SB 592 Tech-Check-Tech Bill

[rxgal8]

---

Members do not see this ad.

CSHP's bill passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday and is moving for a Senate Floor Vote on Thursday, May 5th.

http://www.cshp.org/leg/2005/sb592_factsheet.pdf

What do you guys think?

 

[rxgal8]

In short, this bill pertains to only clinical settings (not retail or community). It's basically for letting tech's check other tech's work instead of mandating a pharmacist to do it. That way, the pharmacist can, supposedly, spend more time with patients, etc.

I voted NO. Pharmacists should be part of the check and balance system. Are techs qualified to check other techs work? I think this bill may take away one of the many responsibilities that a pharmacist has. This bill may lead to more mistakes and uncaught contradictions, etc.

 

[Caverject]

Are techs qualified to check other techs work?

If you are a Military technician, the answer is yes.

 

[ForgetMeNot]

If you are a Military technician, the answer is yes.

They get massive amounts of training first. It's not like the military just decides to pull a person from....air traffic control and stick them in the pharmacy.

 

[KUMoose]

Wow, I guess I truly know what's it's like to be in the minority now.

Without looking at the specific language of the bill and looking only at the 'tag' sheet from the lobbyist, I don't see a problem with this. It mandates a QC and statistical level to meet and requires ongoing training.

Seems like a perfect fit for those people who have been pharm-techs for a long, long time or those people like my friend who was a pharmacy tech for ~10 years highschool => pharmacy school.

 

[ilovepharmacy]

I'm a little ehhh that the UFCW is opposed to it (i'm part of it). I think it's a step in the right direction for pharmacists and I don't think its taking away from their responsibilities - I would love to see the role of pharmacists evolve more and I can see it happening with this bill.

Besides, techs are much smarter than you think - I don't think they need pharmacists to look over their shoulder and baby-sit them.

 

[LVPharm]

If you are a Military technician, the answer is yes.

Did I just see an article in "Pharmacy Today" about this changing to "no" because of a problem with JCAHO? Maybe I'm hearing voices again, where's my Zyprexa...

 

[trishias]

I don't have a problem with it persay, but if u have stupid people checking stupid people it will never work 😡 . At my job, it would free up a lot of the pharmacists time, but we would need traning protocols and for the techs to give a damn.

 

[rxgal8]

Just to update everyone, the bill passed out on the Senate by a 23-8 votes and now will continue on to the Assembly. No hearings on the Assembly side have yet been scheduled. I'm surprised it made it this far 👎

 

[Sosumi]

I don't get it. It's supposed to be voluntary in hospitals, so would more than likely just ease demand for pharmacists in those settings. That sounds like a slippery slope to allow hospitals to decrease pay for pharmacists which is already lower than retail but has been gaining ground due to the shortage. I don't like where it's headed.

Also, it says:

"Responsibility and Liability: The supervising pharmacist is directly responsible and liable for any errors or omissions performed by a pharmacy technician and the hospital would be subject to corresponding and/or vicarious liability."

So what's the point if you're ultimately held liable even though you don't even check technician's work?

 

[ultracet]

i personally would not feel comfortable with that situation
after all... its my license on the line