Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
interesting..i did not know that. I guess in that case you have to follow your state law because it's stricter...so you shouldn't be transferring those out.
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Walgreens in AZ refusing to xfer CIV before first fill?
Started by PharmD.girl
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
interesting..i did not know that. I guess in that case you have to follow your state law because it's stricter...so you shouldn't be transferring those out.
So the DEA didn't mind before, but now they want the stricter interpretation? Why haven't they said that? Why are you assuming a motive for the DEA?
I personally think the DEA isn't clarifying this because they have, at least twice, clarified that it is allowed (forward vs transfer, "information", blah blah blah) and they figure it is clear enough. They have real work to do besides assuring pharmacists every few years that they can keep doing what they have always done.
In fact they probably don't care much one way or the other and have decided to just let the chains enforce whatever made up rules they want. What's it to them if chains want to be stricter? No skin off their nose.
Pretty easy...liability. You have to err on the the stricter interpretation. As for why they mind now...who knows...maybe because of the opioid crisis...maybe because they want to reserve more prosecution power...I'm not a mind reader.
It limits their ability to prosecute someone if they have to specify something too narrowly. I mean this is common sense. For example, I can't charge you for green crimes if my regulations only say red crimes are illegal...I'll just say that color crimes are illegal instead.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Ok, let's ignore the fact that you don't understand that the post you're quoting is obviously farcical humor.
So, let's say i have an Rx that'ss written for #30 with 2 refills, and i fill it for #30 on 1/1/18.
Someone calls for a transfer and i give it to them as having 1+1 fill remaining with the last refill date of 1/1/18.
Do the laws concerning transfers in any state require that the initial fill in will call be reversed and returned?
Can you define "original fill"?
Are you going to get upset that I'm trying to discuss things in detail and call me a ballerina again?
Bahahahah, BRUH.
So you've been going on and on about what's explicitly stated, but now we're supposed to consider what the DEA doesn't say to be the law.
Bright as day.
So you are saying, you're going to commit fraud? lmao. Basically you are telling me that you are filling the original fill at your store...not sell it to the patient..and transferring an "unfilled" controlled script with just the remaining refills (1+1) ? That's on you man...not me. I don't want to be a part of this. This goes beyond NY...lol.
I mean the lengths that some people would go through to appear to be right is mind boggling. You would break multiple laws to get to say that this script was not "unfilled"...then by all means...more power to you. I say you do this...and tell everyone about it too...that will show them.
Last edited:
So you are saying, you're going to commit fraud? lmao. Basically you are telling me that you are filling the original fill at your store...not sell it to the patient..and transferring an "unfilled" controlled script with just the remaining refills (1+1) ? That's on you man...not me. I don't want to be a part of this. This goes beyond NY...lol.
I mean the lengths that some people would go through to appear to be right is mind boggling. You would break multiple laws to get to say that this script was not "unfilled"...then by all means...more power to you. I say you do this...and tell everyone about it too...that will show them.
Last edited:
Duh...it's for our own liability. I mean they are the DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION. Their job is to enforce laws and if they are vague on their laws, you better err on the the stricter interpration. This is why the lawyers are telling you not to do it. If you want to take on that liability then that's fine. Just don't spread misinformation.
Get out of my mind you witch! I was just thinking the same thing. They go on and on and on about not playing guessing games and just going by the letter of the law, ignoring everything else.
Then all of a sudden BOOM we get conjecture and guesses. At least they are consistently inconsistent, I guess.
I do find discussing the possible motivations and conjectures to be more interesting anyway. You can only debate the meaning of "information" so long before it gets old.
Misinformation about whether or not one middle aged lady without JD after her name was wrong?
OH, i thought you were going to tell me how you're going to fill controlled prescriptions...not reverse it...not sell it to the patient...and then transferring only the refills out. LMAO
So an "original fill" isn't "filled" until it's picked up?
Show me in any state's law that says a prescription has to be RTS'd ever.
I don't have to show you. All you have to do is come in tomorrow and do what you just described and tell your HR department about it and the BoP and the DEA and see what they say. I'll even inform them for you. They'll find the laws really quick for you. LIke, do you even think before you open your mouth?
Also, if the only scenario where your explanation works is to break multiple laws then the scenario is garbage. You know what people will do? A normal rph will follow industry practice and not transfer the script. If you want to break multiple laws and play with that then its on you...I mean it's not new for you...since you haven't been caught.
You absolutely do have to show me.
If you say something is illegal, you have the burden of proof to prove that it's actually illegal.
