California Prescription Laws

[Joejitsu]

Hey guys, I finally got my DEA license in CA and I am a bit confused on the laws of requiring physicians to keep a copy of all scripts they write. Our ER residency has us split our time between a county hospital and a tertiary care center. At the county hospital all of the attendings use script pads with carbon copies of each script and one of the guys high on the chain was saying that there was a recent law passed that ALL physicians must keep a copy of every schedule II drug prescription and have it just in case there is an "audit" type thing from the medical board.

Then when I am working in the tertiary care ER everyone uses script pads with no carbon copies and no copies of any scripts are kept. When I told the attending at the county hospital about this he was in shock and said the other hospital is breaking the law.

Does anybody know what the TRUTH is and/or where there is a link to the exact (current) law on record keeping for schdule II drugs? Thanks!

Joe

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[drdrtoledo]

OK, Here's what I could find in the law books http://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/laws_regs/lawbook.pdf:

Article 2 – Prescriber’s Record
11190. (a) Every practitioner, other than a pharmacist, who prescribes or administers a controlled substance classified in Schedule II shall make a record that, as to the transaction, shows all of the following:
(1) The name and address of the patient.
(2) The date.
(3) The character, including the name and strength, and quantity of controlled substances involved.
(b) The prescriber's record shall show the pathology and purpose for which the controlled substance was administered or prescribed.

11191. The record shall be preserved for three years. Every person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of
a misdemeanor.


So, it sounds like it's legit. No idea if there is some sort of loophole I didn't see. I used to practice pharmacy in NJ and we didn't have this rule. I hope this helps some.
A

 

[Flopotomist]

OK, Here's what I could find in the law books http://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/laws_regs/lawbook.pdf:

Article 2 – Prescriber’s Record
11190. (a) Every practitioner, other than a pharmacist, who prescribes or administers a controlled substance classified in Schedule II shall make a record that, as to the transaction, shows all of the following:
(1) The name and address of the patient.
(2) The date.
(3) The character, including the name and strength, and quantity of controlled substances involved.
(b) The prescriber's record shall show the pathology and purpose for which the controlled substance was administered or prescribed.

11191. The record shall be preserved for three years. Every person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of
a misdemeanor.


So, it sounds like it's legit. No idea if there is some sort of loophole I didn't see. I used to practice pharmacy in NJ and we didn't have this rule. I hope this helps some.
A

Wouldn't the fact that this information is found in the patient's medical record be sufficient documentation by the provider?

 

[southerndoc]

Wouldn't the fact that this information is found in the patient's medical record be sufficient documentation by the provider?

No, they want to audit individual physicians. It's hard to audit individual physician's prescribing practices by going through 100,000 ED charts. It's much easier just to have the physician keep the records and then examine them when needed. (Easier for the government that is, not easier for the physician.)

 

[Flopotomist]

No, they want to audit individual physicians. It's hard to audit individual physician's prescribing practices by going through 100,000 ED charts. It's much easier just to have the physician keep the records and then examine them when needed. (Easier for the government that is, not easier for the physician.)

I was just noticing that the list of requirements as posted above seem to go beyond what most physicians put on the actual prescription, so even with a carbon copy of the script, the provider would not be in compliance. Who puts the patients address and diagnosis on the script?

 

[drdrtoledo]

I was just noticing that the list of requirements as posted above seem to go beyond what most physicians put on the actual prescription, so even with a carbon copy of the script, the provider would not be in compliance. Who puts the patients address and diagnosis on the script?

The address is supposed to be on all narcotic scripts, but the pharmacist is allowed to fill it in if the doc forgets.

BTW The law went into effect January 1st 2005

 

[Flopotomist]

No, they want to audit individual physicians. It's hard to audit individual physician's prescribing practices by going through 100,000 ED charts. It's much easier just to have the physician keep the records and then examine them when needed. (Easier for the government that is, not easier for the physician.)

What if the record is kept in a patients chart that is "electronic" (computerized). This way, the physicians prescribing practices would be easily searchable, and the burden of maintaining this mess of information would be pretty easy since the charting was done electronically already. Just trying to figure it out.

 

[southerndoc]

What if the record is kept in a patients chart that is "electronic" (computerized). This way, the physicians prescribing practices would be easily searchable, and the burden of maintaining this mess of information would be pretty easy since the charting was done electronically already. Just trying to figure it out.

I'm sure it would require a change in the wording of the law, but it's possible if you can search by prescriber. (The reason for this is the ability to audit the prescriber, not the patients seeking the controlled substances.)