newsletter - nabp€¦ · statement of credit. the initial launch of the enhanced cpe monitor...
TRANSCRIPT
(continued on page 50)
aid to governmentthe profession
the public1904 to 2013
Upcoming EventsMarch 14, 2013ACE MeetingNABP Headquarters
April 2-3, 2013 TOEFL iBT Standard Setting Task Force NABP Headquarters
April 10, 2013Committee on Constitution and Bylaws Meeting
April 12, 2013FPGEE Administration
April 25, 2013PCOA ForumNABP Headquarters
April 27, 2013 DEA National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day
May 18-21, 2013NABP 109th Annual MeetingSt Louis, MO
In This Issue. . . .Legal Briefs:Administrative Order Not Subject to Stay
48
Association News:NABP Reports Slight Decrease in 2012 License Transfer Requests
52
Association News:NABP Accreditation Programs Support Pharmacy and Wholesale Distributor Efforts to Provide Quality Products and Services
56
Association News:NABP Reports Examination Totals for 2012: Shows Consistent Climb in NAPLEX, MPJE, and PCOA Administrations
57
109th Annual Meeting:Find Exciting Networking Opportunities in St Louis! Attend the NABP 109th Annual Meeting’s Optional Events
59
M a r c h 2 0 1 3 / Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 3
newsletterNational Association of Boards of Pharmacy®
PRESCRIPTION DRUG SAFETY ®
Member Boards Move Swiftly to Implement NABP Compounding Action Plan and to Strengthen State Regulation of Compounding Pharmacies
NABP member boards of pharmacy are moving swiftly to implement the compounding action plan initiated by state boards of pharmacy and NABP in November 2012. The plan includes continued collabo-ration on the Iowa nonresi-dent inspection program, sharing of inspection results and related actions, and ongoing dialogue. Boards are also taking actions in their respective states through bolstering inspec-tions and inspector training and considering new rules and legislation to further strengthen the regulation of compounding pharmacies.
As a primary part of the Compounding Action Plan, NABP began inspections of compounding pharmacies on behalf of the Iowa Board in mid-December. Inspec-tion reports have resulted in actions taken by the Iowa
Board of Pharmacy. NABP is proactively providing to member boards of pharma-cy information on actions taken by the states, so that boards may review the licen-sure/registration of resident and nonresident pharmacies to determine what compara-ble actions may be necessary for the state to initiate.
The information pro-vided to the states will be included in NABP’s national pharmacy information sharing network that will soon be available to all states electronically through the NABP secure portal.
In addition, to support the delivery of training to board inspectors and surveyors, NABP is endors-ing State Board Assist, a new program of resources de-veloped by Clinical IQ and CriticalPoint. State Board Assist provides immediate tools to boards of pharmacy
that can be used to train their staff to perform regula-tory inspections of sterile compounding pharma-cies. The resources include online training and monthly Webinars offered at no cost to state inspectors, as well as live training and additional inspector support programs offered at discounts.
©iStockphoto.com/izusek
nabp newsletter
46
Association News
The NABP Newsletter (ISSN 8756-4483) is published 10 times a year by the National
Association of Boards of Pharmacy® (NABP®) to educate, to inform,
and to communicate the objectives and programs of the Association and its 64 member boards
of pharmacy to the profession and the
public. The opinions and views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the
official views, opinions, or policies of NABP or any board unless
expressly so stated. The subscription rate is
$35 per year.
National Association of Boards of Pharmacy
1600 Feehanville Drive Mount Prospect, IL
60056 847/391-4406 www.nabp.net
Carmen A. Catizone Executive Director/
Secretary
Larissa Doucette Communications
Manager
©2013 National Association of Boards
of Pharmacy. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner without the
written permission of the executive director/
secretary of the National Association of
Boards of Pharmacy.
(continued on page 54)
TM
Specialized CPE Monitor Interface Expected to Streamline Compliance Verification Process for Boards of Pharmacy
As part of the goals of the CPE Monitor® service, NABP is working on a streamlined reporting and compliance verification tool to further assist the member boards of pharmacy in reviewing their licensees’ continuing pharmacy education (CPE) data. With a new interface, the tool will enable the boards to view their licensees’ CPE activities online though the board portal to monitor compliance with state CPE requirements. The special-ized interface will provide an extensive search capability, allowing the boards to search individual licensee profiles, as well as groups of licensees by various criteria such as date range, activity type, provider name, and contact hours. The interface also includes an ex-port feature. This compliance verification tool allows boards to obtain records of licensees’ CPE activities without hav-ing to collect paper forms or paper copies of CPE state-ments of credit for Accredita-tion Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE)-accredited activities in participating jurisdictions. However, NABP will also retain a view, print, and save feature that will enable boards to maintain paper records of a licensee’s statement of credit. The initial launch of the enhanced CPE Monitor interface for boards is currently planned for the end of second quarter 2013.
Through the CPE Moni-tor interface for the boards,
NABP will eventually also be able to automatically upload licensees’ CPE activity data to their board’s database, should the board choose to allow this capability. This would be accomplished by syncing the board’s database directly with NABP’s system. In order for the two databases to talk to each other, they will need a common identifier – the NABP e-Profile ID. Therefore, boards are encouraged to require an e-Profile ID dur-ing licensure renewal. This requirement will ensure that the two systems contain the necessary unique identifiers to accurately communicate licensees’ information.
NABP is also working on programming board-specific CPE requirements, as they pertain to the licensure cycle, into the Association’s system. This will allow for a flagging system in instances relating to a licensee’s noncompli-ance with CPE requirements. If a licensee appears to be missing CPE credit, he or she will automatically be moved to the top of the data listing provided to the board. It is important to note, however, that currently the CPE Moni-tor service only records CPE data from ACPE-accredited providers. Depending on a board’s acceptance of non-ACPE-accredited CPE, it is possible that a licensee may be in compliance with board requirements as their non-ACPE-accredited CPE may not be visible in the system.
