Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (Washington, D.C. : 1996)最新文献

Objectives

Laws limiting access to sterile syringes impede the public health goal that injection drug users (IDUs) use a new, sterile syringe for every injection to reduce blood-borne disease transmission. We sought to determine the legality of selling or giving syringes to IDUs to prevent disease.

Design

We used standard legal research methods to identify and analyze laws and regulations influencing the distribution of syringes in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Results

A total of 51 jurisdictions had drug paraphernalia laws; 14 had syringe prescription laws or regulations; 11 required purchasers to show identification; 13 had legislation authorizing syringe exchange programs (SEPs). Since the beginning of the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic, 11 states have fully or partially deregulated syringe sales. Nonprescription retail syringe sales to IDUs for disease prevention purposes are clearly legal in 20 states, and have a reasonable claim to legality in 22 more. Sales to IDUs with a prescription are clearly illegal in only 3 jurisdictions. SEPs can operate legally in at least 21 states.

Conclusion

Syringe access laws in most states may reasonably be interpreted to allow pharmacists to sell syringes to IDUs to prevent disease. In practice, however, unclear laws and pharmacist uncertainty as to their interpretation may constitute continuing barriers to syringe access for IDUs. A comprehensive public policy of ensuring syringe access for IDUs requires eliminating legal barriers to the sale, possession, and disposal of syringes, and educating pharmacists and law enforcement officials about the legality and public health importance of sterile syringe access.

To review state laws and judicial decisions for potential barriers to proper syringe disposal by injection drug users (IDUs).

Design

Using standard legal research methods, this study reviewed drug paraphernalia, syringe prescription, drug possession, and syringe exchange laws and relevant case decisions in 59 jurisdictions.

Main Outcome Measures

Drug paraphernalia, syringe prescription, and drug possession laws

Results

Drug paraphernalia laws prohibit all possession of syringes by IDUs in 31 jurisdictions. Syringe prescription laws prohibit possession in 7 jurisdictions. In 53 jurisdictions, IDUs may be subject to prosecution for the possession of drug residue in used syringes. Only two states (HI, RI) have no legal barriers to safe syringe disposal by IDUs. Sixteen jurisdictions that have tried to expand syringe access for IDUs by authorizing SEPs or by deregulating pharmacy sale of syringes continue to have criminal law provisions that could pose barriers to proper disposal.

Conclusion

IDUs are a significant source of syringes disposed of outside the health care system. Involving IDUs in safe community sharps disposal programs is an important public health goal, but may be frustrated by legal barriers. Although this study looked only at law on the books, and not law as actually applied, ethnographic and survey research indicates that criminal laws do influence the syringe possession behavior of IDUs. The findings of this study suggest that syringe and drug possession laws could deter IDUs from participating in safe syringe disposal programs.

Objectives

To describe three models of how health insurance coverage can develop for health care goods and services and apply them to pharmacist services. Also, to raise readers’ awareness of the costs/tradeoffs involved in receiving third party reimbursements of insurance coverage from a health provider perspective.

Data Sources

Insurance theory and literature.

Summary

The three models for developing health insurance coverage are the risk-pooling model, the demand model, and the cost containment model. The risk-pooling model does not apply to coverage for pharmacist services because the cost of such services is not catastrophic and unpredictable. Applying both the demand model and the cost containment model to developing coverage for pharmacist services presents some challenges, but the demand model has been used more successfully to obtain insurance coverage for other health care goods and services. Potential costs and tradeoffs to the health care provider associated with insurance coverage are higher administrative costs, lower reimbursement rates, and loss of professional autonomy.

Conclusion

If pharmacists want to increase third party coverage for their services, the best approach may be to increase patient demand for insurance coverage by promoting and charging for pharmacist services. However, pharmacists should seriously consider whether the benefits of such coverage for their services outweigh the costs.