Search

Background: Concerns about the actual and perceived costs of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) continue to be a major barrier to uptake among gay, bisexual and men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in the United States., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 GBMSM who presented for routine health care at a STD clinic in the northeastern United States. The cohort included GBMSM who were or were not currently taking PrEP and represented varied health care coverage and financial resources. We used a structured coding scheme to analyze transcripts and identify themes relevant to cost factors., Results: Participants shared their perspectives about PrEP and their experiences with accessing and paying for PrEP. Our findings suggest that health care coverage or financial assistance were essential to PrEP access but were not easily accessible to all people and did not always cover all costs. Therefore, paying for PrEP had to be balanced with other life expenses. Participants had multiple sources for information about PrEP cost and assistance from clinic and pharmacy staff helped reduce burden and resolve difficulties., Conclusion: Addressing gaps in health care coverage, providing financial support, and improving the enrollment process in a financial assistance program may improve PrEP uptake.

Purpose: Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the form of daily emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) is effective for preventing HIV infection. Implementation has been limited by an inability to systematically evaluate uptake and use. All-Payer Claims Databases (APCDs) provide an opportunity to evaluate population-level PrEP implementation., Methods: We used 2012-2017 data from Rhode Island's APCD and developed an algorithm to identify individuals prescribed FTC/TDF for PrEP. We describe PrEP implementation by patient demographics and provider type and mapped PrEP implementation across ZIP codes. We compared APCD data to electronic medical record data and comprehensive pharmaceutical claims data (AIDSVu.org)., Results: The Rhode Island APCD represented approximately 87% of the state's population. PrEP use increased 31-fold from 2012 to 2017. Users were predominantly privately insured, male, and concentrated in Providence County (76.6%). Infectious diseases providers had 3.2 times the odds of being a PrEP prescriber compared to primary care providers. Compared to other pharmaceutical and electronic medical record data, the APCD underestimated the number of PrEP users in Rhode Island but improved in capturing users over time., Conclusions: APCDs are a useful data source for characterizing PrEP use across a state. There is a need to increase PrEP prescribing among primary care providers, especially in areas with underserved populations., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the form of daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF/FTC) is a potentially transformative tool to prevent HIV infection. However, PrEP scale-up in the United States has been slow and difficult to evaluate comprehensively. All payer claims databases (APCDs) are large datasets that contain information on medical and pharmaceutical claims from most public and private payers in each state, and provide an unusual opportunity to evaluate statewide PrEP implementation efforts. Methods We used 2012–2017 data from Rhode Island's APCD and developed an algorithm to identify individuals prescribed TDF/FTC for PrEP. We compared APCD PrEP data to electronic medical record (EMR) data at the largest dedicated PrEP program in the state, and to other comprehensive pharmaceutical claims data (AIDSVu.org). We calculated the PrEP-to-Need ratio (PnR) based on annual HIV incidence, and used multivariable logistic regression to predict ZIP code-level PrEP use, and specialty of prescribing provider (primary care vs. infectious disease). Results The Rhode Island APCD included insurance claims for 917,633 individuals (87% of the Rhode Island population). PrEP use increased substantially in Rhode Island over the 5-year period, from 13 to 331 prescriptions between 2012 and 2017, with 546 total users during this time period. Users were predominantly male (89%) and privately insured (69.1%), and concentrated in Providence County (71.5%). The PnR ratio increased from 0.2 to 4.0 from 2012–2017. Compared with AIDSVu and EMR Data, the APCD underestimated the number of PrEP users in Rhode Island, but improved over time in documenting users. Infectious diseases specialists had 8.4 times the odds (95% CI: 5.4 to 12.9) of being a PrEP prescriber compared with primary care providers. A total of 2.6% of infectious disease specialists were PrEP prescribers compared with 0.33% of PCPs. The proportion of Black or Hispanic individuals in a ZIP-code was not a significant predictor of PrEP use. Conclusion APCDs offer an innovative approach to evaluate statewide PrEP implementation comprehensively. Engaging PCPs in PrEP implementation is critical to improve overall uptake among populations most at-risk. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]