In the future, as part of Phase 2, NABP plans to begin recording non-ACPE-accred-ited CPE data as well. To assist with this process of incorpo-rating additional providers, NABP will be reaching out to the boards of pharmacy to obtain listings of pre-approved CPE providers that are not ACPE accredited.
CPE Monitor Status Update
At this time, ACPE-accredited providers have integrated CPE Monitor into their systems and are requir-ing pharmacists and pharma-cy technicians to provide an e-Profile ID number and date of birth (MMDD) in order to process ACPE-accredited CPE credit.
For those who have not already done so, NABP strongly encourages all pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to set up their e-Profiles in order to ensure that they do not risk missing out on any CPE credit. As a reminder, in order to ensure that the CPE Monitor por-tion of the e-Profile is fully activated, an individual must record at least one license, registration, or certifica-tion number into his or her e-Profile.
march 2013
47
Association News
Executive CommitteeMalcolm J. Broussard ChairpersonOne-year term
Michael A. BurlesonPresidentOne-year term
Karen M. RylePresident-electOne-year term
Joseph L. AdamsTreasurerOne-year term
James T. DeVitaMember, District 1Serving third year of a three-year term
Edward G. McGinleyMember, District 2Serving third year of a three-year term
Mark T. ConradiMember, District 3Serving second year of a three-year term
William John CoverMember, District 4Serving second year of a three-year term
Lloyd K. JessenMember, District 5Serving third year of a three-year term
Jeanne D. Waggener Member, District 6Serving first year of a three-year term
Mark D. JohnstonMember, District 7Serving first year of a three-year term
Hal WandMember, District 8Serving second year of a three-year term
NABP Executive Committee elections are held each year at the Association’s Annual Meeting.
Additional State Goes Live With NABP PMP InterConnect as New Pilots Are Launched to Increase Use of PMP Data
Kentucky has now implemented NABP PMP InterConnect®, making interstate prescription monitoring program (PMP) data available to authorized users in the state. In addition, new pi-lot projects developed to make PMP data more eas-ily accessible to prescrib-ers and other authorized users have been launched in Illinois and Ohio. These projects build on the success of 2012 pilots in Indiana and Michigan that integrated PMP data into electronic prescrib-ing systems, health infor-mation exchanges, and emergency room depart-ments.
Kentucky Deploys NABP InterConnect
Authorized users in 11 states are now sharing data through the NABP InterConnect, with the deployment of the system by the Kentucky PMP, known as the Kentucky All Schedule Prescription Electronic Reporting sys-tem. Kentucky joins PMPs in the states of Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, and Virginia. Nine additional states have signed memo-randums of understand-
ing (MOU) to participate in NABP Inter-Connect, and five states have MOUs under review. It is antici-pated that approximately 25 states will be sharing data or will have executed an MOU to participate in NABP InterConnect in 2013.
New Pilots Launched to Increase Data Use
A new pilot in Illinois was modeled on the 2012 pilot developed with the Indiana Health Informa-tion Exchange on behalf of the Indiana PMP, Indiana Scheduled Prescription Electronic Collection and Tracking. The 2012 pilot in Indiana enabled authorized prescribers in the emer-gency room department at Wishard Memorial Hospital, Indianapolis, IN, to easily access PMP data using the patient’s record, rather than by logging in separately to the PMP.
The pilot in Illinois follows the Indiana model, and NABP is working with PDF Healthcare to make data from the Illinois PMP easily accessible to autho-rized users at Anderson Hospital, Maryville, IL.
The year 2012 saw the completion of a pilot with the Michigan Auto-
mated Prescription System (MAPS), an NABP Inter-Connect participant, that successfully made PMP data more readily available to physicians or authorized users in the general practi-tioner setting. In this pilot, e-prescribing company DrFirst connected to the NABP InterConnect hub as would a state PMP, allow-ing authorized prescrib-ers to access PMP data through the e-prescribing system, avoiding the ad-ditional step of logging in to the PMP.
In first quarter 2013, NABP has worked with DrFirst and MAPS to expand the pilot to users in two geographic regions. Select DrFirst users in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio will be able to access PMP data through the DrFirst system, and reports will include data compiled from each of these states.
Results from the pilots will be available in a future issue of this News-letter. For more informa-tion about NABP PMP InterConnect, visit the NABP Web site at www .nabp.net/programs/pmp-interconnect/nabp-pmp-interconnect.
nabp newsletter
48
Legal Briefs
Administrative Order Not Subject to StayBy Dale J. Atkinson, JD
NABP membership consists of the regulatory boards regulating the
profession of pharmacy. These boards are statutorily created and empowered and act in the interest of protecting the public. United States jurisdictions are governed under a “states’ rights” model whereby those powers not specifically delineated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Under such a model, the states have certain freedoms to develop and enforce administrative procedures and processes as determined on a state-by-state basis.
Accordingly, not all member boards of NABP follow similar processes when administratively prosecuting persons alleged to have violated the practice act or relevant regulations. Licensure prosecutions may be heard by the board as a whole, by an admin-istrative law judge, by a hearing officer, or by other procedural nuances unique to each particular juris-diction. In some jurisdic-tions, the administrative law judge presides over the administrative hearing and makes a recommendation to the board for ultimate disposition. Further, once a disposition of the mat-ter has been determined, various procedural avenues may provide a licensee with opportunities for a “stay” of execution of judgment pending an appeal. Con-sider the following.
