Walgreens in AZ refusing to xfer CIV before first fill?

[PharmD.girl]

I have been out of retail for a few years. I recently had to wait 4 days for Walgreens to order and fill my Viberzi Rx on a holiday weekend because it was an e-Rx and Walgreens told me that they have a new policy that they are unable to xfer controls before the first fill. I asked why this was the case since they were a "real time" pharmacy chain. The RPh agreed with me, but said that was their company policy. Does anyone have more information about this policy? Is it only Walgreens or other companies as well?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[zelman]

I have been out of retail for a few years. I recently had to wait 4 days for Walgreens to order and fill my Viberzi Rx on a holiday weekend because it was an e-Rx and Walgreens told me that they have a new policy that they are unable to xfer controls before the first fill. I asked why this was the case since they were a "real time" pharmacy chain. The RPh agreed with me, but said that was their company policy. Does anyone have more information about this policy? Is it only Walgreens or other companies as well?

It’s Walmart policy, too. The federal law on transferring controlled substance Rx’s says it can be done “for the purpose of refilling,” so it’s not explicitly clear that first fills can be transferred. However, in the notice and comment process for the laws permitting eRx’s for controlled substances, the DEA stated that new Rx’s could be transferred, so it turns out the law is just poorly written.

 

[PharmD.girl]

It’s Walmart policy, too. The federal law on transferring controlled substance Rx’s says it can be done “for the purpose of refilling,” so it’s not explicitly clear that first fills can be transferred. However, in the notice and comment process for the laws permitting eRx’s for controlled substances, the DEA stated that new Rx’s could be transferred, so it turns out the law is just poorly written.

I appreciate your response. Thank you for not calling me stupid as many do on these threads. I did read the DEA info on control xfers as well and understand that it is for refill purposes, but a real-time pharmacy chain can xfer as many times as possible so it lead me to believe that filling at another location of a real-time chain is basically equivalent to filling it at one pharmacy. I will have look up the info on controlled e-RX's. I left retail just before controls were allowed to be sent electronically in my state.
Thanks for your input!

 

[zelman]

Thank you for not calling me stupid as many do on these threads.

No thanks needed. I only call the stupid people stupid.

 

[KimChiSlap]

you are right.
Except I don't know if they have a way to forward the control e-Rx for the first fill.
The e-Rx have a electronic signature that was sent to that specific store.
How would they forward the new Rx in that case?

 

[txpharmguy]

It’s Walmart policy, too. The federal law on transferring controlled substance Rx’s says it can be done “for the purpose of refilling,” so it’s not explicitly clear that first fills can be transferred. However, in the notice and comment process for the laws permitting eRx’s for controlled substances, the DEA stated that new Rx’s could be transferred, so it turns out the law is just poorly written.

It says that it can be forwarded. Since we have no means of forwarding it electronically, it can't be transferred. (I disagree with the whole "interpretation" of the law, but I have to follow company policy)

 

[BenJammin]

Electronically sent prescriptions for controlled substances can be transferred regardless of whether or not they were filled. The DEA is very clear on this subject matter. If Walmart is refusing the transfer then that pharmacy and pharmacist needs to be reported to the board. I don't know about Arizona but here in Texas pharmacists are not allowed to refuse a transfer.

It says that it can be forwarded. Since we have no means of forwarding it electronically, it can't be transferred. (I disagree with the whole "interpretation" of the law, but I have to follow company policy)

BS semantics. How much sense does that make for the DEA to make a rule saying that it has to be transferred electronically to another pharmacy when that technology isn't in current use? Your company policy is in violation of state rules. Better hope I'm not working my once a pay period outpatient shift or you're getting a call from Allison Benz!

 

[owlegrad]

Electronically sent prescriptions for controlled substances can be transferred regardless of whether or not they were filled. The DEA is very clear on this subject matter. If Walmart is refusing the transfer then that pharmacy and pharmacist needs to be reported to the board. I don't know about Arizona but here in Texas pharmacists are not allowed to refuse a transfer.



