Opportunities for pharmacist prescriptive authority of buprenorphine following passage of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act

Regulating Pharmacist Clinical Services: Is Legal Silence Golden or Deafening?

In the United States, the scope of practice of pharmacists is determined primarily at the state level. Not all state laws expressly permit or prohibit pharmacists from providing certain services; in between is a grey area of legal silence. Does legal silence permit pharmacists to perform a service that is not specifically permitted, but not expressly prohibited? Point-of-care testing provides a useful case study in legal silence: there are 1536 pharmacies currently holding a CLIA-waiver to administer tests in states reporting that pharmacists are not expressly permitted to administer tests. Legal silence may even provide a better framework for pharmacy based testing as it is naturally inclusive of any point-of-care test and no laws need updated when a new test comes to the market. Other health professions navigate this legal silence by governing according to a "standard of care." Rather than specifying a list of services a health professional can or cannot provide in law, it provides a flexible framework for the health professional to provide any service that other similarly situated health professionals would provide in the same or similar situation. A standard of care regulatory framework should thus be the target of the pharmacy profession in order to advance patient care.

Pharmacist-prescriber collaborative models of care for opioid use disorder: an overview of recent research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Collaborative models of care where pharmacists work alongside physicians have been developed for a range of physical health conditions, with benefits including improved patient outcomes and increased access to ongoing care. Opioid agonist treatment (methadone and buprenorphine) is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for opioid use disorder that is under-utilized in many countries due to a shortage of prescribers. In recent years, there has been increased interest in the development of collaborative models that utilize pharmacists to overcome barriers to treatment. In this article, we present a narrative review to synthesise recent work in this rapidly developing area.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two key aspects of opioid agonist treatment were identified: Collaborative models have utilized pharmacists to facilitate buprenorphine induction, and collaborative models provide increased capacity for delivering ongoing care in a variety of settings and patient groups where prescriber access is limited. Pharmacists have undertaken direct patient care responsibilities with varying degrees of autonomy, with benefits including a reduction in prescriber workload, and improvements in treatment retention and continuity of care.

SUMMARY

Collaborative models in which pharmacists are responsible for buprenorphine induction and ongoing management with methadone and buprenorphine have been shown to reduce demands on prescribers while improving or maintaining patient outcomes, and appear feasible and acceptable in a wide range of outpatient settings.

Buprenorphine Use for Analgesia in Palliative Care

Buprenorphine is a semi-synthetic long-acting partial µ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonist that can be used for chronic pain as a sublingual tablet, transdermal patch (Butrans®), or a buccal film (Belbuca®). Buprenorphine's unique high receptor binding affinity and slow dissociation at the MOR allow for effective analgesia while offering less adverse effects compared to a full agonist opioid, in particular, less concern for respiratory depression and constipation. It is underused in chronic pain and palliative care due to misconceptions and stigma from its use in opioid use disorder (OUD). This case report discusses the unique pharmacology of buprenorphine, including its advantages, disadvantages, available formulations, drug-drug interactions, initiation and conversion strategies, and identifies ideal populations for use, especially within the palliative care patient population.

Pharmacist Prescribing Models for HIV Pre-exposure and Post-exposure Prophylaxis

State strategies for pharmacist prescribing exist on a continuum from most restrictive to least restrictive. Using human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis as a case study, there are 3 viable pharmacist prescribing models: (1) population-based collaborative practice agreements; (2) government protocols; and (3) standard of care prescribing. The advantages and disadvantages of these 3 models are reviewed.

Access to community pharmacies based on drive time and by rurality across the contiguous United States

BACKGROUND

Considering that mail-order pharmacy use remains low in the United States, geographic accessibility of community pharmacies (pharmacy access) can have an outsized impact on a community's access to services and care, especially among rural residents. However, previous measurements of pharmacy access rely on methods that do not capture all aspects of geographic access.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to measure pharmacy access across the contiguous United States and by rural, suburban, and urban areas using drive-time analysis and an improved methodological approach.

