Walgreens in AZ refusing to xfer CIV before first fill?

[Lnsean]

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 also know that people litter all the time when it's illegal to do so? Only 2% of the population is aware of this.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wagrxm2000]

You get to make this call? Didn't know you're an expert.

Before this memo how many people told you they can't transfer? Did every single person misinterpret the law for the near 18 years experience I have?

 

[Lnsean]

Before this memo how many people told you they can't transfer? Did every single person misinterpret the law for the near 18 years experience I have?

Right, it's the memo that changed the interpretation for me and others I believe. The fact that walgreens has reached out and the DEA has not clarified...this silence...calls into question the previous interpretation. I am siding with the corporate lawyers on this. They see liability.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Right, it's the memo that changed the interpretation. The fact that walgreens has reached out and the DEA has not clarified...this silence...calls into question the previous interpretation. I am siding with the corporate lawyers on this. They see liability.

So you don't think every single pharmacist who ever took law in school, understood the law correctly?

 

[owlegrad]

Before this memo how many people told you they can't transfer? Did every single person misinterpret the law for the near 18 years experience I have?

No it was fine to do it then. Now that the interpretation has changed it isn't ok. Why is that hard to understand?

So you don't think every single pharmacist who ever took law in school, understood the law correctly?

They are pharmacists, not lawyers. Only lawyers can tell pharmacists what is legal and illegal.

 

[Lnsean]

So you don't think every single pharmacist who ever took law in school, understood the law correctly?

of course not, that's why you have to err on the side of caution: the stricter interpretation. Whether you like it or not, the industry practice is to not transfer these scripts right now. Your company is telling you to not do it because its legal counsel is telling you not to do it...CVS isn't doing it...Walmart isn't doing it...Rite Aid isn't doing it. They all have legal counsels on this matter. They see liability. I see liability here. If you want to be the lone rph doing these transfers...by all means.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

So you don't think every single pharmacist who ever took law in school, understood the law correctly?

Nononono, you don't understand.

There's a memo.​

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

of course not, that's why you have to err on the side of caution: the stricter interpretation. Whether you like it or not, the industry practice is to not transfer these scripts right now. Your company is telling you to not do it because its legal counsel is telling you not to do it...CVS isn't doing it...Walmart isn't doing it...Rite Aid isn't doing it. I see liability here. If you want to be the lone rph doing these transfers...by all means.

Absolutely this.

I congratulate you on this.


What are you telling every patient that takes opioids over 90MME when you reject their prescriptions because it's against CDC guidelines and is a major liability?

 

[owlegrad]

Also, is it a liability issue or is it illegal?

You understand those are two VERY different claims, right?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Also, is it a liability issue or is it illegal?

You understand those are two VERY different claims, right?

No it's liable to be illegal probably

 

[wagrxm2000]

of course not, that's why you have to err on the side of caution: the stricter interpretation. Whether you like it or not, the industry practice is to not transfer these scripts right now. Your company is telling you to not do it because its legal counsel is telling you not to do it...CVS isn't doing it...Walmart isn't doing it...Rite Aid isn't doing it. I see liability here. If you want to be the lone rph doing these transfers...by all means.

So every pharmacist was wrong?

I'm just looking for yes or no.

Not once until recently in my state was I ever denied.

Your telling me at no point did a student go professor, when I read this, it sounds like I can't transfer an original prescription information (yes I used that wording on purpose) to which a professor said, you know what you might be right?

These are in most cases pharmacists who are lawyers teaching their students.

 

[Lnsean]

Also, is it a liability issue or is it illegal?

You understand those are two VERY different claims, right?

I think the industry has pretty much decided already. You don't have to come on board...just wait it out...they'll clarify any day now.

 

[Lnsean]

Absolutely this.

I congratulate you on this.


What are you telling every patient that takes opioids over 90MME when you reject their prescriptions because it's against CDC guidelines and is a major liability?

