User login
TOPLINE:
Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
- Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
- Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
- PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
- A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.
TAKEAWAY:
- Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
- Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
- High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
- Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.
IN PRACTICE:
“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.
DISCLOSURES:
No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
- Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
- Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
- PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
- A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.
TAKEAWAY:
- Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
- Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
- High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
- Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.
IN PRACTICE:
“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.
DISCLOSURES:
No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
- Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
- Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
- PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
- A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.
TAKEAWAY:
- Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
- Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
- High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
- Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.
IN PRACTICE:
“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.
DISCLOSURES:
No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.