BS semantics. How much sense does that make for the DEA to make a rule saying that it has to be transferred electronically to another pharmacy when that technology isn't in current use? Your company policy is in violation of state rules. Better hope I'm not working my once a pay period outpatient shift or you're getting a call from Allison Benz!

I remember I was working a shift in retail once where I called a mail order company for a transfer. They told me they couldn’t transfer the prescription because it had been mailed to the pharmacy and it was against their policy to transfer prescriptions that have been mailed. I politely asked the pharmacist for their name and license number so I can report them to the board. After a brief hold suddenly it was OK for them to give me the transfer. Weird.

 

[Sine Cura]

Why are pharmacists scared to give out their name and license info? In the case of someone "threatening" to report me to the board, I would freely give out already public information. Yeah I cannot work in distribution without a license but I also am accountable to my employer. Most boards do not say you "must" do a transfer but some do have statutes regarding the obstruction of patient care

If it were actually company policy I would not budge a nanometer

Maybe that would actually force BOP clarification on the issue.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Careful, @BenJammin

TSBP updated their rule to comply with Walmart's company policy.

You'd better call Ben before you start trying to use Allison as your personal enforcer

 

[Lnsean]

Electronically sent prescriptions for controlled substances can be transferred regardless of whether or not they were filled. The DEA is very clear on this subject matter. If Walmart is refusing the transfer then that pharmacy and pharmacist needs to be reported to the board. I don't know about Arizona but here in Texas pharmacists are not allowed to refuse a transfer.



BS semantics. How much sense does that make for the DEA to make a rule saying that it has to be transferred electronically to another pharmacy when that technology isn't in current use? Your company policy is in violation of state rules. Better hope I'm not working my once a pay period outpatient shift or you're getting a call from Allison Benz!

This is also a corporate wide policy at walgreens. I'm sure the lawyers already looked a this. Employees are forbidden to do verbal transfers on controls that have never been filled but in "STORED" status due to the federal laws on transfers. Doing so is a reason for termination. The reasoning is that the DEA also does not explicitly allow it and state laws are deferring the matter back to the DEA.

 

[owlegrad]

This is also a corporate wide policy at walgreens. I'm sure the lawyers already looked a this. Employees are forbidden to do verbal transfers on controls that have never been filled but in "STORED" status due to the federal laws on transfers. Doing so is a reason for termination. The reasoning is that the DEA also does not explicitly allow it and state laws are deferring the matter back to the DEA.

Except that they do. They very explicitly DO allow it. If you do not believe me, would you believe the DEA website?

"
Transfers

A pharmacy would be allowed to transfer an original unfilled electronic prescription to another pharmacy if that pharmacy is unable to or chooses not to fill the prescription.
"

https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2008/fr0627.pdf#search=transferring

 

[doublehh03]

This is also a corporate wide policy at walgreens. I'm sure the lawyers already looked a this. Employees are forbidden to do verbal transfers on controls that have never been filled but in "STORED" status due to the federal laws on transfers. Doing so is a reason for termination. The reasoning is that the DEA also does not explicitly allow it and state laws are deferring the matter back to the DEA.

Same with CVS. There was a conference call on it, along with multiple emails. System even blocks you when you try to transfer out controls.

 

[DASicari]

This is CVS policy as well, citing the DEAs eRx forwarding rationale above. CVS has said that since their software is incapable of “forwarding” an eRx electronically, the prescriber would have to send a new eRx to the intended pharmacy and that the original cannot be transferred until it was filled once first.

 

[Lnsean]

Except that they do. They very explicitly DO allow it. If you do not believe me, would you believe the DEA website?

"
Transfers

A pharmacy would be allowed to transfer an original unfilled electronic prescription to another pharmacy if that pharmacy is unable to or chooses not to fill the prescription.
"

https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2008/fr0627.pdf#search=transferring

They don't. That's only if you can transfer the original script with the original signature on it to the other pharmacy; otherwise, it's not a legal transfer. Hence, I said "verbal" transfer. The line you're quoting clearly says "electronic prescriptions"

 

[doublehh03]

But good thing to learn from this thread. Pharmacists will report fellow pharmacists to the board. Ruthless.

