Class of 2013 Abstract / Specific Aims: The objective of this study was to examine the availability of immunizations in community pharmacies and the out-of-pocket cost for those immunizations. Methods: Twelve community pharmacies in the Tucson area were examined and one pharmacist in each store was asked to complete a questionnaire. This questionnaire aimed to determine individual immunizations offered at each pharmacy and the out-of-pocket cost for those immunizations. Main Results: Differences in the availability and cost of immunizations were compiled for each category of community pharmacy. The categories included Supermarket/grocery store, chain, Mass merchant/big box, and independent pharmacy. Seven of the twelve (58%) pharmacies included in the analysis participated in pharmacist-based immunizations. Three out of the four (75%) supermarket based pharmacies, both chain pharmacies, and two of the four (50%) mass merchant pharmacies, provided immunizations. Neither of the independent pharmacies included in the analysis provided immunizations. The pharmacies that did not currently provide immunizations, none had plans in the future to provide immunizations. There were no other non-prescription immunizations provided at the pharmacies in the study. All seven pharmacies that provided immunization services stated they would accept insurance and only one of the chain pharmacies had a walk in clinic. Conclusion: Overall this study demonstrated that there are differences associated with cost and availability of immunization services offered between pharmacies. Further research is needed to determine what hinders community pharmacy from offering immunization services and how to develop a form of commonality between all immunizations offered.

Class of 2011 Abstract / OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of pharmacist-provided direct patient care with consideration to the patients’ socioeconomic status as determined by the patients’ health insurance. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of pharmacist-provided direct patient care on different socioeconomic populations as determined by the patients’ health insurance by including results from several independent randomized control trials. A standardized and tested data extraction form was used to collect primary data on outcome category (therapeutic, safety, and humanistic), disease category (diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular, dyslipidemia, asthma, and other), insurance status (Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Affairs/ Department of Defense, private and uninsured), and outcome measures. The potential for bias data were analyzed by calculating a total potential for bias score and by construction a forest plot ordered by bias score. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis. The insurances most often reported were Medicaid (13.6%), Medicare (18.2%), the Veterans Affairs/ Department of Defense (VA/DoD) (41%), and private insurance (27.2%). All insurance groups benefited from pharmacist intervention (p<0.01). The Medicare patients benefited the least from the pharmacist interventions [standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.21], and the benefit of intervention was significantly less than the benefit for subjects having Medicaid, Private Insurance or VA/DoD coverage (p<0.02). CONCLUSION: While patients in all insurance type benefited from pharmacist intervention, Medicare patients seemed to benefit the least; further studies are needed to verify the findings and to explore why the benefit is less than for other groups.