- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,655
- Reaction score
- 2,814
Chapter 4 of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act states that "[n]o person shall write, issue, fill, compound, or dispense a prescription that does not conform to this division" (HSC 11152). (Here "division" refers to the Uniform Controlled Substances Act; it is division 10 of the Health and Safety Code.) It also states that "no controlled substance classified in Schedule II shall be dispensed without a prescription meeting the requirements of this chapter. Except as provided in Section 11159 or when dispensed directly to an ultimate user by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist or pharmacy, no controlled substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V may be dispensed without a prescription meeting the requirements of this chapter" (HSC 11158).
Later on, in HSC 11162.1 where it specifies the requirements for controlled substance prescription forms, it states that "check boxes shall be printed on the form so that the prescriber may indicate the number of refills ordered." This is the requirement that is by far omitted most often on these forms, in my experience. This is "interesting" because "[p]rescription forms not in compliance with this division shall not be valid or accepted after July 1, 2012."
The funny part of this is that one security printer (SP 100, whatever company that refers to) prints both a noncompliant form (printing refill quantities without check boxes) and compliant form (refill boxes with accompanying check boxes).
The fact that security printers are deliberately printing non-compliant forms is interesting to me. For California pharmacists, how pervasive is this omission in your experience? You would think the BOP would give a ****, or maybe it's just my area with a lot of idiot prescribers
Source: http://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/laws_regs/lawbook.pdf
Later on, in HSC 11162.1 where it specifies the requirements for controlled substance prescription forms, it states that "check boxes shall be printed on the form so that the prescriber may indicate the number of refills ordered." This is the requirement that is by far omitted most often on these forms, in my experience. This is "interesting" because "[p]rescription forms not in compliance with this division shall not be valid or accepted after July 1, 2012."
The funny part of this is that one security printer (SP 100, whatever company that refers to) prints both a noncompliant form (printing refill quantities without check boxes) and compliant form (refill boxes with accompanying check boxes).
The fact that security printers are deliberately printing non-compliant forms is interesting to me. For California pharmacists, how pervasive is this omission in your experience? You would think the BOP would give a ****, or maybe it's just my area with a lot of idiot prescribers
Source: http://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/laws_regs/lawbook.pdf