What do you do when you see a baby trapped inside someone's car on a hot summer day?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I think the industry has pretty much decided already. You don't have to come on board...just wait it out...they'll clarify any day now.

Please define industry standard

 

[Lnsean]

So every pharmacist was wrong?

I'm just looking for yes or no.

Not once until recently in my state was I ever denied.

Your telling me at no point did a student go professor, when I read this, it sounds like I can't transfer an original prescription information (yes I used that wording on purpose) to which a professor said, you know what you might be right?

These are in most cases pharmacists who are lawyers teaching their students.

We're all looking for yes/no answers here...not just you. That's up for the DEA to decide...and they haven't...so in the meantime...we're going to follow the stricter guidelines. Is the DEA going to prosecute past cases? Probably not. ARe they going to prosecute future cases? Who knows.

 

[owlegrad]

Please define industry standard

It's whatever the chains decide.

 

[Lnsean]

Please define industry standard

You don;t care about industry standard i thought...so why are you interested? maybe you shoudl google it up.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

We're all looking for yes/no answers here...not just you. That's up for the DEA to decide...and they haven't...so in the meantime...we're going to follow the stricter guidelines. Is the DEA going to prosecute past cases? Probably not. ARe they going to prosecute future cases? Who knows.

You're not understanding.


Before,

1.) industry standard was YES, TRANSFER
2.)now, industry standard is NO, DON'T TRANSFER


One of these must be wrong.

He is asking you if 1.) Or 2.) was illegal.

It cannot be both

For emphasis:
Only one can be correct

 

[wagrxm2000]

We're all looking for yes/no answers here...not just you. That's up for the DEA to decide...and they haven't...so in the meantime...we're going to follow the stricter guidelines. Is the DEA going to prosecute past cases? Probably not. ARe they going to prosecute future cases? Who knows.

You are worse then the dea, every single pharmacist interpreted this wrong.

Yes or no?

Every single professor/lawyer interpreted this wrong.

Yes or no?

Just because the chain lawyers say stop doesn't mean it is illegal to do it.

I stopped because I was told to stop, if I wasn't, I still would be because like every single pharmacist, I was taught and interpreted the law correctly.

Why? Because nothing has been changed and yet not a single one of these colleges ever thought differently.

 

[Lnsean]

You're not understanding.


Before,

1.) industry standard was YES, TRANSFER
2.)now, industry standard is NO, DON'T TRANSFER


One of these must be wrong.

He is asking you if 1.) Or 2.) was illegal.

It cannot be both

Sure it can. It was legal, but now it it's not. It's not both at the same time...are you having trouble with time concepts?

 

[Lnsean]

You are worse then the dea, every single pharmacist interpreted this wrong.

Yes or no?

Every single professor/lawyer interpreted this wrong.

Yes or no?

Just because the chain lawyers say stop doesn't mean it is illegal to do it.

I stopped because I was told to stop, if I wasn't, I still would be because like every single pharmacist, I was taught and interpreted the law correctly.

Why? Because nothing has been changed and yet not a single one of these colleges ever thought differently.

Well that's exactly my point and Walgreen's point. They want to keep this vague. That's where the liability is. Maybe it was legal, but now it's not. That's why we gotta stop doing it. I can't think of any other reason that we, as an industry, decided to stop doing these transfers. I mean in the memo, walgreens directly cites the DEA's vagueness on the issue as the reason for this change. It's a liability issue.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Sure it can. It was legal, but now it it's not. It's not both at the same time...are you having trouble with time concepts?

"

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 § 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.
"


So the DEA says that the law did not change.


You're saying the legality changed because of a Walgreens memo?

 

[wagrxm2000]

Well that's exactly my point and Walgreen's point. They want to keep this vague. That's where the liability is. Maybe it was legal, but now it's not. That's why we gotta stop doing it. I can't think of any other reason that we, as an industry, decided to stop doing these transfers. I mean in the memo, walgreens directly cites the DEA's vagueness on the issue as the reason for this change. It's a liability issue.

