research and development. If high research and development costs justified high drug prices, then an association between these 2 measures would be expected. Objective: To examine the association between treatment costs and research and development investments for new therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed 60 drugs approved by the FDA between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, for which data on research and development investments and list or net prices were available. Data sources included the FDA and SSR Health databases. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary independent variable was estimated research and development investment. The outcome was standardized treatment costs (ie, annual treatment costs for both chronic and cycle drugs, and treatment costs for the maximum length of treatment recommended for acute drugs). Standardized treatment costs were estimated separately using list and net prices obtained from SSR Health at the time of launch and in 2021. To test the association between research and development investments and treatment costs, correlation coefficients were estimated and linear regression models were fitted that controlled for other factors that were associated with treatment costs, such as orphan status. Two models were used: a fully adjusted model that was adjusted for all variables in the data set associated with treatment costs and a parsimonious model in which highly correlated variables were excluded. Results: No correlation was observed between estimated research and development investments and log-adjusted treatment costs based on list prices at launch (R = -0.02 and R2 = 0.0005; P = .87) or net prices 1 year after launch (R = 0.08 and R2 = 0.007; P = .73). This result held when 2021 prices were used to estimate treatment costs. The linear regression models showed no association between estimated research and development investments and log-adjusted treatment costs at launch (ß = 0.002 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02; P = .84] in the fully adjusted model; ß = 0.01 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .46] in the parsimonious model) or from 2021 (ß = -0.01 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.01; P = .30] in the fully adjusted model; ß = -0.004 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02; P = .66] in the parsimonious model). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study indicated that research and development investments did not explain the variation in list prices for the 60 drugs in this sample. Drug companies should make further data available to support their claims that high drug prices are needed to recover research and development investments, if they are to continue to use this argument to justify high prices.

Income disparities in driving distance to health care infrastructure in the United States: a geographic information systems analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Inequities in access to health care contribute to persisting disparities in health care outcomes. We constructed a geographic information systems analysis to test the association between income and access to the existing health care infrastructure in a nationally representative sample of US residents. Using income and household size data, we calculated the odds ratio of having a distance > 10 miles in nonmetropolitan counties or > 1 mile in metropolitan counties to the closest facility for low-income residents (i.e., < 200% Federal Poverty Level), compared to non-low-income residents. RESULTS: We identified that in 954 counties (207 metropolitan counties and 747 nonmetropolitan counties) representing over 14% of the US population, low-income residents have poorer access to health care facilities. Our analyses demonstrate the high prevalence of structural disparities in health care access across the entire US, which contribute to the perpetuation of disparities in health care outcomes.

Evaluation of Frequency of Encounters With Primary Care Physicians vs Visits to Community Pharmacies Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: The shift toward value-based care has placed emphasis on preventive care and chronic disease management services delivered by multidisciplinary health care teams. Community pharmacists are particularly well positioned to deliver these services due to their accessibility. Objective: To compare the number of patient visits to community pharmacies and the number of encounters with primary care physicians among Medicare beneficiaries who actively access health care services. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed a 5% random sample of 2016 Medicare beneficiaries from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016 (N = 2 794 078). Data were analyzed from October 23, 2019, to December 20, 2019. Medicare Part D beneficiaries who were continuously enrolled and had at least 1 pharmacy claim and 1 encounter with a primary care physician were included in the final analysis (n = 681 456). Those excluded from the study were patients who were not continuously enrolled in Part D until death, those with Part B skilled nursing claims, and those with Part D mail-order pharmacy claims. Exposures: We conducted analyses for the overall sample and for subgroups defined by demographics, region of residence, and clinical characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the number of visits to community pharmacies and encounters with primary care physicians. Unique visits to the community pharmacy were defined using a 13-day window between individual prescription drug claims. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare the medians for the 2 outcomes. Results: A total of 681 456 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.0 [12.5] years; 418 685 [61.4%] women and 262 771 [38.6%] men) were included in the analysis; 82.2% were white, 9.6% were black, 2.4% were Hispanic, and 5.7% were other races/ethnicities. Visits to the community pharmacy outnumbered encounters with primary care physicians (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 13 [9-17] vs 7 [4-14]; P < .001). The number of pharmacy visits was significantly larger than the number of primary care physician encounters for all subgroups evaluated except for those with acute myocardial infarction (median [IQR], 15 [12-19] vs 14 [7-26]; P = .60 using a 13-day window). The difference in the number of pharmacy and primary care physician encounters was larger in rural areas (median [IQR], 14 [10-17] vs 5 [2-11]; P < .001) than in metropolitan areas (median [IQR], 13 [8-17] vs 8 [4-14]; P < .001). In all 50 states and in all but 9 counties, the number of community pharmacy visits was larger than the number of encounters with primary care physicians. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study suggests that community pharmacists are accessible health care professionals with frequent opportunities to interact with community-dwelling patients. Primary care physicians should work collaboratively with community pharmacists, who can assist in the delivery of preventive care and chronic disease management.