 

[KimChiSlap]

I remember I was working a shift in retail once where I called a mail order company for a transfer. They told me they couldn’t transfer the prescription because it had been mailed to the pharmacy and it was against their policy to transfer prescriptions that have been mailed. I politely asked the pharmacist for their name and license number so I can report them to the board. After a brief hold suddenly it was OK for them to give me the transfer. Weird.

Did the mail order company had a refill on the prescription, which I don't see why not to do a transfer.
Unless there's no refill if the doctor prescribed it once.
Would that mean they sent the rx to the pharmacy that the patient can pick up... along with where you are getting the prescription transferred to for the patient to receive the rx from as well?

 

[owlegrad]

They don't. That's only if you can transfer the original script with the original signature on it to the other pharmacy; otherwise, it's not a legal transfer. Hence, I said "verbal" transfer. The line you're quoting clearly says "electronic prescriptions"

Where does it say that? You’re making up rules that don’t exist.

 

[owlegrad]

Did the mail order company had a refill on the prescription, which I don't see why not to do a transfer.
Unless there's no refill if the doctor prescribed it once.
Would that mean they sent the rx to the pharmacy that the patient can pick up... along with where you are getting the prescription transferred to for the patient to receive the rx from as well?

They had refills they just refused to transfer it to me.

 

[Lnsean]

Where does it say that? You’re making up rules that don’t exist.

Bro, I'm just referring to what you quoted. It clearly says electronic prescriptions in what you quoted. Also, it doesn't matter what you say, if my corporate office has already made a decision on this then I have to follow them. I'm not going to listen to some stranger online on what he thinks or feels the DEA is saying.

 

[owlegrad]

Bro, I'm just referring to what you quoted. It clearly says electronic prescriptions in what you quoted. Also, it doesn't matter what you say, if my corporate office has already made a decision on this then I have to follow them. I'm not going to listen to some stranger online on what he thinks or feels the DEA is saying.

Yes what I quoted is regarding transferring electronic prescriptions. Nowhere does it say that an electronic prescription must be transferred to another pharmacy electronically. That is a rule that is being invented out of thin air.

I’m not suggesting anyone should violated company policy. I want to keep my job. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with my company or think that their correct. As pharmacist we should be able to read and interpret the laws ourselves and know what the DEA actually does and does not allow. The DEA has actually clarified this issue multiple times and has always come out and said that it is OK to transfer an unfilled controlled prescription, Electronic or otherwise.

 

[lord999]

AZ cites pharmacists and pharmacies for attempting to "transfer" an unfilled script. You can look at the last couple of years for the $500 plus CE fine sent. Also, I thought you were obligated to give your name and license number to professional asks (I think OK or KS has that odd policy for transfers). Whenever you're asked uncomfortably, reply sure, but you first and I'm calling you back.

 

[wagrxm2000]

But good thing to learn from this thread. Pharmacists will report fellow pharmacists to the board. Ruthless.

If you ever want a certain store just report every pharmacist until you get the job.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Bro, I'm just referring to what you quoted. It clearly says electronic prescriptions in what you quoted. Also, it doesn't matter what you say, if my corporate office has already made a decision on this then I have to follow them. I'm not going to listen to some stranger online on what he thinks or feels the DEA is saying.

I'd like to think at this point I personally know all the regular posters at this point.

 

[Lnsean]

Yes what I quoted is regarding transferring electronic prescriptions. Nowhere does it say that an electronic prescription must be transferred to another pharmacy electronically. That is a rule that is being invented out of thin air.

I’m not suggesting anyone should violated company policy. I want to keep my job. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with my company or think that their correct. As pharmacist we should be able to read and interpret the laws ourselves and know what the DEA actually does and does not allow. The DEA has actually clarified this issue multiple times and has always come out and said that it is OK to transfer an unfilled controlled prescription, Electronic or otherwise.

Don't think you are right on this one. If multiple corporations are taking the same action then you have to question yourself. It's not a matter of what you feel or think the DEA is saying. You have way too much emotions involved in this. The law is the law and whenever it is unclear, you seek or err on the side of standard practice NOT on what you feel is right. I'm sorry, I don't agree with you or your way of thinking on this which would get a lot of people in trouble. I feel you have too much of a stake in this argument and want to be right just to be right.

