Recommendations for Home-Generated Pharmaceutical Collection Programs in California

Disclosure The presenter DOES NOT have an interest in selling a technology, program, product, and/or service to CME/CE professionals.

Objectives Gain a broader context Assess program types Compare free-market results 3

International Context 4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10

International Context 11

International Context 12

International Context 13

International Context 14

International Context 15

International Context 16

International Context 17

International Context 18

International Context 19

International Context 20

International Context 21

International Context 22

International Context 23

International Context 24

International Context 25

International Context 26

International Context 27

International Context 28

International Context 29

International Context 30

International Context 31

International Context 32

International Context 33

International Context 34

International Context 35

International Context 36

International Context 37

International Context 38

International Context 39

International Context 40

International Context 41

International Context 42

International Context 43

International Context 44 France 80% of available

International Context 45 France 80% of available $0.12/lb

California Programs 46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

Surveys 86% Response Rate 58

Programs begun before model guidelines (2008) Pre-existing Programs 59

Model Programs 5% 71% 33% 54% 37% 100% 60

Evaluation Criteria Safety Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Efficacy 61

Evaluation Criteria Safety Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Efficacy 62

% of Non-Model Pharmacies per Criterion Evaluation – safety (Pharmacies) Appropriate Access Track Responsibility 63

% of Non-Model Pharmacies per Criterion Evaluation – safety (Pharmacies) Appropriate Access Track Responsibility 64

% of Non-Model Law Enforcement per Criterion Evaluation – safety (law enforcement) Appropriate Access Track Responsibility 65

% of Non-Model HHWs per Criterion Evaluation – safety (HHW) Appropriate Access Track Responsibility 66

% of Non-Model Events per Criterion Appropriate Access Track Responsibility Evaluation – safety (Events) 67

% of Non-Model Mail-Back per Criterion Evaluation – safety (Mail-back) Appropriate Access Track Responsibility 68

Evaluation Criteria Safety Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Efficacy 69

Number of program sites (% of total) Evaluation – accessibility 70

Number of potential program sites (% actual sites out of total potential) Evaluation – accessibility 71

Average Number of Access Hours per Day Evaluation – accessibility 72

Evaluation Criteria Safety Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Efficacy 73

Average Cost per Pound Evaluation – cost effectiveness 74

Evaluation Criteria Safety Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Efficacy 75

Average Pounds Collected per Day of Operation Evaluation – efficacy 76

Total Pounds Collected by Program Type (July 1, 2009 to March 1, 2010 ) Evaluation – efficacy 77

Average Pounds Collected per Program Evaluation – efficacy 78

Free Market Results 79

San Francisco $110,000

Mailer Sale Sites Free Market Results 83

Mailer Sale Sites and Annual Collection Rates Free Market Results 84

Ontario, Canada Annual Collection Rates (tons) Free Market Results

Collection Rates Free Market Results

Questions? Burke Lucy (916)