Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Take Back Programs

  • Kati I. Stoddard
  • Duane B. Huggett
Chapter
Part of the Emerging Topics in Ecotoxicology book series (ETEP, volume 4)

Abstract

Prior to September 2010 the US national policy for the proper disposal of pharmaceuticals was limited to published guidance provided by several federal agencies; however, on September 25, 2010 the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) established the National Take Back Initiative. This program is designed to provide citizens an opportunity to safely dispose of medications they no longer need or want. In 2010 two of these DEA events were held during which a total of 4,000 state and local law enforcement agencies across the country participated and a staggering 309 tons of medications were collected. A third event is planned for October 2011. Additionally, the Safe and Secure Drug Disposal Act of 2010 signed by President Obama on October 12, 2010 provided the means for the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) to be amended to allow the DEA to develop a procedure for individuals to safely dispose of their unwanted medications, including medications considered controlled under the CSA [1]. This legislation will ensure future DEA events and other take back events are legally able to dispose of controlled medications, which is critical as these medications have a high potential for diversion or abuse.

Keywords

Risk Perception Risk Communication General Practitioner Accidental Poisoning Back Event 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) (2011) National Take Back Initiative. http:www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drug_disposal/takeback/takeback.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2012Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2012) Proper disposal of prescription drugs. http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm101653.htm. Accessed 28 Mar 2012Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group (BAPPG) (2006) Report on the San Francisco bay area’s safe medicine disposal days. http://oracwa.org/files/news/168/SFBAYSafeMeds-Report-August2006.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boivin M (1997) The cost of medication waste. Can Pharm J/Revue Pharm Can 130(4):32–39Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuspis DA, Krenzelok EP (1996) What happens to expired medication? A survey of community medication disposal. Vet Hum Toxicol 38(1):48–49Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seehusen DA, Edwards J (2006) Patient practices and beliefs concerning disposal of medications. J Am Board Fam Med 19(6):542–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zero Waste Washington (2006) Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation (WCRC): a soundstats report. Prepared by Northwest Research Group Inc., http://www.zerowastewashington.org/images/pdfs/med-survey.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar 2012
  8. 8.
    Eckel WP, Ross B, Isensee R (1993) Pentobarbital found in groundwater. Groundwater 31(5): 801–804Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holm JV, Rugge K, Bjerg PL, Christensen TH (1995) Occurrence and distribution of pharmaceutical organic compounds in groundwater down gradient of a landfill (Grinsted Denmark). Environ Sci Technol 29(5):1415–1420Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ahel M, Jeličic I (2001) Phenazone analgesics in soil and groundwater below a municipal solid-waste landfill. In: Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: scientific and regulatory issues. ACS Symposium Series 791, Washington, DC, pp 100–115Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Metzger JW (2004) Drugs in Municipal landfills and landfill teachates. In: Kümmerer K (ed), Pharmaceuticals in the environment: sources, fate, effects, and risks, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 133–138Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fent K, Weston AA et al (2006) Ecotoxicology of human pharmaceuticals. Aquat Toxicol 76(2):122–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kotchen M, Kallaos J et al (2008) Pharmaceuticals in wastewater: behavior, preferences, and willingness to pay for a disposal program. J Environ Manage 90:1476–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stackelberg PE, Furlong ET et al (2004) Persistence of pharmaceutical compounds and other organic wastewater contaminants in a conventional drinking-water-treatment plant. Sci Total Environ 329:99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Webb SF (2004) A data based perspective on the environmental risk assessment of human pharmaceuticals III-indirect human exposure. In: Kümmerer K (ed) Pharmaceuticals in the environment. Sources, fate, effects, and risk. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Webb SF, Ternes T et al (2003) Indirect human exposure to pharmaceuticals via drinking water. Toxicol Lett 142:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Daughton CG, Ternes T (1999) Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment: Agents of Subtle Change? Environmental Health Perspectives 107(6) 907–938Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boehme SE, Hinchey EK et al (2007) Disposal of unwanted medicines: a resource for action in your community. Habitats and Ecosystems. Chicago, Illinois Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant (IISG). http://www.iisgcp.org/unwantedmeds. Accessed 12 Mar 2009
  19. 19.
    Bronstein AC, Spyker DA et al (2010) 2009 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 27th Annual Report. Clin Toxicol 48(10):979–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    The Partnership for a Drug-Free America (2006) Generation Rx: National Study Confirms Abuse of Prescription and Over-the-Counter Drugs. http://www.drugfree.org/newsroom/generation-rx-national-study-confirms-abuse-of-prescription-and-over-the-counter-drugs-%E2%80%9Cnormalized%E2%80%9D-among-teens. Accessed 21 Mar 2009Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2011) Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grasso C (2009) The PH:ARM Pilot: pharmaceuticals from households. A return mechanism. Executive summary. www.lhwmp.org/home/HHW/documents/PHARM_2009_Exec_Summary_Web_Version.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 200Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huggett DB, Cook JC et al (2003) A theoretical model for utilizing mammalian pharmacology and safety data to prioritize potential impacts of human pharmaceuticals in fish. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 9:1789–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huggett DB, Ericson JF et al (2004) Plasma concentrations of human pharmaceuticals as predictors of pharmacological responses in fish. In: Kummerer K (ed) Pharmaceuticals in the environment II. