Actually, yes, but it has an older history than that. Ohio and some of the other states in the Midwest (including IL, WI, and MN) have stricter role definitions in their statutes and reservations due to a long-departed company named Revco. So, the Revco staffing model was that the pharmacist was also the store manager, but did not necessarily work behind the counter in the pharmacy. S/he was expected to be out of the floor doing stuff, and the techs or cashiers would be the only people behind the counter and did everything including what we would term verification today. The pharmacist would only come back to do OBRA 90 stuff, but before OBRA 90, patients never interacted with the manager behind the counter unless it was a store busy enough to have a second staff pharmacist (who was behind the counter like what we would expect today) as they were usually somewhere out on the floor. By the way, if you were the second staff pharmacist, you only made 3/4's of what the "pharmacist" made in Revco as the "assistant pharmacist" or even "Senior Pharmacy Technician" if the manager was especially cheap. On one hand, s/he could get away with underpaying actual pharmacist labor. On the other, if they screwed up, their license would be in jeopardy as well.
Most of those states, including AZ, adopted much stricter policy stating that at least one pharmacist had to be within sight of the pharmacy when open at all times, defined roles for who could be and who could not be behind the counter, and actually went so far as to demand that the licensed personnel submit where they worked to be checked against the employment records to make sure that whoever was behind the counter was actually in charge of the dispensing (something that was not the case with the Revco staff model).
That is actually the reason behind MN BoPs and ILFPR's requirement that you declare where you work as a primary matter, whether you float, and if you float regularly, where you do. It's because companies like Revco and Thrifty White heavily abused the system in ways that made labor enforcement impossible. One of the underlying reasons for the IL union was over abolishing undergrading of pharmacist labor.
On top of that, OH is a punitive kind of state. There's nothing preventing whether this person is paid for it (assistant pharmacists were paid at the same rate as senior techs back then and it was not illegal then or now), but the responsibility differential requires that they have the right license even if your logical argument (which I agree with) because of what their authority limits are. If they want to code him/her as a pharmacist intern but pay below a tech (or work for free for hours like the old days), that is the company and employee's prerogative. But it is not good for the company or the regulatory enforcement if a person is not licensed for the job they do, despite holding a more authoritative one as it is unclear what scope they work as.