 

[owlegrad]

Don't think you are right on this one. If multiple corporations are taking the same action then you have to question yourself. It's not a matter of what you feel or think the DEA is saying. You have way too much emotions involved in this. The law is the law and whenever it is unclear, you seek or err on the side of standard practice NOT on what you feel is right. I'm sorry, I don't agree with you or your way of thinking on this which would get a lot of people in trouble. I feel you have too much of a stake in this argument and want to be right just to be right.

Perhaps you are right, although I don't think this is an emotional issue for me. If the DEA came out tomorrow and said "We don't allow transfer of unfilled controls" I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. But you realize you are very much suggesting to just blindly trust corporations in how they interpret the law? No thanks, I think I will keep using my own reading and critical thinking skills.

Just to reiterate though, I do very much agree with following company policy as I myself want to keep my job. I just don't have to agree with it.

I also think it is funny that I am quoting from the DEA website where it explicitly states that it is ok to transfer unfilled controlled substance prescriptions and you are coming back with "If corporations say it is illegal it must be illegal".

Edit: Also I don't "think or feel" DEA is saying anything. I am reading what they publish on their website.

 

[Lnsean]

Perhaps you are right, although I don't think this is an emotional issue for me. If the DEA came out tomorrow and said "We don't allow transfer of unfilled controls" I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. But you realize you are very much suggesting to just blindly trust corporations in how they interpret the law? No thanks, I think I will keep using my own reading and critical thinking skills.

Just to reiterate though, I do very much agree with following company policy as I myself want to keep my job. I just don't have to agree with it.

I also think it is funny that I am quoting from the DEA website where it explicitly states that it is ok to transfer unfilled controlled substance prescriptions and you are coming back with "If corporations say it is illegal it must be illegal".

Yea, i'm going to trust my company's legal team versus some stranger online.

I also think it is funny that I am quoting from the DEA website where it explicitly states that it is ok to transfer unfilled controlled substance prescriptions and you are coming back with "If corporations say it is illegal it must be illegal".

Again, I don't get why you keep ignoring the fact that it specific says ELECTRONIC PRESCRIPTIONS...which certainly does not imply that it applies to ALL PRESCRIPTIONS that are stored/hold status. So why did the DEA make such a distinction? Surely, they think that there must be a way to safely forward such ELECTRONIC PRESCRIPTIONS.

 

[owlegrad]

Yea, i'm going to trust my company's legal team versus some stranger online.

I am not suggesting you trust me, I am suggesting you trust DEA.

, I don't get why you keep ignoring the fact that it specific says ELECTRONIC PRESCRIPTIONS...which certainly does not imply that it applies to ALL PRESCRIPTIONS that are stored/hold status. So why did the DEA make such a distinction? Surely, they think that there must be a way to safely forward such ELECTRONIC PRESCRIPTIONS.

Fair point. I will let DEA answer that question:
'However, in the 2010 Federal Register notice that addressed changes in regulations for electronic prescriptions, one commenter requested guidance on the transfer of original Schedule III-V prescriptions that had not been filled. DEA’s response to this commenter was that “existing requirements for transfers . . . remain unchanged,” and that it “currently permits the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one time basis.”'

 

[zelman]

DEA currently permits the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one-time basis. This allowance does not change. DEA wishes to emphasize that the only changes made to Sec. 1306.25 as part of the NPRM were to revise the text to include separate requirements for transfers of electronic prescriptions.

We've been through this before.

This actually came up in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking about electronic prescriptions for controlled substances:
2010 - Interim Final Rule With Request for Comment: Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances (Cont'd)

5. Transfers

In the NPRM, DEA confirmed existing regulations regarding the transfer of prescriptions for Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substances. Specifically, under Sec. 1306.25(a) a pharmacy is allowed to transfer an original unfilled electronic prescription to another pharmacy if the first pharmacy is unable to or chooses not to fill the prescription. Further, a pharmacy is also allowed to transfer an electronic prescription for a Schedule III, IV, or V controlled substance with remaining refills to another pharmacy for filling provided the transfer is communicated between two licensed pharmacists. The pharmacy transferring the prescription would have to void the remaining refills in its records and note in its records to which pharmacy the prescription was transferred. The notations may occur electronically. The pharmacy receiving the transferred prescription would have to note from whom the prescription was received and the number of remaining refills.