You have to define "filled" in order to prove it's illegal.
You've been avoiding trying to define that for 3 pages now.
Also, as i explained before, I'm indulging you in a discussion based on a joke post.
I know you're desperate to stop feeling inferior to me, so you've created a fictional universe in which you portray me as someone who breaks the law.
If you're that kind of person that needs to create fiction to soothe yourself, that's fine.
If this thread has taught me anything it is that I am a mental gymnast/ballerina who has to be right.
Oh, and that words are impossible to define. Forward can mean anything (except transfer), information might mean something besides what everyone thinks it does, and filled and refilled are impossible to define.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Avoiding what? If you think it's legal then go in tomorrow and do it. The burden of proof is on you not me. This is your scenario not mine. Why is it on me to prove your scenario? lmao. In fact we can even make a new thread asking others to chime in on your scenario.
this is your scenario...own it...go in tomorrow...do what you described and bring proof to everyone here. if you cannot even prove your own scenario then why even post about it?
Let's say a wealthy patient is going out of the country for 6 months and their only Rx is a prescription for 1 box of diastat gel with 5 refills.
Let's say they have, on average, 2 serious seizures a month.
Their doctor calls you and states that they approve of, insist that, and need you to fill all of the fills that day.
Their computer is broken, their hands are broken so they can't write, and when you ask them to give you the rx verbally the doctor loses their voice and can't speak.
You then process all six fills as separate fills.
Are they all the original fill?
Do the 5 refills only become refills after the patient signs for the first fill?
What is a refill?
What is a fill?
What if the clerk messes up and all 5 refills get sold but the patient doesn't purchase the original fill?
Is that against the law?
Let's say they have, on average, 2 serious seizures a month.
Their doctor calls you and states that they approve of, insist that, and need you to fill all of the fills that day.
Their computer is broken, their hands are broken so they can't write, and when you ask them to give you the rx verbally the doctor loses their voice and can't speak.
You then process all six fills as separate fills.
Are they all the original fill?
Do the 5 refills only become refills after the patient signs for the first fill?
What is a refill?
What is a fill?
What if the clerk messes up and all 5 refills get sold but the patient doesn't purchase the original fill?
Is that against the law?
Again..these are your scenarios...you have to own up to them. You tell me what you would do. Go in tomorrow and do it...bring back proof...then I will shut up. You keep saying that you can do these things, but you're not willing to put it into action then it's meaningless.
Do you understand the concept of theory?
Do you understand what the word "theoretical" means or why the concept of theory exists and what its utility is?
Ah, sorry. I don't deal with theoretical law. Was that a thing in your class? See where I come from, if I cannot walk in tomorrow and do these things with the DEA watching over me then I will not do them. All these scenarios you drummed up, yet you provide no support for them...you even asked me for help? come on...lmao. Like this is so hilarious, it's your scenario but you want me to find the laws for you...lmao...sure i can do that if you pay me...actually a blue moon would do.
anything else you need help with? You need me to find your hw? DMV regulations? You want me to type up your arguments for you? I offer these services for a small fee.
Please do it @CetiAlphaFive
Don't mind that the proof will be breaking every HIPAA law and that just doing something doesn't prove if it is legal, simply that it is physically possible.
I like your approach and I'm going to adopt it.
I'm not sure i understand your technique, though.
From now on, if anyone presents me with a difficult question, I'm going to avoid answering it by accusing them of being unable to support it.
Do I have it right?
Man do I love a good, who will back down first thread.
Also, nobody is asking what anyone would do.
What the pharmacist does in the scenario is irrelevant.
It's a theoretical scenario meant to force you to discuss what a refill is.
However, just like everything else, you've put your head into the sand to avoid actually trying to understand or discuss anything.
See you have what's called a prove me wrong attitude. The world doesn't owe any of that to you. You want to go in tomorrow and do these transfers, be my guess. I am not here to baby you. What bothered me was a couple people here saying that these transfers are okay to do. Like, you want me to find laws to prove your scenarios? I owe you that? I am not here to type up your arguments. If you have a scenario that proves you're right, you find the laws that back that up. You want me to fetch your coffee next? LMAO this is hilarious.
The difference between you and owle is that his arguments, even though they are wrong, they stood on their own. Your argument depended on whether I am in a good mood or not...fetching things...and such.
Last edited:
Here's the problem with your posts in this thread.
You need to learn how to read.
The State Board in Texas has officially ruled that it's illegal for me to transfer an unfilled prescription.
I've posted that in this thread.
Not one in this thread have I said that it is or is not illegal based on the "for the purposes of refilling" text.