A pharmacist (Licensee) was licensed by the Illinois
Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (De-partment) in 1979. Within the Department is a Board of Pharmacy (Board) that acts in an advisory capacity to the Department. Board members are appointed by the governor and assist in en-forcing the Illinois Pharmacy Practice Act and other rele-vant statutes and regulations. The Licensee was alleged to have knowingly purchased a substantial quantity of stolen prescription medications and sold such pharmaceuticals at his pharmacy. These alleged activities resulted in the De-partment filing an adminis-trative complaint against the Licensee in May 2008.
In June 2009, the Licensee pled guilty in federal court in a criminal proceeding to the unauthorized sale, purchase, or trade of pharmaceuticals and received a sentence of three years probation, 500 hours of community service, and joint and several liabil-
ity with a codefendant for $670,000 in restitution. The codefendant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
Based upon the guilty plea in the criminal matter, the Department amended its administrative complaint alleging additional violations of the practice act that ad-dress criminal convictions. In his answer to the adminis-trative complaint, the Licens-ee admitted the allegations of the Department. A hearing was held in October 2011, before an administrative law judge. No Board members attended the hearing. After the hearing, the administra-tive law judge issued a report containing his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations.
The administrative law judge found that the Licensee had pled guilty to a felony, was sentenced, and admit-ted to the allegations of the Department. In addition, the Department argued a “pattern” of wrongful con-duct citing a 1988 consent order involving the Licensee whereby the Licensee admit-ted repeatedly dispensing generic medications while billing third-party payers for brand-name medications. The administrative law judge concluded that the Depart-ment proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Licensee had violated the rel-evant sections of the practice act by virtue of his criminal conviction. The administra-
march 2013
49
Legal Briefs
Attorney Dale J. Atkinson is a partner in the law firm of Atkinson & Atkinson, outside counsel for NABP.
tive law judge recommended that the Licensee’s license be indefinitely suspended for a minimum of two years.
At its January 2012 meet-ing, the Board adopted the administrative law judge’s findings of fact and recom-mendations. Five of the eight Board members attended the meeting and four members signed off on the report. The Licensee requested a rehear-ing that was denied by the Department and an order was entered on April 26, 2012, indefinitely suspending his license for a minimum of two years. The Licensee filed an emergency motion seek-ing to “stay” enforcement of the disciplinary action. After a hearing, his motion was denied by the trial court. The Licensee filed an interlocu-tory appeal, a proceeding whereby a litigant seeks an immediate ruling on a par-ticular issue of importance.
On appeal, the Licensee argued that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a stay of the administrative sanctions entered by the Department. In Illinois, the Administrative Review Law authorizes a trial court to issue a stay of an adminis-trative order and sanctions. However, the moving party bears the burden of substan-tiating to the court a showing of good cause for the entry of such an order. Good cause includes a requirement that the movant show:1. that an immediate stay
is required in order to preserve the status quo
without endangering the public;
2. that a stay is not contrary to public policy; and
3. that there exists a reason-able likelihood of success on the merits for the movant.In the current case, the
court found that although the Licensee briefly raised elements 2 and 3 at the hearing addressing his motion to stay, he did not address these ele-ments in his appellate brief for this interlocutory appeal. Ac-cordingly, the court found that such arguments were waived and deemed not to have been established. Thus, the court held that the Licensee could not prevail on his argument that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the stay. In addition, the court noted that a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Board and recognized deference to the Board exper-tise and decision.
The Licensee also argued that no Board members were present for the hearing in vi-olation of Illinois law. Again, the court noted that this ar-gument was not raised at the time of the hearing resulting in a waiver of this point. Issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Regardless, the Licensee argued that since the Depart-ment acted without statutory authority, such cannot be waived and the order is void and subject to attack at any time. In response, the court noted that the Licensee failed
to distinguish between an agency order, which may be void and subject to collateral attack, and those which are merely voidable and subject to challenge only through the administrative and judicial review proceedings. The ap-pellate court cited a Supreme Court of Illinois opinion that declined to follow a similar argument. The Supreme Court of Illinois rejected an argument that an agency’s order is void if it acted in vio-lation of the statute (rather than merely subject to an appeal through administra-tive and judicial appeals). In rejecting this notion, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that such a rule would allow a “collateral attack of an agency order whenever the agency failed to follow the exact letter of the statu-tory provision.” Such was not the intent of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act. Thus, rather than an order being void, such an order is subject to challenge on appeal.
The Licensee also argued that the Department and its director lacked the author-ity to enter the original order because less than a quorum of the Board signed the recom-mendation forwarded to the director. The Licensee argued that only four of the eight Board members signed the order. At oral arguments, the Licensee conceded on this argument and did not pursue this challenge.
(continued on page 54)
nabp newsletter
50
Feature News
Compounding Action Plan(continued from page 45)
Minnesota Bolsters Inspections, Considers New Legislation
Along with implementa-tion of the NABP action plan, several state boards of phar-macy are taking additional ac-tions to help ensure the safety of compounded drugs.
For example, Minnesota, which already has strong compounding regulations and requirements in place, is in the process of consider-ing additional requirements, some of which will require the passage of new legislation.
Currently, Minnesota law clearly distinguishes com-pounding from manufactur-ing or wholesale distribution. By statute and rule, com-pounding in Minnesota is allowed only pursuant to a prescription for an individual patient and compounding for wholesale distribution or office use is prohibited. A pharmacy may compound a limited amount of medica-tion in anticipation of its own prescription needs, but must receive a prescription for a specific patient before dispensing the medication. All pharmacies located within Minnesota are inspected prior to being granted a new license.