Comments. One commenter, a large pharmacy, believed that while the NPRM addressed the transfer of prescription refill information for Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substance prescriptions, it did not address the transfer of original prescriptions that have not been filled.

DEA Response. As DEA explained in the NPRM, the existing requirements for transfers of Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substances prescriptions remain unchanged. DEA currently permits the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one-time basis. This allowance does not change. DEA wishes to emphasize that the only changes made to Sec. 1306.25 as part of the NPRM were to revise the text to include separate requirements for transfers of electronic prescriptions. These revisions were needed because an electronic prescription could be transferred without a telephone call between pharmacists. Consequently, the transferring pharmacist must provide, with the electronic transfer, the information that the recipient transcribes when accepting an oral transfer.

 

[Lnsean]

I am not suggesting you trust me, I am suggesting you trust DEA.



Fair point. I will let DEA answer that question:
'However, in the 2010 Federal Register notice that addressed changes in regulations for electronic prescriptions, one commenter requested guidance on the transfer of original Schedule III-V prescriptions that had not been filled. DEA’s response to this commenter was that “existing requirements for transfers . . . remain unchanged,” and that it “currently permits the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one time basis.”'

That's not accurate. It clearly says based on existing requirements. If you go to the DEA.gov website, it clearly says: A DEA registered pharmacy may transfer original prescription information for schedules III, IV, andV controlled substances to another DEA registered pharmacy for the purpose of refill dispensing between pharmacies, on a one time basis only." This clearly states that it is only the refills that are transferable not the original fill. A script that is on hold does not count. This is what the legal team at walgreens commented on in the note that corporate sent down to us. You are taking everything out of context to prove something that needs not be proven to anyone here.

SECTION IX-XIV

"
Transfer of Schedules III-V Prescription Information
A DEA registered pharmacy may transfer original prescription information for schedules III, IV, and V controlled substances to another DEA registered pharmacy for the purpose of refill dispensing between pharmacies, on a one time basis only. However, pharmacies electronically sharing a real-time, online database may transfer up to the maximum refills permitted by law and the prescriber’s authorization."

This is what Walgreens was talking about.

 

[owlegrad]

We've been through this before.

Thank you for posting this.

 

[owlegrad]

That's not accurate. It clearly says based on existing requirements. If you go to the DEA.gov website, it clearly says: A DEA registered pharmacy may transfer original prescription information for schedules III, IV, andV controlled substances to another DEA registered pharmacy for the purpose of refill dispensing between pharmacies, on a one time basis only." This clearly states that it is only the refills that are transferable not the original fill. A script that is on hold does not count. This is what the legal team at walgreens commented on in the note that corporate sent down to us. You are taking everything out of context to prove something that needs not be proven to anyone here.

SECTION IX-XIV

"
Transfer of Schedules III-V Prescription Information
A DEA registered pharmacy may transfer original prescription information for schedules III, IV, and V controlled substances to another DEA registered pharmacy for the purpose of refill dispensing between pharmacies, on a one time basis only. However, pharmacies electronically sharing a real-time, online database may transfer up to the maximum refills permitted by law and the prescriber’s authorization."

This is what Walgreens was talking about.

I am just curious, what would the DEA have to say to convince people that it is ok to transfer unfilled prescriptions?

"Comments. One commenter, a large pharmacy, believed that while the NPRM addressed the transfer of prescription refill information for Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substance prescriptions, it did not address the transfer of original prescriptions that have not been filled.

DEA Response. As DEA explained in the NPRM, the existing requirements for transfers of Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substances prescriptions remain unchanged. DEA currently permits the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one-time basis. This allowance does not change"

How much clearer could the DEA be? I agree that the original law sounds like it might not permit transferring new scripts since it only addresses refill dispensing. That is ambiguous. But the DEA has affirmed multiple times that it is ok to transfer new scripts. Like literally over and over.

