State Telepharmacy Policies and Pharmacy Deserts

IMPORTANCE: Pharmacy deserts have increased, potentially affecting patient access and care. Historically, telepharmacies have been used to reduce pharmacy deserts to restore access, but states frequently restrict their operation. OBJECTIVE: To analyze whether telepharmacy policy is associated with pharmacy deserts and access to pharmacy services. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study analyzed pharmacy location and census data from 2016 through 2019 for US states with new telepharmacy policies. Nearby control states were used for comparison in a pretest-posttest nonequivalent group design. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2022 to July 2023. EXPOSURE: Intervention states were selected if a change in telepharmacy policy was adopted in 2017 or 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pharmacy deserts were defined as any geographic area located at least 10 miles from the nearest pharmacy. Primary outcomes included the change in number of telepharmacies, pharmacy deserts, and population in pharmacy deserts. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of telepharmacies located in medically underserved areas or populations (MUA/Ps), and the association between a telepharmacy opening nearby and the transition of a pharmacy desert into a nonpharmacy desert. RESULTS: Twelve US states were included in the study (8 intervention states, 4 control states). Intervention states experienced an increase in the mean number of telepharmacies to 7.25 with a range of 4 (Arizona, Indiana) to 14 (Iowa), but control states remained at a mean of 0.25 telepharmacies with a range of 0 to 1 (Kansas). Compared with controls, intervention states experienced a 4.5% (95% CI, 1.6% to 7.4%) decrease in the percentage of places defined as pharmacy deserts (P = .001) and an 11.1% (95% CI, 2.4% to 22.6%) decrease in the population in a pharmacy desert (P = .03). Telepharmacies were more likely to be located in a MUA/P than traditional pharmacies (preperiod in MUA/P: 63.2% of telepharmacies [12 of 19] vs 33.9% of traditional pharmacies [5984 of 17 511]; P = .01; postperiod in MUA/P: 62.7% of telepharmacies [37 of 59] vs 33.7% of traditional pharmacies [5998 of 17 800]; P < .001). When a telepharmacy was established in pharmacy deserts, 37.5% (30 of 80) no longer met the study’s definition of a pharmacy desert the following year. In contrast, only 1.8% of places (68 of 3892) where a nearby telepharmacy did not open experienced this change (χ(2)(1)=416.4; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, intervention states experienced a reduced population in pharmacy deserts, suggesting an association with new telepharmacy openings. States aiming to improve pharmacy access might consider less restrictive telepharmacy policies to potentially elicit greater patient outcomes.