Come back when you're infected: pharmacy access to sterile syringes in an Arizona Secret Shopper Study, 2023.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacies are critical healthcare partners in community efforts to eliminate bloodborne illnesses. Pharmacy sale of sterile syringes is central to this effort. METHODS: A mixed methods "secret shopper" syringe purchase study was conducted in the fall of 2022 with 38 community pharmacies in Maricopa and Pima Counties, Arizona. Pharmacies were geomapped to within 2 miles of areas identified as having a potentially high volume of illicit drug commerce. Daytime venue sampling was used whereby separate investigators with lived/living drug use experience attempted to purchase syringes without a prescription. Investigator response when prompted for purchase rationale was "to protect myself from HIV and hepatitis C." A 24-item instrument measured sales outcome, pharmacy staff interaction (hostile/neutral/friendly), and the buyer's subjective experience. RESULTS: Only 24.6% (n = 28) of 114 purchase attempts across the 38 pharmacies resulted in syringe sale. Less than one quarter (21.1%) of pharmacies always sold, while 44.7% never sold. Independent and food store pharmacies tended not to sell syringes. There emerged distinct pharmacy staff interactions characterized by body language, customer query, normalization or othering response, response to purchase request and closure. Pharmacy discretion and pharmacy policy not to sell syringes without a prescription limited sterile syringe access. Investigators reported frequent and adverse emotional impact due to pharmacy staff negative and stigmatizing interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacies miss opportunities to advance efforts to eliminate bloodborne infections by stringent no-sale policy and discretion about syringe sale. State regulatory policy facilitating pharmacy syringe sales, limiting pharmacist discretion for syringe sales, and targeting pharmacy-staff level education may help advance the achievement of public health goals to eliminate bloodborne infections in Arizona.

Insufficient Impact: Limited Implementation of Federal Regulatory Changes to Methadone and Buprenorphine Access in Arizona During COVID-19.

Introduction: This study examined the impact of federal regulatory changes on methadone and buprenorphine treatment during COVID-19 in Arizona. Methods: A cohort study of methadone and buprenorphine providers from September 14, 2021 to April 15, 2022 measured the proportion of 6 treatment accommodations implemented at 3 time periods: before COVID-19, during Arizona's COVID-19 shutdown, and at the time of the survey completion. Accommodations included (1) telehealth, (2) telehealth buprenorphine induction, (3) increased multiday dosing, (4) license reciprocity, (5) home medications delivery, and (6) off-site dispensing. A multilevel model assessed the association of treatment setting, rurality, and treatment with accommodation implementation time. Results: Over half (62.2%) of the 74-provider sample practiced in healthcare settings not primarily focused on addiction treatment, 19% practiced in methadone clinics, and 19% practiced in treatment clinics not offering methadone. Almost half (43%) were unaware of the regulatory changes allowing treatment accommodation. Telehealth was most frequently reported, increasing from 30% before COVID-19 to 80% at the time of the survey. Multiday dosing was the only accommodation substantially retracted after COVID-19 shutdown: from 41% to 23% at the time of the survey. Providers with higher patient limits were 2.5-3.2 times as likely to implement telehealth services, 4.4 times as likely to implement buprenorphine induction through telehealth, and 15.2-20.9 times as likely to implement license reciprocity as providers with lower patient limits. Providers of methadone implemented 12% more accommodations and maintained a higher average proportion of implemented accommodations during the COVID-19 shutdown period but were more likely to reduce the proportion of implemented accommodations (a 17-percentage point gap by the time of the survey). Conclusions: Federal regulatory changes are not sufficient to produce a substantive or sustained impact on provider accommodations, especially in methadone medical treatment settings. Practice change interventions specific to treatment settings should be implemented and studied for their impact.