 

[Lnsean]

I am just curious, what would the DEA have to say to convince people that it is ok to transfer unfilled prescriptions?

"Comments. One commenter, a large pharmacy, believed that while the NPRM addressed the transfer of prescription refill information for Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substance prescriptions, it did not address the transfer of original prescriptions that have not been filled.

DEA Response. As DEA explained in the NPRM, the existing requirements for transfers of Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substances prescriptions remain unchanged. DEA currently permits the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one-time basis. This allowance does not change"

How much clearer could the DEA be? I agree that the original law sounds like it might not permit transferring new scripts since it only addresses refill dispensing. That is ambiguous. But the DEA has affirmed multiple times that it is ok to transfer new scripts. Like literally over and over.

It's pretty easy. All they have to do is update their guidelines instead of being wishy washy and deferring grey areas to the state and vice versa. All they have to do is just update section IX-XIV to say that the original fill is transferable. Why don't they do that? Why are you having to rely on inferences that are obviously contradicting what they have in their regulations "handbook" for pharmacists. I think I know why though...they want to keep it vague so their are more legal options when they have to go after someone...and I think CVS/Walgreens/Walmart knows this.

 

[owlegrad]

It's pretty easy. All they have to do is update their guidelines instead of being wishy washy and deferring grey areas to the state and vice versa. All they have to do is just update section IX-XIV to say that the original fill is transferable. Why don't they do that? Why are you having to rely on inferences that are contradicting what they have in their "handbook" for pharmacists.

It's not an inference though. They flat out say it is ok to transfer original prescription information after being asked about transferring original unfilled prescriptions. I don't know why you think they are being wishy-washy or deferring this to the states.

Just for my own curiosity, where do they contradict themselves? I cannot find anywhere where they suggest you can't transfer a new script, it simply isn't mentioned in the original section. Show me a contradiction and I will gladly admit I have been wrong this whole time. I actually couldn't find transferring controlled prescriptions in the handbook for pharmacies, only transferring actual medications. That does seem like a poor omission on the DEA's part. If I am wrong about that as well though I am happy to be proven wrong.

I don't know why they don't update the actual language of the section, perhaps that is difficult to do legally? Maybe they would have to have public hearings and they think they have better things to do with their time? Just conjecture, obviously I have no idea. I agree that would be nice.

 

[Lnsean]

It's not an inference though. They flat out say it is ok to transfer original prescription information after being asked about transferring original unfilled prescriptions. I don't know why you think they are being wishy-washy or deferring this to the states.

Just for my own curiosity, where do they contradict themselves? I cannot find anywhere where they suggest you can't transfer a new script, it simply isn't mentioned in the original section. Show me a contradiction and I will gladly admit I have been wrong this whole time. I actually couldn't find transferring controlled prescriptions in the handbook for pharmacies, only transferring actual medications. That does seem like a poor omission on the DEA's part. If I am wrong about that as well though I am happy to be proven wrong.

I don't know why they don't update the actual language of the section, perhaps that is difficult to do legally? Maybe they would have to have public hearings and they think they have better things to do with their time? Just conjecture, obviously I have no idea. I agree that would be nice.

It is wishy washy because people are not interpreting it the same way. Transferring original prescription information is not the same as transferring the original fill. It's telling you that it's okay to transfer the original prescription information/data in order to fulfill the transfer of the remaining refills. It also clearly says that the purpose of such a transfer is for refills only. If i had to ask you the same question, why are you reading it to imply that this includes the original fill..nowhere does it say that.

 

[owlegrad]

why are you reading it to imply that this includes the original fill..nowhere does it say that.

Are you even reading it?

"One commenter, a large pharmacy, believed that while the NPRM addressed the transfer of prescription refill information for Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substance prescriptions, it did not address the transfer of original prescriptions that have not been filled."

So, someone asked the DEA to clarify if they can transfer prescriptions that have not been filled.

