Background Community pharmacies are important for health access by rural populations and those who do not have optimum access to the health system, because they provide myriad health services and are found in most communities. This includes the sale of non-prescription syringes, a practice that is legal in the USA in all but two states. However, people who inject drugs (PWID) face significant barriers accessing sterile syringes, particularly in states without laws allowing syringe services programming. To our knowledge, no recent studies of pharmacy-based syringe purchase experience have been conducted in communities that are both rural and urban, and none in the Southwestern US. This study seeks to understand the experience of retail pharmacy syringe purchase in Arizona by PWID. Methods An interview study was conducted between August and December 2018 with 37 people living in 3 rural and 2 urban Arizona counties who identified as current or former users of injection drugs. Coding was both a priori and emergent, focusing on syringe access through pharmacies, pharmacy experiences generally, experiences of stigma, and recommendations for harm reduction services delivered by pharmacies. Results All participants reported being refused syringe purchase at pharmacies. Six themes emerged about syringe purchase: (1) experience of stigma and judgment by pharmacy staff, (2) feelings of internalized stigma, (3) inconsistent sales outcomes at the same pharmacy or pharmacy chain, (4) pharmacies as last resort for syringes, (5) fear of arrest for syringe possession, and (6) health risks resulting from syringe refusal. Conclusions Non-prescription syringe sales in community pharmacies are a missed opportunity to improve the health of PWID by reducing syringe sharing and reuse. Yet, current pharmacy syringe sales refusal and stigmatization by staff suggest that pharmacy-level interventions will be necessary to impact pharmacy practice. Lack of access to sterile syringes reinforces health risk behaviors among PWID. Retail syringe sales at pharmacies remain an important, yet barrier-laden, element of a comprehensive public health response to reduce HIV and hepatitis C among PWID. Future studies should test multilevel evidence-based interventions to decrease staff discrimination and stigma and increase syringe sales.

Few would dispute that health care should be provided in seamless, well-integrated clinical care environments that bring together the various disciplines needed to provide patient-centered care, to educate trainees, and to conduct research into a particular disease or episode of care. Yet there are relatively few examples of successful or sustained clinical integration, either in the community setting or in academic health centers (AHCs). The authors draw on their experience with several AHCs and other health care settings to address why AHCs have not made better progress in developing integrated centers of clinical care. They characterize two fundamental types of integration that have evolved within the AHC setting: lateral and vertical. Lateral integration tends to occur among similarly situated specialties. It is easier to accomplish and far more common than is vertical integration, which brings together most, if not all, of the professionals and staff necessary to treat or manage many medical conditions and health problems. The vast majority of examples of clinical integration, whether lateral or vertical, fail to integrate essential administrative and financial functions, which has significant consequences for the ability of either laterally or vertically integrated centers to provide seamless, patient-centered care. The authors identify the emergence of several new examples of vertical clinical integration that also integrate administrative and financial functions as models for AHCs to follow and derive lessons and recommendations concerning how AHCs and others can address the cultural, financial, and governance issues that continue to limit the development of vertically integrated, patient-centered care.