No, no, no, no, no.

Nothing has changed. It is impossible for all these years for this to all of a sudden have been wrong. Thousands upon thousands of pharmacists have graduated and not a single one at any point questioned it? Seriously? Not a single one?

Oh and they did answer, they said nothing has changed you may transfer.

 

[Lnsean]

No, no, no, no, no.

Nothing has changed. It is impossible for all these years for this to all of a sudden have been wrong. Thousands upon thousands of pharmacists have graduated and not a single one at any point questioned it? Seriously? Not a single one?

Oh and they did answer, they said nothing has changed you may transfer.

That's because everyone was on the same page. Now, the DEA started getting inquisitions on that specific regulation...multiples upon multiple inquisitions....people were questioning it. Walgreens was also made aware of these inquisitions and reached out to the DEA and they did not clarify...and I think that is what's causing the concern. People are not on the same page anymore regarding this. We were before. The DEA has not stepped in to resolve this. So companies...as well as rphs...shoudl take steps to limit liability going forward.

Oh and they did answer, they said nothing has changed you may transfer.

This is after that commentary. People saw that the DEA referred back to current guidelines which states that transfers are for refill dispensing only. So they asked for further clarification and got one. This is all after that public commentary.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

One more time for emphasis:

DEA wishes to emphasize that the only changes made to § 1306.25 as part of the NPRM were to revise the text to include separate requirements for transfers of electronic prescriptions.

 

[Lnsean]

"

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 § 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.
"


So the DEA says that the law did not change.


You're saying the legality changed because of a Walgreens memo?

Yes, this has been argued before. Please refer to the first few pages. Too tired to retype everything. The regulations has not changed but the interpretation has.

 

[Lnsean]

One more time for emphasis:

DEA wishes to emphasize that the only changes made to § 1306.25 as part of the NPRM were to revise the text to include separate requirements for transfers of electronic prescriptions.

The current regulations still states that transfers are for refill dispensing only. This was the part Walgreens asked for clarification.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

The current regulations still states that transfers are for refill dispensing only. This was the part Walgreens asked for clarification.

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

 

[Lnsean]

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

This is the original prescription INFORMATION for the purpose of refill dispensing. ALL TRANSFERS all for refill dispensing only...not the original fill. Again, this was what Walgreens had a problem with.

 

[wagrxm2000]

The interpretation has not changed.

It's been answered multiple times.

I'm just going to go back to my popcorn if you don't answer this. When you took law and read that statement, at any point did you think, oh I can't transfer original scripts?

 

[Lnsean]

The interpretation has not changed.

It's been answered multiple times.

I'm just going to go back to my popcorn if you don't answer this. When you took law and read that statement, at any point did you think, oh I can't transfer original scripts?

It has not. It has not even been updated in their book of regulations. There was only one commentary on it.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

This is the original prescription INFORMATION for the purpose of refill dispensing. ALL TRANSFERS all for refill dispensing only...not the original fill. Again, this was what Walgreens had a problem with.

Hahahah, oh wow.

You'd stand in the rain and say you're sweaty

 

[Lnsean]

Hahahah, oh wow.

You'd stand in the rain and say you're sweaty

Sorry but I'm sure the majority of pharmacists are not doing these transfers. Only u guys. I stnad with many because I stand with corporations. I stand with walgreens on this matter.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Sorry but I'm sure the majority of pharmacists are not doing these transfers. Only u guys.

Are you really gonna make me quote all the posts where i say TSBP said it's not permissible in Texas?

Are you legitimately suffering from a delusion right now?

Stop and reread the thread from page one.

Everyone is saying you're wrong.
Everyone.
No one is saying they're doing the transfers.

 

[owlegrad]

Sorry but I'm sure the majority of pharmacists are not doing these transfers. Only u guys. I stnad with many because I stand with corporations. I stand with walgreens on this matter.

