1. Recommendations for Home-Generated Pharmaceutical Collection Programs in California

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

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

4. International Context 4 4

5. 5 5

6. 6 6

7. 7 7

8. 8 8

9. 9 9

10. 10

11. International Context 11

12. International Context 12

13. International Context 13

14. International Context 14

15. International Context 15

16. International Context 16

17. International Context 17

18. International Context 18

19. International Context 19

20. International Context 20

21. International Context 21

22. International Context 22

23. International Context 23

24. International Context 24

25. International Context 25

26. International Context 26

27. International Context 27

28. International Context 28

29. International Context 29

30. International Context 30

31. International Context 31

32. International Context 32

33. International Context 33

34. International Context 34

35. International Context 35

36. International Context 36

37. International Context 37

38. International Context 38

39. International Context 39

40. International Context 40

41. International Context 41

42. International Context 42

43. International Context 43

44. International Context 44 France 80% of available

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

46. California Programs 46

47. 47

48. 48

49. 49

50. 50

51. 51

52. 52

53. 53

54. 54

55. 55

56. 56

57. 57

58. Surveys 86% Response Rate 58

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

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

61. Evaluation Criteria Safety Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Efficacy 61

62. Evaluation Criteria Safety Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Efficacy 62

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

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

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

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

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

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

69. Evaluation Criteria Safety Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Efficacy 69

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

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

72. Average Number of Access Hours per Day Evaluation – accessibility 72

73. Evaluation Criteria Safety Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Efficacy 73

74. Average Cost per Pound Evaluation – cost effectiveness 74

75. Evaluation Criteria Safety Accessibility Cost Effectiveness Efficacy 75

76. Average Pounds Collected per Day of Operation Evaluation – efficacy 76

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

78. Average Pounds Collected per Program Evaluation – efficacy 78

79. Free Market Results 79

80. San Francisco $110,000

83. Mailer Sale Sites Free Market Results 83

84. Mailer Sale Sites and Annual Collection Rates Free Market Results 84

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

86. Collection Rates Free Market Results

87. Questions? Burke Lucy (916) 341-6592 burke.lucy@calrecycle.ca.gov