An entity producing drug products for wholesale distribution within the state must be licensed by the Min-nesota Board of Pharmacy as a manufacturer and a whole-saler and must register with Food and Drug Administra-tion (FDA) as a manufacturer, or submit to the Minnesota Board a letter from FDA indi-
cating why the entity does not need to register as a manu-facturer. A nonresident entity seeking licensure for wholesale distribution of compounded drug products into Minne-sota must also submit proof of appropriate licensure in its resident state, or documenta-tion indicating why it is not required to be licensed.
In addition to conducting opening inspections, the Min-nesota Board regularly in-spects all pharmacies located within the state. Minnesota’s surveyors, most of whom are already knowledgeable in United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Chapter 797 standards, will be receiving additional training in this area. If the Minnesota Legislature ap-proves an increased appro-priation, the Board also plans to hire additional surveyors.
The Minnesota Board will also begin evaluating the third-party entities that provide certifications and other verification services for pharmacies engaging in sterile compounding. The Board feels that this is necessary because there have been cases in which a surveyor’s inspection has revealed USP Chapter 797 vio-lations, despite the fact that the pharmacy has been certified as USP Chapter 797 compliant by a third-party certifier.
Enforcing regulations for nonresident pharmacies that engage in compound-ing practices can present challenges for boards of pharmacy and is something many boards are considering changes in their regulations and processes to address. The situation involving the New England Compound-ing Center (NECC) shows
the need for communication and coordination among the boards of pharmacy. In 2007 and 2011, Minnesota sent letters to NECC reminding the pharmacy of the state’s compounding regulations and very clearly stating that all compounding must be done pursuant to a prescription for a specific patient, received in advance of the dispens-ing of the product. However, the investigation by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA into the meningitis outbreak linked to injectable drugs produced by NECC has shown that the fa-cility was compounding on a large scale and was not always receiving individual patient prescriptions.
Moving forward, the boards are considering work-ing with state legislatures to support legislation that would require nonresident compounding pharmacies to supply a copy of a recent in-spection report, or documen-tation indicating why they do not need an inspection, as a requisite for licensure. If the pharmacy resides in a state where regular inspections are not taking place, boards are also considering new require-ments that the pharmacy must arrange to be inspected by an approved third-party entity before renewing their license. If such legislation were adopted, it is likely that NABP could provide such third-party inspection services.
The boards are also con-sidering a change in how they review inspection forms sub-mitted on behalf of nonresi-dent pharmacies. In the past, when violations were noted, the boards assumed that the
other state made sure that appropriate corrective action was taken. Moving forward, for significant violations such as failing to meet USP Chap-ter 797 standards, the boards may require an explanation of how the issue was resolved, along with evidence that appropriate corrective action was taken.
The Minnesota Board may also partner with the Minnesota Department of Health on two other initia-tives related to the regulation of compounding. First, the Minnesota Board is explor-ing the possibility of having the Minnesota Department of Health conduct testing of sample compounded drug products that are obtained during complaint investiga-tions. Second, the Minnesota Board will also approach the Minnesota Department of Health about the possibility of introducing legislation to regulate the compounding that occurs in clinics, practi-tioner offices, and other facili-ties. Prescribers are currently allowed under Minnesota law to compound, but the Min-nesota Board has only limited authority to ensure that such compounding is being done in accordance with appropri-ate standards.
Texas Surveys Pharmacies, Plans to Reinforce Inspections
The Texas State Board of Pharmacy has in place com-pounding regulations that include most of USP Chapter 797 standards and some more detailed requirements not included in USP 797 (such as training for pharma-
march 2013
51
Feature News
(continued on page 54)
cists and pharmacy techni-cians and specific recall procedures). In addition, the Texas Board also regularly inspects pharmacies engaged in compounding, includ-ing sampling compounded products for testing.
Following the NECC incident, the Texas Board conducted a special survey to determine how many pharmacies in the state are engaging in sterile and non-sterile compounding. The Texas Board wanted to have better data on pharmacy compounding activities, as it seemed that pharmacies were not consistent in sup-plying this information on previous forms. The Board surveyed approximately 6,000 pharmacies including those licensed as commu-nity pharmacies, nuclear pharmacies, or institu-tional (hospital) pharma-cies. The survey responses indicate that at least 905 of the pharmacies engage in sterile compounding, with about 241 of those engaging in high risk compound-ing. (See chart below for a breakdown of compound-ing activities.)
Currently, the Texas Board inspects pharmacies engaged in compounding every two years. The Board employs seven inspec-
tors, both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, and all inspectors complete a week-long intensive course in sterile compounding. In addition, some inspec-tors have a background in the practice of sterile compounding. Further, the Board conducts quarterly meetings for the inspectors developed to provide them with any relevant regula-tory or practice standards updates. In order to main-tain an adequate inspection schedule, the Board will be asking the Texas Legislature to approve the hiring of at least three new inspec-tors in 2013. The Board is also considering adopting a separate inspection form for sterile compounding facilities, whereas currently the related questions are included on the standard inspection form.
As part of the inspec-tion process, the Texas Board also has the author-ity to sample both sterile and nonsterile products for testing. The samples are processed by an outside laboratory and the Texas Board tracks data from the results. The regulations and procedures for sample testing were modeled after those implemented by the Missouri Board.
In Texas, nonsterile prod-ucts are tested for potency, and sterile products are tested for potency, sterility, and pyrogenicity. Since the NECC incident, Texas has added testing for fungi to the requirements. Financial provision for testing has been reduced by the state in the last several years, but with the NECC incident illustrating the need for test-ing, the Texas Board hopes the budget for testing will be restored so that frequency of sample product testing can be increased.