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 373–386Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Slovic P (1987) Perceptions of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Slovic P, Fischhoff B et al (1985) Characterizing perceived risk. In: Kates RW, Hohenemser C, Kasperson JX (eds) Perilous progress: managing the hazards of technology. Westview, Boulder, pp 91–125Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Henrion M, Fischhoff B (1986) Assessing uncertainty in physical constants. Am J Phys 54(9):791–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kahneman D, Slovic P et al (1982) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fischhoff B, Slovic P et al (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9(2):127–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Slovic P, Fischhoff B et al (1980) Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Schwing RC, Albers WA Jr (eds) Societal risk assessment: how safe is safe enough? Plenum Press, New York, pp 181–214Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cook PA, Bellis MA (2001) Knowing the risk: relationships between risk behaviour and health knowledge. Public Health 115:54–61Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lundborg P, Lindgren B (2004) Do they know what they are doing? Risk perceptions and smoking behaviour among Swedish teenagers. J Risk Uncertainty 28(3):261–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Viscusi WK, Carvalho I et al (2000) Smoking risks in Spain: part III-determinants of smoking behavior. J Risk Uncertainty 21(2–3):213–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bound JP, Kitsou K et al (2006) Household disposal of pharmaceuticals and perception of risk to the environment. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 21:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jakus PM, Shaw DW et al (2009) Risk perceptions of arsenic in tap water and consumption of bottled water. Water Resour Res 45:W05405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nordlund AM, Garvill J (2003) Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. J Environ Psychol 23:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    COMPAS (2002) F&DA Environmental Assessment Regulations Project Benchmark Survey. A Report to Health Canada (POR-02-13). Office of Regulatory and International Affairs http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/contaminants/person/impact/por-02-13-eng.php. Accessed 30 Mar 2012.
  38. 38.
    Harrison CM, Burgess J et al (1996) Rationalizing environmental responsibilities: a comparison of lay publics in the UK and the Netherlands. J Environ Change 6(3):215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Evans JS, Hawkins NC et al (1988) The value of monitoring for radon in the home: a decision analysis. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 38(11):1380–1385Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fischhoff B (1990) Psychology and public policy: tool or toolmaker? Am Psychol 45(5):647–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gibson M (1985) To breathe freely: risk, consent, and air. Rowman & Littlefield, TotowaGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gow HBF, Otway H (1990) Commuincating with the public about major accident hazards. European conference on communicating with the public about major accident hazards. Routledge, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morgan MG, Lave L (1990) Ethical considerations in risk communication practice and research. Risk Anal 10(3):355–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nazaroff N, Teichman K (1990) Indoor radon: exploring U.S. federal policy for controlling human exposures. Environ Sci Technol 24(6):774–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Svenson O, Fischhoff B (1985) Levels of environemntal decisions. J Environ Psychol 5(1):55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Morgan MG, Fischhoff B et al (1992) Communicating risk to the public: first learn what people know and believe. Environ Sci Technol 26(11):2048–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Carroll JM, Olson JR (1987) Mental models in human-computer interaction: research issues about what the user of software knows. National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Craik K (1943) The nature of explanation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gentner D, Stevens AL (1983) Mental models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Johnson-Laird P (1983) Mental models. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Murphy GL, Wright JC (1984) Changes in conceptual structure with expertise: differences between real-world experts and novices. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 10(1):144–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Norman DA (1983) Some observations on mental models. In: Gentner D, Stevens A (eds) Mental models. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rouse WB, Morris NM (1986) On looking into the black box: prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychol Bull 100(3):349–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Krug D, George B et al (1989) The effect of outlines and headings on readers’ recall of text. Contemporary Educ Psychol 14(2):111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Boyle M, Holtgrove D (1989) Communicating environmental health risks using the doctor-patient model. Environ Sci Technol 23(11):1335–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1982) Making health care decisions: report on the ethical and legal implications of informed consent in the patient-practitioner relationship. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp 68–128Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Peters RG, Covello VT, MacCallum DB (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication. An Emperical Study. Risk Anal 17(1):43–54Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Institute of Medicine (2001) Science and risk communication: a mini-symposium sponsored by the roundtable on environmental health sciences, research, and medicine. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    XE (2011) Universal currency calculator. http://www.xe.com/ucc/. Accessed 03 Apr 2012
  60. 60.
    Coma A, Modamio P et al (2008) Returned medicines in community pharmacies in Barcelona, Spain. Pharm World Sci 30:272–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Practice Greenhealth™ (2008) Pharmaceutical waste minimization. http://cms.h2e-online.org/ee/waste-reduction/waste-minimization/pharma/. Accessed 7 Aug 2009
  62. 62.
    OpenCongress (2011) Open Congress for the 112th United States Congress. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3397/show. Accessed 20 July 2011
  63. 63.
    Teleosis Institute (2007) Green Pharmacy Program: helping communities safely dispose of unused medicines: preliminary data report. Berkeley, CA, Teleosis Institue: 1–6.http://www.teleosis.org/pdf/GreenPharmacy_FullPreliminaryReport.pdf. Accessed 7 Aug 2009Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Elephant Pharm (2008) Elephant pharm unveils groundbreaking green pharmacy program. http://www.elephantpharm.com/content/view/602/132/. Accessed 7 Aug 2009
  65. 65.
    CRG Medical Foundation (2006) Community Medical Foundation for Patient Safety. The Community of Competence™ and Foundation for Life. Patient Safety Registry. Available: http://www.comofcom.com/unused.html. Accessed 03 Apr 2012
  66. 66.
    Langley C, Marriot J et al (2005) An analysis of returned medicines in primary care. Pharm World Sci 27(4):296–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations