Walgreens and controlled sub level 2

[PikminOC]

Recently, in the two states I work in. Walgreens has gotten very strict regarding controlled sub prescriptions.
One said that I would have to send them the prescription, I have no EMR though. I told the patient to go to another pharmacy that was not Walgreens.
The second wanted me to write the address for the patient on the prescription. I did that and it was ok.
Did Walgreens just get cited for something with controlled sub prescriptions so they are being sticklers?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PharmDminus]

 

[Dred Pirate]

Recently, in the two states I work in. Walgreens has gotten very strict regarding controlled sub prescriptions.
One said that I would have to send them the prescription, I have no EMR though. I told the patient to go to another pharmacy that was not Walgreens.
The second wanted me to write the address for the patient on the prescription. I did that and it was ok.
Did Walgreens just get cited for something with controlled sub prescriptions so they are being sticklers?

I know nothing of wags corporate policy - bu the law is going to vary from state to state. In my state all electronic prescriptions have to be electronic. In some states (new york) I believe all rx's have to be electronic (regardless if controlled or not) - I think it is only a matter of time before all states require electronic- how many years down the road that is, is anybody's guess

 

[DH1987]

Yes, it has been recently passed down to us that per the DEA, pharmacists cannot alter any of the elements of a CII prescription required by the CFR. This includes both name and address of prescriber as well as name and address of patient. Also needs the date of prescription, drug name, strength, dosage form, instructions, quantity prescribed, prescriber's signature (must be handwritten and in ink if paper), and prescriber DEA. For C2's, we are no longer allowed to add or touch ANY of that stuff listed even with verbal consent. It's absolutely ridiculous. I've already pissed off one doctor with this and will piss off many patients. There will also be patients who are simply going to write their addresses on the Rx and bring it back in. How are we gonna prove otherwise?

 

[PikminOC]

Yes, it has been recently passed down to us that per the DEA, pharmacists cannot alter any of the elements of a CII prescription required by the CFR. This includes both name and address of prescriber as well as name and address of patient. Also needs the date of prescription, drug name, strength, dosage form, instructions, quantity prescribed, prescriber's signature (must be handwritten and in ink if paper), and prescriber DEA. For C2's, we are no longer allowed to add or touch ANY of that stuff listed even with verbal consent. It's absolutely ridiculous. I've already pissed off one doctor with this and will piss off many patients. There will also be patients who are simply going to write their addresses on the Rx and bring it back in. How are we gonna prove otherwise?

Thank you very helpful. I'm not pissed just trying to understand to help my patients the best.

 

[PharmDminus]

Thank you very helpful. I'm not pissed just trying to understand to help my patients the best.

walgreens was the first to pass the update along to pharmacists. walmart has now followed suit. i imagine cvs will soon. it is a gray area becuz it was a phone convo with DEA and not written law yet if im not mistaken.

 

[BenJammin]

100% support this rule from the DEA. Community pharmacies should be in full support as well.

 

[DH1987]

100% support this rule from the DEA. Community pharmacies should be in full support as well.

I'm not so much against the rule as I am the implementation of it.

 

[PharmDminus]

there are already too many regulations in pharmacy. i dont support petty laws like these. we should have the professional latitude to use our professional judgement and annotate an rx

 

[owlegrad]

there are already too many regulations in pharmacy. i dont support petty laws like these. we should have the professional latitude to use our professional judgement and annotate an rx

Strongly agree. Well said.

Although I do also strongly support the idea that prescribers should prescribe correctly and am not a huge fan of shifting the burden of compliance to the pharmacy. So I guess I am somewhat of two minds on this.

 

[DH1987]

Strongly agree. Well said.

Although I do also strongly support the idea that prescribers should prescribe correctly and am not a huge fan of shifting the burden of compliance to the pharmacy. So I guess I am somewhat of two minds on this.