Implementation of comprehensive medication management at supermarket pharmacies in a pharmacy network.

OBJECTIVE: To garner experience with the early implementation of pharmacist-provided comprehensive medication management at a regional supermarket pharmacy during the initial launch of a statewide community pharmacy enhanced services network payer contract. METHODS: A series of key informant interviews were conducted with pharmacists at Giant Eagle Pharmacy locations in Pennsylvania. To be eligible to participate, pharmacists must have been trained by the Pennsylvania Pharmacists Care Network to deliver contracted comprehensive medication management services and willing to participate in audio recorded, telephonic interviews every 2 weeks. Interviews concluded when each pharmacist completed a total of 6 interviews or when the project period ended. A semistructured interview guide was developed by the investigators to elicit the pharmacists' experience providing contracted services. Interviews were transcribed and coded by 2 independent investigators. Coding discrepancies were resolved. The final coded transcripts were presented back to the project team to identify and finalize major themes. Illustrative quotes were selected to represent each theme. RESULTS: Interviews from 10 pharmacists were included in the analysis. Five themes emerged as keys of successful early implementation: (1) promote commitment of the pharmacy team, (2) use effective whole-team patient engagement strategies, (3) personalize patient encounters by providing patient-centered care and practicing interpersonal skills, (4) make workflow and staffing resources easily accessible, and (5) make clinical patient care tools readily available. CONCLUSION: These results highlight thematic trends for how pharmacists can successfully engage their patients in contracted comprehensive medication management services. Understanding the success of early implementation at a regional supermarket pharmacy can serve as a framework for other participants in community pharmacy enhanced services networks to replicate and scale contracted patient care services.

Comparison of two Medication Therapy Management Practice Models on Return on Investment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the return on investment (ROI) of an integrated practice model versus a "hub and spoke" practice model of pharmacist provided medication therapy management (MTM). METHODS: A cohort retrospective analysis of MTM claims billed in 76 pharmacies in North Carolina in the 2010 hub and spoke practice model and the 2012 "integrated" practice model were analyzed to calculate the ROI. RESULTS: In 2010, 4089 patients received an MTM resulting in 8757 claims in the hub and spoke model. In 2012, 4896 patients received an MTM resulting in 13 730 claims in the integrated model. In 2010, US$165 897.26 was invested in pharmacist salary and $173 498.00 was received in reimbursement, resulting in an ROI of +US$7600.74 (+4.6%). In 2012, US$280 890.09 was invested in pharmacist salary and US$302 963 was received in reimbursement, resulting in an ROI of +US$22 072.91 or (+7.9%). CONCLUSION: The integrated model of MTM showed an increase in number of claims submitted and in number of patients receiving MTM services, ultimately resulting in a higher ROI. While a higher ROI was evident in the integrated model, both models resulted in positive ROI (1:12-1:21), highlighting that MTM programs can be cost effective with different strategies of execution.