I tend to agree with you on this point, but I don't think the article did a very good job presenting the real arguments against having corporate pharmacists on state boards (it is USAToday, after all).
The article mentions State Boards levying less than the maximum fine against pharmacists who made mistakes a few times, and presents it as the result of a conflict of interest. After the near universal uproar among pharmacists over the Eric Cropp debate, isn't this something of a double standard? Specifically, in the case of the Florida methadone overdose, the Walgreen's pharmacist said:
"I think that a misfill by a pharmacist is their worst nightmare, and we've had many people before the board who've had misfills. And I really believe that education is the key here getting the pharmacist to rethink his steps and to re-educate them"
The pharmacist was fined $1,000 and made to go through an error-prevention program. I don't think that's a case of doing what is in the best interest of the corporation, I think that's making a reasonable decision for a person who made a terrible mistake.
I would have liked some reporting on other decisions, such as central-fill locations, technician certification, workload, etc., as examples of conflicts of interest. I'm sure they've happened along the lines somewhere.
But in all honesty, what is the solution? The vast majority of practicing pharmacists work for corporations. Can you pick a truly representative sample that isn't drawn from the majority? I think you may run into similarly conflicted anti-corporate decisions if you stack the boards with independent pharmacists. I don't think there's a clear solution, but it certainly isn't banning corporate pharmacists from state board positions.
