New Pharmacy Bill?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

riskhk

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
I heard that there is a new bill being proposed that allowed for reciprocity in California for people who took the Naplex. This means that the California test would be equivalent to Naplex. Anybody else heard about this?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Well, that's certainly news!

Something similar happened a couple of years ago...I thought it died either in committee or on the floor of the state assembly.

Somehow I think quite a few CA pharmacist organizations will oppose this (like I think they opposed the previous effort). It's certainly not in their best interest (it would probably drive salaries down). The argument last time (if I can remember) was that why should California LOWER its standards for competency to the national test.

Here's an article from the San Jose Business Journal about the previous effort: http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2002/05/13/story3.html
 
It would be real nice if this goes through before the end of the year. So I can just take the Naplex and send the score to CA.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Originally posted by pharmddreamer
dang...that's not good for the students who go to cali pharm schools. the curriculum is harder, because they are geared toward preparing people for the harder cali boards. is this bill really going to pass.

I can totally undertand that. CA pharm school students have to work their a*ses off to meet and exceed the tougher CABOP standards. I'm kinda worried that if reciprocity were to come to pass, that CA pharm grads would become somewhat resentful of reciprocating pharmacists. All that hard work and effort, only to compete with out-of-staters who didn't have to go through that same effort for a shrinking piece of the pharmacy pie. And you just know it'll be a shrinking pie. Despite the high cost of living, a lot of people still want to move out to CA. :(
 
Stop complaining guys...........it is about time californians join us americans. ;)
 
It looks like it's California State Senate Bill 361

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_361&sess=CUR&house=B&author=figueroa

The bill text and analyses are interesting reading...it looks like it passed (27 ayes, 2 noes) the State Senate on 5/22/03. Essentially allows licensure if an applicant passes the NAPLEX and a California MPJE after January 1, 2004. (There's other stuff in there, but that's all I'm concerned about ;) )

On to the State Assembly Committee on Business and Professions...
 
I agree some of the CA schools may be the best in the country but if our schools prepared us for the CA boards we would have a better passing rate. Our school has a passing rate on the NAPLEX of 100% which I am sure is higher than CA passing rate on NAPLEX does that mean our school is a better school. No it means our school prepared us better for NAPLEX while your school is preparing you better for CA board exams.
 
the legislature does not and should not care about the well being of CA pharmacists. its job is to care about the well being of the CA population, and if it's decided that the CA residents would be better served by a more plentiful supply of pharmacists, they will do that. arguments about the declining salaries for the pharmacists will not sway them. sucks the CA pharmacists, but that's how it is. just you wait for the nationalized drug plan and all will go to hell in no time.
 
SB 361 states "replaces the board-developed and administered licensing examination with a combination of the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) AND a board developed Multi-State Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination for California."

Requires the board to include the following when developing the Multi-State Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination for California:

A. Items to demonstrate the candidate's proficiency in patient communications skills.
B. Aspects of contemporary standards of practice for pharmacists in this state, including but not limited to the provision of pharmacist care and the application of clinical knowledge to typical pharmacy practice situations that are not evaluated by the NAPLEX.
 
It appears that the California Pharmacy Board Exam is more difficult than the NAPLEX. The average passage rate on the California Pharmacy Board Exam for California pharmacy students is 75%, while it is 94% on the NAPLEX for students that attend a non-California School.
 
I'm confused. Is this being done to address the pharm shortage in CA?
 
Originally posted by Triangulation
I'm confused. Is this being done to address the pharm shortage in CA?

That's one of the intentions...this is from the Senate Floor analyses available at the link I posted above:

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters state that this bill would make it easier to recruit experienced pharmacists to work in California at a time when there is a widespread shortage of pharmacists, particularly in rural and hard to serve urban areas. Additionally, the use of this computer-based exam will result in significant cost savings to the board, while allowing those seeking licensure increased flexibility and availability of exam dates.

In its letter of support for SB 361, the Board of Pharmacy counters opponents' claims with the following:

"Concern has been articulated by those opposed to the
adoption of the NAPLEX with the elimination of short
answer questions from the examination because multiple
choice examinations will not adequately screen the
communication skills of prospective pharmacists. This
contention is mistaken. Such skills are rigorously
evaluated in the students' pharmacy curriculum and in
1500 hours of supervised internship that is required of
all pharmacist applicants in California. Furthermore,
the existing examination's short answer questions are not
designed to evaluate communications skills, but are
designed to test the application of the candidate's skill
in applying pharmacy knowledge. A licensure examination
is only one of three significant elements in evaluating a
candidate's ability to perform the duties of a pharmacist
at a minimum level of competency (education, internship,
and examination) and each element evaluates different
sets of skills and competencies. Notably, the curriculum
standards adopted by the American Council on
Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE), which is the accrediting
body for pharmacy schools, devote substantial portions of
the curriculum to communication skills."