And the DEA replied: "DEA currently permits the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one-time basis"

Now I admit it would have been nice of the DEA to simply answer "Yes you may transfer unfilled original controlled substance prescriptions in schedules 3-5". But how can you read their reply and possibly come away thinking "Nope, can't do it, the DEA is being too wishy-washy". They are being abundantly clear. They literally say that they permit it.

 

[Lnsean]

Are you even reading it?

"One commenter, a large pharmacy, believed that while the NPRM addressed the transfer of prescription refill information for Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substance prescriptions, it did not address the transfer of original prescriptions that have not been filled."

So, someone asked the DEA to clarify if they can transfer prescriptions that have not been filled.

And the DEA replied: "DEA currently permits the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one-time basis"

Now I admit it would have been nice of the DEA to simply answer "Yes you may transfer unfilled original controlled substance prescriptions in schedules 3-5". But how can you read their reply and possibly come away thinking "Nope, can't do it, the DEA is being too wishy-washy". They are being abundantly clear. They literally say that they permit it.

Dude, it clearly says original prescription INFORMATION...not the original prescription fill. Why are you trying to argue this? If major corporations are having a problem with the wording then it's a big deal. Also, on their website, it clearly says the purpose of the transfer is for REFILLING:

SECTION IX-XIV

"Transfer of Schedules III-V Prescription Information
A DEA registered pharmacy may transfer original prescription information for schedules III, IV, and V controlled substances to another DEA registered pharmacy for the purpose of refill dispensing between pharmacies, on a one time basis only. However, pharmacies electronically sharing a real-time, online database may transfer up to the maximum refills permitted by law and the prescriber’s authorization."

THIS IS THE OFFICIAL WORDING STRAIGHT FROM THE REGULATIONS BOOK


AGAIN, no where does it say WORD FOR WORD what you are claiming. IT DOES SAY WORD FOR WORD what I AM SAYING.

 

[owlegrad]

Wow dude you seem emotionally invested in this and just want to be right for the sake of being right. Since you clearly want to have the last word I will let you have it. <Assuming you respond after this post of course>

But like I showed you above, someone asked specifically if they could transfer an unfilled original prescription and the DEA replied that they permit transferring original prescription information. I don't see how that isn't clear enough for you. They were answering a question about unfilled prescriptions so it doesn't make sense to think they are only talking about refills.

EDIT: I promised to let you have the last word, so now I have to own up to that promise. Sigh. The reasons I called you emotional was all the yelling. You weren't just quoting, you were also YELLING AT ME.

 

[Lnsean]

Wow dude you seem emotionally invested in this and just want to be right for the sake of being right. Since you clearly want to have the last word I will let you have it. <Assuming you respond after this post of course>

But like I showed you above, someone asked specifically if they could transfer an unfilled original prescription and the DEA replied that they permit transferring original prescription information. I don't see how that isn't clear enough for you. They were answering a question about unfilled prescriptions so it doesn't make sense to think they are only talking about refills.

Huh? I'm just literally quoting what the DEA has written on it. It takes like no effort. You, though, have to stretch the wording and make inferences for your argument to work. Clearly, you're more invested.

Not only that, it's important to not spread misinformation on something that can get someone in trouble. It's obvious that the DEA does not want to clarify this...or they would have...for whatever the reason is. You insisting on a different interpretation than what is actually there is actually the more disturbing part.

 

[hcp]

I had a similar issue when an independent pharmacist gave me so much grief when I refused to transfer an unfilled c3 rx (stored). I was following what Walgreens told us in several compass projects and emails. When I asked my district manager, he sent me an email with this attachment.

The Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations outline what can take place
regarding prescriptions for controlled substances. In Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations,
Section 1306.25 the DEA made a specific exception so that a DEA registered pharmacy can,
once it has filled an original prescription for a controlled substance in Schedules III-V, transfer
the original prescription information to another DEA registered pharmacy for the purpose of
allowing that second pharmacy to then dispense any remaining valid refills still permitted by law
and the prescriber’s authorization. With one exception, such an allowance currently does not
exist for the forwarding of an unfilled prescription from one DEA registered retail pharmacy so
that it may be filled at another DEA registered retail pharmacy.