METHODS

The 2-step floating catchment area method was used to measure pharmacy access by considering the supply capacity of pharmacies, population demand for pharmacies, and the interaction between them within a reasonable travel time range. This method is a methodologically improved approach compared with previous methods for measuring geographic access. Network analysis was used to measure drive time from the population-weighted centroids of census tracts to the geocoded location of community pharmacies. Census tract-level pharmacy access was measured using a 10- and 20-minute drive time. Census tracts were also categorized based on population per square mile as rural (< 1000), suburban (1000-3000), and urban (> 3000).

RESULTS

Across the contiguous United States, 79.9% and 91.1% of census tracts had access to at least 1 pharmacy per 10,000 people within a 10- and 20-minute drive time, respectively. Rural census tracts had the lowest share of access to at least 1 pharmacy per 10,000 people compared with suburban and urban tracts and for both drive times.

CONCLUSION

Community pharmacies are highly accessible health care access points, specifically in urban and suburban areas. Pharmacies should be considered to expand access to services with limited geographic accessibility such as treatment programs for opioid use disorders, primary care, and healthy foods.

Knowledge, practice and attitudes regarding substance use disorder treatment and harm reduction strategies among pharmacists: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacists provide a spectrum of services and comprehensive medication management for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) with many providing timely and increased access to care for patients. Prior studies have evaluated other healthcare professionals' attitudes, knowledge and practice in regard to SUD treatment and harm reduction services. However, no reviews to date summarise the available literature on the attitudes, knowledge and practice in regard to SUD treatment and harm reduction services from the pharmacist perspective. This scoping review aims to systematically map the extent, range and nature of available evidence and identify and describe gaps in knowledge, practice and attitudes towards SUD treatment among pharmacists with the goal of providing information for meaningful integration of pharmacists into SUD care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) updated with recommendations by Levac et al (2010) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (2020). The protocol is registered via Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/92dek). We will search for peer-reviewed literature containing empirical evidence investigating SUD treatment or harm reduction with outcomes pertaining to the knowledge, practice or attitudes of pharmacists. Findings will be guided and assessed by research objectives and summarised using descriptive statistics and thematically for quantitative and qualitative findings, respectively. This review will be conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Our findings will provide crucial information and support for future interventions and programmes which aim to meaningfully integrate pharmacists into SUD care. We will disseminate findings at conferences and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, we will integrate feedback on search strategy, data extraction and our dissemination approach from multidisciplinary collaborators including those within our team's institution and outside experts with clinical or administrative knowledge in SUD care.

How to implement a "standard of care" regulatory model for pharmacists

National pharmacy associations have increasingly explored regulation according to a "standard of care." In such a model, pharmacists can provide a wide range of clinical services aligned with their education and training. Based on Idaho's experience implementing this model, there are five critical steps states must take to enact a standard of care: 1) Adopt a broad definition of "practice of pharmacy;" 2) Allow elasticity for practice innovation over time; 3) Decide which limited instances still necessitate prescriptive regulation; 4) Eliminate all unnecessary regulations; and 5) Strengthen accountability for deviations from the standard of care. States wishing to adopt a standard of care approach can follow this five-step process to enhance patient care and mitigate the lag that is otherwise constant between laws and practice.

Implementation of the California advanced practice pharmacist and the continued disappointment of tiered licensure

The Advanced Practice Pharmacist (APh) designation in California was created via legislation 10 years ago. California pharmacists who meet certain criteria can be designated as an APh and unlock additional practice authority. Just 1065 pharmacists, or 2% of licensed California pharmacists, have obtained the APh designation through 2022. APhs did not report benefiting from the designation as it relates to expanded scope of practice. This experience of low uptake and minimal benefit mirrors the tiered licenses created by three other states. More recent legislation broadened the independent prescriptive authority of APhs, but this increased value proposition aligns with the practice authority adopted by other states who have imposed fewer barriers to entry. Given the track record observed to date, we doubt that tiered licensure will ever prove successful in the pharmacy profession. Instead, state policymakers and pharmacy advocates should consider adopting a "standard of care" regulatory approach to improve patient access to safe and beneficial pharmacist services.