Testing not only can help identify compounded prod-ucts that are a risk to public health, but can also reveal issues in how compounding standards are interpreted and practiced. For example, since the Texas Board has been conducting testing, only one product, a nasal solution, has failed in sterility testing. Many pharmacies indicated to the Board that they believe nasal sprays do not need to be prepared in compliance with sterile compounding guidelines. However, the Board has stressed that USP does require nasal sprays to be prepared in compli-ance with sterile preparation standards.
The Texas Board has found that a number of
drug products sampled have failed in potency. In fact, the Board found that potency failure rates in Texas were similar to those in Mis-souri’s first year of imple-menting product testing – about a 20% failure rate. Some products have been far from an acceptable range of potency, and some have been just outside the range.
When a failure is de-tected, the Texas Board will take action to resolve the issue with the pharmacy. Generally, the pharmacy must stop compounding that medication until it can demonstrate that it is following the appropriate standards. For example, the pharmacy may need to demonstrate that it is using a new formula or that it has stopped making that particular medication. The Texas Board conducts follow-up inspections to ensure that the entity is still in compliance with the agreed-upon solution.
If testing were to deter-mine that a product would be an imminent danger to the public, the Texas Board would require the pharma-cy to immediately recall the product and cease all com-pounding of that product. Texas Board rules require
Compounding Risk Level Total* Texas Pharmacies Out-of-State Pharmacies
Pharmacies Compounding Low-Risk Products 698 525 173
Pharmacies Compounding Medium-Risk Products 597 442 155
Pharmacies Compounding High-Risk Products 241 114 127
Texas Board Survey Results: Pharmacy Compounding Activities by Risk Level
*Some of the 905 pharmacies practicing sterile compounding prepare various products of different risk levels.
nabp newsletter
52
Association News
WA 263
OR421
CA306
ID110
NV159
MT76
UT77
NM 125
AZ488
CO295
WY77
ND77
SD57
NE309
KS187
OK98
TX770
MN159
IA139
MO185
AR296
LA
322
WI144
IL
457
MS
384
MI161
IN
214
KY364
TN 504
OH
338WV97
VA
643
NC483
SC317
GA475
AL 134
FL
605
DC184
DE138
CT182
ME94
NH134VT
68
NY591
PA614
HI119
AK92
Puerto Rico 17
FROM/ TO
NJ321
RI78
MA264
MD889
Guam0/1
Virgin Islands61
197/
102/
141/
268/
41/
72/
268/
34/
23/
135/
57/
40/
40/
108/
145/
87/
418/
125/
118/
227/
41/
143/
125/
406/
216/
87/
330/
241/
167/
159/
384/
98/
306/
149/
245/
780/
35/
395/
502/
312/
64/
56/
319/
54/
134/
527/
48/
241/
44/
25/
0/28/
15/
Shaded areas denote states where the number of applications for transfer from the state is greater than the number of applications requesting transfer to the state.
2012 e-LTP Requests by State
NABP Reports Slight Decrease in 2012 License Transfer RequestsThe number of license
transfer requests submitted through the NABP Elec-tronic Licensure Transfer Program® (e-LTP®) de-creased slightly from 2011 to 2012, with a total of 14,163 requests in 2012. This number represents a 0.4% decrease, or 58 requests less than the 2011 total of 14,221. This modest decrease could be a result of employment demands, which have become more balanced, as well as the current economic climate, which remains sluggish, thereby lowering the demand for licensure in multiple states.
2012 e-LTP Requests by State
Showing a different trend compared to 2011, Maryland saw the high-est number of requests to transfer licensure to a state. Maryland had a total of 889 requests completed in 2012, more than double the number of requests made in 2011, which was only 367 requests.
Possibly contributing to this large increase in requests is the state’s recent legislative change related to nonresident pharma-cies. Effective October 1,
2012, the Maryland Board of Pharmacy requires all Maryland nonresident pharmacies to have a pharmacist on staff who is licensed by the Board and is designated as the pharma-cist responsible for provid-ing pharmaceutical services to patients in Maryland.
As in 2011, Texas, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida were among the states with the high-est number of requests to transfer licensure to the state. Texas had the second largest number of requests to transfer licensure to a state in 2012 with a total
of 770 requests. This is a decrease of 8.2% from 2011, when Texas had 839 requests. Virginia had the third largest number of re-quests to transfer licensure to a state with a total of 643, and Pennsylvania had the fourth highest number of requests, with 614. The number of requests in 2011 for Virginia and Penn-sylvania were 661 a slight
march 2013
53
Association News
A total of 14,163 licensure transfer requests were submitted in 2012, which is an increase of 120.9%, or 7,751, when compared to the 6,412 requests submitted in 2003.
0
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
10 000
12 000
14 000
16 000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
e-LTP Requests by Year, 10-year Trend
decrease of 2.7% and 672 a slight decrease of 8.6%, respectively. Rounding out the top five is Florida, which has 16.9% less than in 2011 when the number of requests was 707.
Most of these states, with the exception of Maryland and Virginia, have a relatively higher number of licensed phar-macists when compared with other states, accord-ing to the NABP 2013 Survey of Pharmacy Law.
In addition, the 2012 request totals show a slight correlation with trends in data on the demand for pharmacists nationally and in certain states, as
tracked by the Pharmacy Manpower Project Inc. This project tracks the data through the monthly Aggregate Demand Index (ADI) report, with a rank-ing of 1 indicating little need or a surplus of phar-macists, and a ranking of 5 indicating a great need for and difficulty in filling pharmacist positions. A ranking of 3 indicates that the demand for pharma-cists is in balance with the supply.