Prescriptions can take the form of paper (including fax), call-in, or electronic prescription for
controlled substances (EPCS). The DEA has addressed the forwarding of an EPCS
prescription. The DEA published information in the preamble of the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on EPCS, 73 FR 36722, and the preamble of the interim final rule (IFR) on
EPCS, 75 FR 16235. Note, because this was in the preamble and not in the EPCS regulations, it
represents the DEA’s policy. As posted in the preambles of the NPRM and the IFR, an unfilled
original EPCS prescription can be forwarded from one DEA registered retail pharmacy to
another DEA registered retail pharmacy, and this includes Schedule II controlled substances.

Hope this helps!

 

[BidingMyTime]

It does seem pretty clear that the DEA is saying it is OK to transfer electronic, unfilled RX's.....if this isn't what they meant to say, then they are using careful wording to be intentionally misleading. I have a hard time believing that the DEA is being intentionally misleading on this point.

 

[lord999]

Transfer of Prescription Information | Arizona State Board of Pharmacy
https://pharmacy.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/sps8.pdf

They changed the practice rules quite a bit ago, and it requires the script verified. My aunt was cited for calling in the prescription rather than getting a number set up right as they were changing the policy and started pressuring the political side for change in the AAC. A bunch of pharmacists from her generation still won't transfer new scripts, because they've been hit with complaints anyway, so the local practice is usually to refuse the transfer and ask the pharmacist to call the prescriber's agent.

 

[BenJammin]

Careful, @BenJammin

TSBP updated their rule to comply with Walmart's company policy.

You'd better call Ben before you start trying to use Allison as your personal enforcer

Actually they updated their rules to comply with federal law, not Walmart company policy.

 

[BenJammin]

But good thing to learn from this thread. Pharmacists will report fellow pharmacists to the board. Ruthless.

It wouldn't be a big deal if these pharmacies would just follow existing state and federal law. Who suffers when the sending pharmacy refuses the transfer? The patient.

AZ cites pharmacists and pharmacies for attempting to "transfer" an unfilled script. You can look at the last couple of years for the $500 plus CE fine sent. Also, I thought you were obligated to give your name and license number to professional asks (I think OK or KS has that odd policy for transfers). Whenever you're asked uncomfortably, reply sure, but you first and I'm calling you back.

Yeah transfers in Oklahoma require last name and license number. Texas just requires "name of the pharmacist".

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Actually they updated their rules to comply with federal law, not Walmart company policy.

"Forward"

 

[BenJammin]

"Forward"

Semantics. Are you really trying to suggest that the Board has made up an entirely new class of prescription transfer? You can forward the prescription to me the same way you forward any other prescription.

 

[doublehh03]

It wouldn't be a big deal if these pharmacies would just follow existing state and federal law. Who suffers when the sending pharmacy refuses the transfer? The patient.t".

You should take that up with the company they work for, not the pharmacist. If the system doesn't allow you to transfer out a prescription, how are you going to report that pharmacist? He/she won't be able to document all the information in the system to do a transfer required by law.

In that scenario, would it be much trouble for you to call the doctor and ask for a prescription? Or is that too much work if you truly cared for the patient?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Semantics. Are you really trying to suggest that the Board has made up an entirely new class of prescription transfer? You can forward the prescription to me the same way you forward any other prescription.

Saying "semantics" when discussing law makes you sound like Sosoo.

The very concept of law revolves around semantics.

Your post is low energy. Sad.

Legalese is a thing for a reason.

 

[Lnsean]

Semantics. Are you really trying to suggest that the Board has made up an entirely new class of prescription transfer? You can forward the prescription to me the same way you forward any other prescription.

People get sued and win/lose on semantics. The wording is critical. It can change the case. I mean the whole profession of law is based on semantics.

In your link, it clearly says "electronic prescriptions" and then "forward." No where does it say that this is a transfer, which is the generally accepted term for transferring scripts. The intentional use of "forward" specifically here in this paragrapht should tell you that it's different since the state boards of pharmacy use "transfer" in the rest of their documents.

 

[pharm B]

I'll have to find the message (love getting things in writing), but the Oregon Board said transfers of unfilled controls are alright, and they provided a statement from NABP with their message.