The DEA clearly responded and said that the law was unchanged and it was never illegal based on DEA laws/rules.
However, due to one person in a position of private, corporate power misinterpreting the law, several states have made regulations flying in the face of what the DEA said in 2010.
That is what we are discussing.
We are discussing what happened after the DEA wrote that text.
That is what you are too dense to understand.
In Texas, it is against TSBP rules, but not for the reason you think.
You need to learn to read
Offering people coffee is illegal. Stop breaking a law that I am certain exists. I also will not tell you any more about this law. Please continue this conversation as though my absurd statement is correct.
Am I doing this right?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
They didn't say that last part. That's something you put in. In either case, it's illegal now.
I don't know what you have against Walmart. We are beyond that. The recent memo from Walgreens that was released to all employees was that they had reached out to the DEA for clarification and did not receive any. It has nothing to do with your Walmart frenemy or whatever Walmart did to you that traumatized you so much. Walgreens REACHED out to the DEA for CLARIFICATION and did not receive any. READ THAT and UNDERSTAND IT. THE IMPLICATION OF THAT. The lawyers understand it. I understand it. The industry understands it.
Nah you gotta make up scenarios and make the other person argue your point for you. That's when you've mastered it. I mean it's your scenario but you shouldn't find data to back it up...you should make the other guy do it...yea yea..you're too good for it...he owes you that much right?...make him type it up too..that will show him!
It's illegal now that the law hasn't changed? I thought it was "not industry practice"? Why are you spreading misinformation?
Also I thought your corporate attorneys meet with the DEA and the DEA told them not to do it? You did say the lawyers met with the DEA, right?
Can you at least keep your arguments straight? It is exhausting trying to debate with someone who keeps changing their position.
We've already discussed this. The interpretation has changed.
When did I say that? I said they reached out to the DEA and Walgreens corporate lawyers told us not to do it after that communication.
What's not straight? I can clarify for you. It's never changed. It's illegal to do these transfers. I mean many others have come in here and have understood it fine. They said they're not doing the transfers either. it seems like only the people that are still doing these transfers are confused.
Last edited:
Ok, so it is illegal because it is now interpreted to be illegal but before it was legal because it was interpreted to be legal. Got it. Although I am not sure that is how laws work.
And you said here that they "talked with" the DEA, perhaps it is a bridge to far to take it that that means they "met with" the DEA? Walgreens in AZ refusing to xfer CIV before first fill?
Is that for you to decide though? I mean when you get arrested and are on trial...are you the one deciding which interpretation applies and which doesnt? No, you don't have that power.
We're all not sure how this works, so we're going to side with caution and not do these transfers. As for you, you can do whatever you want.
Talked...met...whatever you want it to be. The point Walgreens wanted to make was that they reached out and didn't get a response and the lawyers told them to not do these transfers.
this popcorn never runs out.So I've clearly been out of school for a very long time.
Can't we just ask the students to ask their law professor?
Can't we just ask the students to ask their law professor?
probably not...the current interpretation is to not do these transfers...so it doesn't really matter what that student says...tbh
Psshhht.
U keep saying it's company policy but u never support it.
Post the company policy here and industry standard here.
Lmao u ask me 4 help
Actually the interpretation for my entire career is you can. The only reason we don't is we're told we can't.
Everyone still would be transferring if they weren't told they can't. (State allowing).
Huh? Do you work for walgreens? I'm supposed to share my company's memo with you now? I mean you can ask the other people here to confirm the memo. I can't share that with you. I think someone posted an image on the first 2 pages.
That was my interpretation too until recently and when I read the memo and wondered why the DEA has refused to clarify its position...i realized that there is liability here and I don't want that. So I think Walgreens and all the other chains kinda know what they are doing here.
Eh there's no liability. What are they going to do go after every pharmacy that ever transferred a prescription until now?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I think there is. They won't go after every pharmacy, but they will have leverage against these pharmacies. For those that don't think there is, you're more than welcome to continue doing these.
Dude just google it up or look at the first 2 pages. I think someone posted an image. Are you that lazy?
You can't go after pharmacies when no one is breaking the law.
You get to make this call? Didn't know you're an expert.
Speaking of transfer laws:
Did you guys know that in Texas, you must fax the image of the original prescription when doing a fax transfer?
Do you know how many Texas pharmacists are aware of this?
Probably less than 1%
Did you guys know that in Texas, you must fax the image of the original prescription when doing a fax transfer?
Do you know how many Texas pharmacists are aware of this?
Probably less than 1%