As of press time, Phar-macy Manpower Project Inc had released data through October 2012, with a national average at that time of 3.24, indicating a
slight demand for pharma-cists nationwide. Compar-ing ADI report data from January 2011 to January 2012 indicates that the demand for pharmacists nationwide is becoming more balanced. In January 2011, the national average for pharmacist demand was 3.41 and in May 2011 the average hit a peak of 3.78. Following May 2011, the average started to decline indicating the demand for pharmacists was leveling off and becoming more balanced. From July 2011 to January 2012, the average fell from 3.36 to 3.18.
Keeping with this bal-anced trend, four of five
states with high numbers of license transfer requests in 2012 had October 2012 ADI rankings above or just short of this national aver-age – Florida (3), Maryland (3), Virginia (3.14), and Texas (3.75) – with only one state having an ADI ranking indicating a sur-plus of pharmacists in their state – Pennsylvania (2.38). According to the ADI report, each of these states had slightly higher peaks at certain points during 2012, which may correlate with the high numbers of re-quests to transfer licensure to the states in 2012. For example, Texas had an ADI
(continued on page 55)
nabp newsletter
54
Feature News
Based upon the fact that the Licensee failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, the
court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of a stay.
Boards of pharmacy must be aware that the issuance of a final order is subject to immediate enforcement, in spite of a
Legal Briefs(continued from page 49)
pending appeal. Mecha-nisms exist for disciplined individuals to seek a stay of the enforcement of an or-der and such movants bear the burden of establishing the elements necessary to
substantiate the issuance of a stay.
Gupta v. Illinois Depart-ment of Financial and Pro-fessional Regulation, 2012 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3019 (App. Ct. Il 2012)
Compounding Action Plan(continued from page 51)
CPE Monitor(continued from page 46)
that compounding pharma-cies have recall procedures in place.
Of note, the Texas Board has never had a product prepared under sterile conditions fail the sterility testing including samples taken from entities com-pounding high volumes of drug products.
In addition to allowing compounding pursuant to an individual patient prescrip-tion, Texas law allows “for office use” compounding, under a bill passed in 2005. Under the law, pharmacies “may dispense and de-liver a reasonable quantity of a compounded drug to a practitioner for office use by the practitioner.” The law specifies that office use “means the provision and
administration of a com-pounded drug to a patient by a practitioner in the practitioner’s office or by the practitioner in a health care facility or treatment setting, including a hospital, ambula-tory surgical center, or phar-macy.” The law also specifies that a “reasonable quantity” may “not exceed the amount a practitioner anticipates may be used in the prac-titioners office before the expiration date of the drug,” among other provisions. Further, such compounded medications must be distrib-uted for administration by a physician to a patient, and compounded medications may not be resold. Texas law also authorizes a hospital pharmacy to compound in bulk for another hospital in the same system.
Currently there are pharmacies in Texas that
compound products for distribution to out-of-state entities. The Texas Board has instructed inspectors to place a high priority on the inspection of all pharma-cies that compound sterile products including those that are distributing prod-ucts to out-of-state entities. The Texas Board has formed a task force to assist it in a thorough review of all of the laws and rules related to compounding and to make recommendations for changes to these rules and/or laws.
Potential State Legislation
Other state legisla-tures may be considering bills aimed to strengthen regulation of both resi-dent and nonresident pharmacies engaged in compounding.
The California State Board of Pharmacy will sponsor a bill that would allow inspectors to make unannounced on-site inspections of nonresident pharmacies distributing sterile compounded medi-cations into the state. “We want to make sure that if the product is coming into California, it meets the requirements of California law,” Virginia Herold, ex-ecutive director, California State Board of Pharmacy, told the Los Angeles Times. The California Board indi-cated that 86 nonresident compounding pharmacies were licensed in 2011 and 2012 compared with 17 in 2003 and 2004.
NABP will continue to provide updates on the Compounding Action Plan as well as relevant board of pharmacy actions.
As of press time, more than:
•2,162,454 CPE activity records were stored
in the CPE Monitor system
•227,309 pharmacists have created e-Profiles
•137,276 pharmacy technicians have created e-Profiles
CPE Monitor is a na-tional collaborative service from NABP, ACPE, and ACPE providers. To ensure that all ACPE-accredited CPE credit is accurately recorded, licensees must
have an e-Profile ID and be registered for CPE Monitor. This can be accomplished by visiting www .MyCPE monitor.net, creating an e-Profile, and registering for CPE Monitor.
march 2013
55
Association News
NABP Offers Member Boards Assistance With Retreats Focused on Strategic Planning or Related Matters
NABP plans to establish grants, beginning second quarter 2013, to support board of pharmacy retreats that may focus on strate-gic planning, legislative and regulatory goals, and operational issues, among other big picture matters.
The concept for the board retreats evolved from a retreat facilitated for the Indiana Board of Pharmacy in August 2012. In April 2012, the Board requested financial support, as well as assistance facilitating a retreat so that Board mem-bers could focus on stra-tegic planning and other initiatives. Board members typically focus on day-to-day business related to
licensure, disciplinary, and other regulatory matters at Board meetings, but desired a more focused session for discussing strategic initia-tives, such as regulatory and legislative goals, as well as operational issues. NABP was able to provide funding for the Board to conduct a two-day, off-site meeting, including funding toward lodging and meals. NABP staff also helped facilitate the retreat, and participated as observers during the retreat sessions. In addition, NABP delivered a presenta-tion at the request of the Board. The retreat was a public meeting; however, no members of the public attended.
Gregory Pachmayr, JD, MPA, director, Indiana Board of Pharmacy, ex-plains that like most boards of pharmacy, the Indiana Board’s meeting agendas are typically filled and meetings often run past the end of a normal business day. “The Board retreat gave us the chance to have discussions without pressing time con-straints. This opportunity allowed us to discuss our recent achievements, as well as our current and upcom-ing projects. The retreat also provided some of my key staff members the oppor-tunity to interact with the Board and give the members insight into our day-to-day activities,” states Pach-
mayr. “None of this would have been practical during a normal Board meeting. The Board members and I are grateful to NABP for providing us with this op-portunity.”