Maybe it's just me, but retail pharmacy seems like everything is purposely designed for the pharmacist to absorb the liability for other people's f***ups. Such a joke.

 

[PharmDminus]

DEA has gone back to the former policy

 

[RXDOC1986]

My knowledge of Federal Pharmacy Law is limited, but I did just pass NEVADA MPJE. NV law states that the pharmacist may change everything on a CII Rx, except Patient Name, MD Name and Drug Name and Strength!(with the verbal consent from MD) Also the state is all EMR - no written Rx's.

 

[BidingMyTime]

100% support this rule from the DEA. Community pharmacies should be in full support as well.

Why in the world would community pharmacies support this?

So a pharmacist can be trusted to correctly write down an oral prescription for Androderm from a receptionist who can has no ideas about drugs, but we can't be trusted, say, to correctly verify the DEA of a doctor who neglected to put in on a CII RX that is otherwise correctly written?

This ruling is illogical, and will do nothing but create more busywork for pharmacists & doctors.....both of who will have to deal with irate patients who can't get their legitimate prescriptions filled.

 

[DH1987]

Why in the world would community pharmacies support this?

So a pharmacist can be trusted to correctly write down an oral prescription for Androderm from a receptionist who can has no ideas about drugs, but we can't be trusted, say, to correctly verify the DEA of a doctor who neglected to put in on a CII RX that is otherwise correctly written?

This ruling is illogical, and will do nothing but create more busywork for pharmacists & doctors.....both of who will have to deal with irate patients who can't get their legitimate prescriptions filled.

I just got notification yesterday that pharmacists are now allowed to update the prescriptions as previously allowed by state law. Now we're gonna look like idiots if the doctors hear about this.

 

[BenJammin]

Why in the world would community pharmacies support this?

So a pharmacist can be trusted to correctly write down an oral prescription for Androderm from a receptionist who can has no ideas about drugs, but we can't be trusted, say, to correctly verify the DEA of a doctor who neglected to put in on a CII RX that is otherwise correctly written?

This ruling is illogical, and will do nothing but create more busywork for pharmacists & doctors.....both of who will have to deal with irate patients who can't get their legitimate prescriptions filled.

I don't follow your busy work comment. If the prescription is not in federal compliance then you simply reject it. By wanting to fix the prescription yourself rather than requiring the physician to follow the law to begin with, aren't you the one advocating for busy work?

 

[RxPreceptor]

Most of the time its just shear laziness on the patient’s part in not doing SIMPLE but annoying/cumbersome stuff like keeping address, phone number, and email up to date. Overkill how many prompts we go through in community beating this dead horse to death to the point that the patient just wants to get the **** out or will simply do it some other time

it comes down to the patient choosing not to do “adulting” that will bite them in the ass (Yet their rage/irritation is taken out on staff, MDs, RPh, Nurses, etc.)

 

[BidingMyTime]

I don't follow your busy work comment. If the prescription is not in federal compliance then you simply reject it. By wanting to fix the prescription yourself rather than requiring the physician to follow the law to begin with, aren't you the one advocating for busy work?

No, because it takes less time to verify the prescription and fill in the missing parts, then to listen to a patient argue about how they've never had to have their address on their prescription before, while other customers are lining up behind them. Then instead of just dealing with that patient once, you have to deal with them again when they come back, and whatever has been added to the prescription to make it legit is in a different ink and handwriting......but that is some how more legit than if the pharmacist filled it out themselves? And since we know the DEA is likely to come down on the pharmacist and accuse them of having illegally filled out the prescription, then the best thing is to give the prescription back to the patient and tell them it must be rewritten in the same ink and handwriting, listen to them argue once again about how stupid that is and how they will never come back to the pharmacy ever again, once again while other customers are lining up behind them. Then deal with the irate customer a 3rd time, as they invariably will come back to the pharmacy after having gotten the prescription (hopefully) correctly rewritten.

 

[PikminOC]

I got the emr. Its working well and the patients like it too.