Show me where I said I would do it. Show me where wags said he would do it. You’re not intellectually honest in your debates. You keep making these false claims over and over. Sorry to call you out but I have to call out people when I see them spreading false information.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Sorry but I'm sure the majority of pharmacists are not doing these transfers. Only u guys. I stnad with many because I stand with corporations. I stand with walgreens on this matter.

They aren't because they are told they can't.

Answer the question, how did you interpret it and why? You are a pharmacist aren't you? You should be able to interpret things.

Back to the popcorn I guess since you refuse to answer

Oh and I said I wasn't anymore because I was told I can't.

 

[wagrxm2000]

The Bama Georgia game was pretty good.

 

[Lnsean]

They aren't because they are told they can't.

Answer the question, how did you interpret it and why? You are a pharmacist aren't you? You should be able to interpret things.

Back to the popcorn I guess since you refuse to answer

Oh and I said I wasn't anymore because I was told I can't.

I still stand with many tho...what I said is still true. You guys stand alone and few.

 

[wagrxm2000]

I still stand with many tho...what I said is still true. You guys stand alone and few.

So no you won't answer?

 

[Lnsean]

Show me where I said I would do it. Show me where wags said he would do it. You’re not intellectually honest in your debates. You keep making these false claims over and over. Sorry to call you out but I have to call out people when I see them spreading false information.

So you're not doing it? Kool we're all on the same page

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I still stand with many tho...what I said is still true. You guys stand alone and few.

If Walgreens tells you In a memo to give a Medicare patient a gift card for transferring in their prescriptions, do you do it?

This isn't a theoretical, by the way.

It happened

 

[Lnsean]

So no you won't answer?

You should not interpret things when they are vague and unclear. You should seek professional legal advice. That's what walgreens did...that's what I am following. However, you can interpret this however you like...the liability is on you.

 

[owlegrad]

So you're not doing it? Kool we're all on the same page

Did you just now realize this? So the countless times before this that I said the same thing it didn’t sink in?

 

[Lnsean]

Did you just now realize this? So the countless times before this that I said the same thing it didn’t sink in?

No no...I realized now we're on the same page. That you agree with me. Thank you...thank you...sooo much. The other stuff was that you were being dishonest in telling people it's okay to do these transfers or rationalizing it. I mainly had a problem with that.

 

[wagrxm2000]

You should not interpret things when they are vague and unclear. You should seek professional legal advice. That's what walgreens did...that's what I am following. However, you can interpret this however you like...the liability is on you.

So no you won't answer? You refuse to tell me how you interpreted the law when you were in school?

 

[owlegrad]

No no...I realized now we're on the same page. That you agree with me. Thank you...thank you...sooo much. The other stuff was that you were being dishonest in telling people it's okay to do these transfers or rationalizing it. I mainly had a problem with that.

I was just repeating with the DEA has said. If you have a problem with my honesty please take it up with them.

Have you noticed that you’re the only person in this thread who thinks it’s illegal?

 

[Lnsean]

So no you won't answer? You refuse to tell me how you interpreted the law when you were in school?

I told you, i followed walgreen's interpretation. Did you not read? I'm not qualified to make the interpretation on my own. I followed the memo and thought it made sense and I agreed with the legal counsel.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I told you, i followed walgreen's interpretation. Did you not read? I'm not qualified to make the interpretation on my own. I followed the memo and thought it made sense and I agreed with the legal counsel.

What do you do if a Medicare patient gets really mad and the legal team of Walgreens tells you to give them a gift card as an apology?

 

[owlegrad]

No wonder you want the DEA to clarify this again you have to be told the same thing 12 times before you get it.

 

[Lnsean]

I was just repeating with the DEA has said. If you have a problem with my honesty please take it up with them.

Have you noticed that you’re the only person in this thread who thinks it’s illegal?

Am I though? Or is it that we're just the ones who managed to persist to the very end? The people that wanted to chime in already did. What's left is just us.