Modeling on the success of the retreat developed for the Indiana Board, NABP is pleased to offer grants to support retreats for additional boards of pharmacy during the latter half of 2013. Infor-mation on the board retreat grant application process is scheduled to be available prior to the 109th Annual Meeting. In the interim, ques-tions may be directed to the Government Affairs Depart-ment at [email protected].
License Transfer(continued from page 53)
ranking of 4 in September 2012, and a 4.14 ranking in July 2012. In addition, throughout 2012, Texas had the second highest level of shortage or unmet demand for pharmacists compared to other states. And while October 2012 ADI rankings for Mary-land and Virginia showed an average of 2.8, indicat-ing a balance in the sup-ply and demand of phar-macists in these states, both states had peaks at different times of the year with ADI rankings of 3.25
in May 2012 and 3.38 in September 2012, respec-tively. Pennsylvania is the only state that consistently had more pharmacists than the demand.
Additional states and jurisdictions with signifi-cant proportionate growth in requests to transfer licensure to the state in-clude Illinois with a 35.6% increase (337 to 457), and Kansas with a 34.5% in-crease (139 to 187).
e-LTP state statistics and correlations with ADI data suggest that phar-macists, supported by the e-LTP process, continue to have the chance to fol-
low opportunities as they arise in certain states or regions. According to the October 2012 ADI report, the West Coast states had the highest level of unmet demand at 3.44. Follow-ing the West Coast is the Midwest with a demand of 3.34, the South with 3.31, and the Northeast with the least demand at 2.72.
Consistent with 2011, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas had the highest number of requests to transfer origi-nating from their state with 780, 527, 502, and 418 requests, respectively.
Florida, Pennsylvania, and Texas were also among the states with the highest requests to transfer to the state, and New Jersey also had an above average number of requests, at 321 requests, to transfer licensure to the state.
In 2012, the aver-age processing time for e-LTP requests was nine days. Approximately 8,173 applications were processed in 2012. For more information about e-LTP, visit the NABP Web site at www.nabp .net/programs/licensure/licensure-transfer.
nabp newsletter
56
Association News
NABP Accreditation Programs Support Pharmacy and Wholesale Distributor Efforts to Provide Quality Products and Services
In keeping with the As-sociation’s mission to protect the public health, each of the NABP accreditation and approval programs includes requirements to help ensure patients and beneficiaries receive quality care and products. In 2012, entities including suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthet-ics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS), Internet phar-macies, and wholesale distrib-utors continued to seek the appropriate accreditation or approval to comply with state and federal requirements or to distinguish their company as a provider of high quality products and services.
2012 Accreditation Program Overview
As a means to help protect the public from the threat of counterfeit drugs infiltrating the United States medication supply, VAWD® (Verified-Ac-credited Wholesale Distribu-tors®) program verifies sup-pliers’ compliance with state
and federal laws for wholesale distributors. By December 31, 2012, over 500 wholesale facilities had been accredited by the VAWD program since its launch in 2004. As sev-eral entities continue to seek VAWD accreditation or reac-creditation to comply with state requirements, the total number of accreditations has steadily climbed from only 32 in 2006 to 541 in 2012.
Since 2006, the DMEPOS accreditation program has assisted numerous pharma-cies seeking to meet Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services DMEPOS require-ments. At the program’s peak in 2009, the DMEPOS program had accredited over 1,000 companies representing over 30,000 facilities. Despite legislative changes made in 2010 that exempts certain pharmacies from having to obtain DMEPOS accredita-tion, DMEPOS continues to receive a steady number of applications, resulting in 48 new accreditations and
almost 300 reaccreditations in 2012. Today, the program has accredited over 600 ac-credited DMEPOs companies representing nearly 28,000 facilities that are currently listed on the NABP Web site.
Since 1999, the VIPPS® (Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice SitesCM) program has accredited Internet pharmacies that meet a comprehensive set of crite-ria, including compliance with state and federal laws and regulations. As patients’ use of the Internet to obtain prescription medications continues to increase, NABP consistently reviews the VIPPS program standards to keep pace with these technological advancements in medication access.
In 2012, VIPPS and Vet-VIPPS® (Veterinary-Verified
NABP Program 2011 Accreditations* 2012 Accreditations* Total Current Accreditations as of December 31, 2012
VAWD® 205 100 541
DMEPOS** 79 340 720
VIPPS® 6 4 32
Vet-VIPPS® 8 3 19
NABP e-Advertiser ApprovalCM Program 15 19 30
Internet Pharmacy Practice SitesCM) accredited two and three Internet pharmacies, respectively. In addition, two VIPPS Internet phar-macies were reaccredited. By the end of 2012, a total of 32 Internet pharmacy sites were VIPPS accredited and 18 Internet pharmacies were Vet-VIPPS accredited.
The NABP e-Advertiser ApprovalCM Program targets Internet advertisers that offer only limited pharmacy services or other prescrip-tion drug-related services online. A total of 29 entities sought and obtained NABP e-Advertiser Approval since the launch of this program in 2010, with 11 newly approved entities and eight reapproved enti-ties in 2012.
More information on the NABP accreditation programs can be found under Accreditation in the Programs section of the NABP Web site at www .nabp.net/programs.
