Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hiv Prep topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Researchers outline statewide study to map pharmacy access to oral and injectable PrEP and ask board for input
Summary
A University of California research team told the board it will survey a representative sample of California community pharmacies and pharmacists, use a mystery‑shopper design and discrete‑choice experiments, and interview pharmacists and PrEP users to identify implementation barriers to oral and long‑acting injectable PrEP.
A California research team presented plans on Feb. 6 to study how community pharmacies in the state can implement pre‑exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV — including the newer long‑acting injectable agents — and asked the California Board of Pharmacy for input and channels for dissemination.
Study design in brief The investigators described a two‑part, statewide approach: a mystery‑shopper (secret‑shopper) telephone survey of a representative sample of community pharmacies to measure whether pharmacist‑initiated PrEP services are available, and a second, longer individual survey of pharmacists, managers and owners from the sampled pharmacies about barriers and facilitators.
A third component will measure pharmacist preferences for different implementation models using a discrete choice experiment, and the team will add qualitative interviews with pharmacists and with people who use or would benefit from PrEP to contextualize the survey data.
Why it matters Study leaders said earlier work showed high pharmacist willingness in convenience samples but low observable provision of pharmacist‑initiated PrEP; the new study will use representative pharmacy‑level sampling and oversample independent and rural pharmacies so findings can indicate where targeted support could increase access.
What the presenters asked the board to consider The research team asked the board for practical input about: key implementation measures to track; how to get findings to stakeholders and payers; and whether the board wants to host or redistribute results and toolkits for pharmacies. Presenters noted reimbursement and benefit design (medical vs. pharmacy benefit for long‑acting products), supply and workflow for in‑pharmacy administration, and liability and privacy requirements as critical topics the study should examine.
Board response and next steps Board members welcomed the study and suggested the Communication and Public Education Committee help with dissemination plans. Members flagged two operational points for the team to examine: whether insurers assign long‑acting agents to medical rather than pharmacy benefits (which complicates on‑site dispensing) and whether state or local public‑health agencies could help finance pilot implementations in underserved areas.
Ending Researchers said data collection will begin later in spring and that they will return to brief the board on results and potential pilot designs; board members asked staff to keep the research team informed about committee opportunities for follow‑up and dissemination.