The board further states that "adopting the NAPLEX will
remove an unnecessary administrative barrier to the
practice of pharmacy in California while maintaining the
high standard of competence consumers have come to expect.
The current state exam restricts candidates to two
opportunities to take the test each year, whereas NAPLEX is
offered year round and reduces the waiting time for results
from weeks to days. NAPLEX is the accepted examination for
pharmacists in every other state and preserving a separate
examination in California strongly discourages pharmacy
graduates in other states to seek a California license.
With the adoption of the Doctor of Pharmacy as the entry
level degree requirement by all pharmacy schools and the
fact that all schools of pharmacy are held to the same high
standards by the ACPE, there is no reason for California to
continue its independent testing program."

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents assert that utilizing the NAPLEX will lower the licensing standard in California. Further, opponents do not believe that the NAPLEX, which is a multiple-choice exam, will test for application and utilization of knowledge in a real world environment as well as the ability to communicate to patients. According to Senate Business and Professions Committee analysis, the United Food and Commercial Workers, the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, the Consumer Federation of California, and the Congress of California Seniors oppose the adoption of NAPLEX.
 
Strange, why has Rite-Aid listed itself as being in opposition to this bill. Albertsons supports it.
 
Sounds good to me. I have zero data to back up this claim, but the move to pharmD only pharmacists must reduce the number of pharmacist being kicked out each yr, so CA is gonna have to be more creative and accepting when it comes to meeting the shortage.

Although, it's crap that that the pharmacy school curric tests communication ability rigorously enough (At least they didn't for some of the pharmcists i've met.) To me that's critical.

I'm curious where the shortage is most pronounced? in retail, clinical, industry?
 
Originally posted by LVPharm
Strange, why has Rite-Aid listed itself as being in opposition to this bill. Albertsons supports it.

Rite Aid probably has a pretty good handle on the CA pharmacies, and doesn't want to see competition. It's just a guess.

Jd
 
Originally posted by Triangulation
I'm curious where the shortage is most pronounced? in retail, clinical, industry?

I'm not sure about retail vs. hospital, but I think its certainly regional. Every now and then I look at want-ads for hospitals in CA...they almost all tend to be from the Central Valley region...Fresno, Visalia, Tulare, etc. Also Bakersfield/Kern County. And they're usually for the same hospitals...that kinda tells me that those positions have been open for some extended period of time. I'm sure the same thing applies to retail.

You'd have a harder time finding open retail and hospital positions for full-time pharmacists in Orange County, LA, etc. They're there, just not "plentiful".
 
This bill still has to make it through the CA state assembly. That's where the last similar bill got amended the heck out of. This thing's not over. It'll have to survive the state assembly, then the Governor's pen.
 
Most of the recruiting spam i get is for clinical pharmacists, if that's any indication of the shortage.
 
As for the NAPLEX vs. CA state boards, besides the pass/rate percentages for each exam, I have personal anecdotes from friends that graduated from UoP and USC. They all have said the NAPLEX is easy as snot compared to the CA State Boards. Anyhow, it's good to hear they're doing away with their state boards. Makes it easier for me to decide on which school to go to now.
 
something to keep in mind is that the CA board of pharmacy can probably set the passing score for their state wherever they want. Just because it's 75 elsewhere doesn't mean CA has to go along with that. NABP just reports the scores to the states, it's up to the states to decide what score is passing.

'Course, that would piss everyone off worse than the separate board exam does. :)
 
I agree with samoa, and furthermore, if you compare to medical schools, its difficult to move into cali unless you have done your residency here. and in that case, one must've done exceptionally well on his/her board exams as well as get very good lor's. getting a residency in cali is difficult also bc med students have to do well on the step 1 usmle. its all about where you start out... as long as you've got your foot in cali's door you can get a good paying job here... true most primary care physicians salaries in cali are lower but in the specialities it doesn't matter. its all because everyone wants to practice in cali.

but cali PHARM school grads definitely have the edge over any out of stater... don't you agree that if you are going to a cali school, doing rotations here, getting set up for a potential residency and job afterwards would be much less difficult compared to an out of stater?

personally i have no qualms over this bill... the shortage in cali is overwhelming. working with pharmacists at savons i see the direct impact on their lives... we need more help here, more patients need talented pharmacists, and that doesn't exclude out of cali grads. to look at the broader scheme of things...
 
Top