Accreditations and Approvals by NABP Program
* Total number of accreditations for a given year includes entities accredited for the first time and entities reaccredited in that year. ** Chain pharmacies, though each counted as a single DMEPOS accreditation, have several locations.
march 2013
57
Association News
NABP Reports Examination Totals for 2012: Shows Consistent Climb in NAPLEX, MPJE, and PCOA Administrations
NABP has announced the totals for the 2012 ad-ministrations of the North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination® (NAPLEX®), the Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination® (MPJE®), the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination®
(FPGEE®), and the Pharma-cy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment® (PCOA®). The results indicate a consistent increase in NAPLEX, MPJE, and PCOA administrations, while showing a decrease in FPGEE administrations.
NAPLEX
Showing a consistent increase from year to year, NAPLEX administra-tions continue to rise. The increase of pharmacy school graduates throughout the United States continues to positively impact the num-ber of candidates who sit for the NAPLEX annually. From January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, there were a total of 14,578 NAPLEX administra-tions compared to 14,208 administrations in 2011, representing an increase of 2.6%.
Likely contributing to the increase of NAPLEX ad-ministrations are the three pharmacy schools that had graduating classes for the
first time in 2012. Current-ly, there are 112 pharmacy schools in the US that have graduating classes. Of the candidates that sat for the 2012 administration, 87% were first-time test takers.
There was also an in-crease in the number of Pre-NAPLEX® administrations. The Pre-NAPLEX, which serves as the practice exami-nation for the NAPLEX, had a total of 8,759 administra-tions in 2012, an increase of 5.2% when compared to the 2011 administrations.
MPJE
The number of MPJE administrations also showed an increase in 2012. The MPJE had a total of 23,311 administrations, an increase of 5.8% compared to 2011. This increase is likely correlated with the increase in NAPLEX ad-ministrations. In 2012, 48 jurisdictions required the MPJE for licensure and 48 jurisdictions required phar-macists to pass the MPJE as a condition of license transfer.
FPGEEUnlike the NAPLEX
and MPJE administration totals for 2012, the FPGEE showed a decrease in ad-ministrations. The FPGEE
had a total number of 1,693 candidates that sat for the 2012 administrations in the spring and fall, a 14.6% decrease, when compared to 2011.
The decrease in the number of FPGEE adminis-trations for 2012 may relate to the decreased demand for pharmacists from other countries. As the phar-macist shortage in the US has leveled off, companies are no longer aggressively recruiting foreign-educated pharmacists.
Showing a similar trend, the Pre-FPGEE®, which is the practice examination for the FPGEE, also showed a decrease in administrations in 2012. The Pre-FPGEE had a total of 547 administrations in 2012, a decrease of ap-proximately 6.2% compared to 2011.
PCOA
Showing the most signif-icant change in 2012 is the number of PCOA adminis-trations and the number of schools participating. For 2012, PCOA administra-tions rose 53% when com-pared to the 2011 admin-
istrations. A total of 4,304 students participated in the PCOA in 2012 compared to 2,812 in 2011. In addition, the number of schools that participated in the PCOA also showed a significant increase with 28 schools participating compared to 19 schools in 2011. Pos-sibly contributing to this increase in administrations is that schools and colleges may recognize the PCOA’s value in assisting compli-ance with the Accredita-tion Council for Pharmacy Education standards as it provides an objective, psychometrically sound, comprehensive assessment that allows for comparisons with peer institutions.
Also possibly contrib-uting to the increase in administrations are some changes made to the as-sessment in 2012. In 2012, NABP began offering schools and colleges the opportunity to adminis-ter the assessment to their students using either the paper-based assessment or through a computer-based format. In addition, the PCOA competency state-ments and blueprint were updated based upon the outcomes from a 2010 US College of Pharmacy Cur-ricula Survey.
More information on the NABP examinations is located in the Programs sec-tion on the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net/programs.
nabp newsletter
58
109th Annual Meeting
May 18-21, 2013 Hyatt Regency St Louis at the Arch St Louis, MOMeeting Program
NABP and the NABP Foundation is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) as a provider of continuing pharmacy education (CPE). ACPE Provider Number: 205. Participants may earn ACPE-accredited CPE credit by completing a Statement of Continuing Pharmacy Education Participation online and submitting it electronically to NABP. Full attendance and completion of the program evaluation for each session are required to receive CPE credit and a Statement of Continuing Pharmacy Education Credit.
Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Policy: NABP staff will be available to assist attendees on an individual basis to apply for CLE credit for attending CPE sessions. To apply for CLE credit, attendees must initiate the program approval process in their own states by completing and submitting the appropriate application materials and forms. NABP will provide documentation as necessary.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
9 AM - 7 PM Registration/Information Desk Open2 - 4 PM
Pre-Meeting CPEThe Compounding/Manufacturing Debate: When Is a Duck Not a Duck?ACPE #205-000-13-001-L03-P(0.2 CEUs – 2 contact hours)5 - 6 PM
Annual Meeting and District Meeting Orientation7 - 10 PM
President’s Welcome ReceptionHonoring NABP President Michael A. Burleson, RPhDinner will be served Dress: business casual
Sunday, May 19, 2013
6:30 AM - 5 PM
Registration/Information Desk Open7:30 - 8:30 AM
NABP AWARxE Fun Run/WalkSponsored by Rite Aid Corporation
8 - 11:30 AM
Hospitality BrunchSponsored by Omnicare, Inc Educational Table Top Displays
8 - 11:30 AM
Joint CPEEducational Poster Session – Sharing Responsibility for Public ProtectionACPE #205-000-13-002-L04-P(0.1 CEU – 1 contact hour)
Noon - 3:15 PM
First Business Session12:30 - 1:30 PM
Keynote AddressChef Jeff HendersonSponsored by Humana Pharmacy Solutions
3:30 - 4:30 PM
Joint CPEgTLD and LegitScript Investigations UpdateACPE #205-000-13-003-L03-P(0.1 CEU – 1 contact hour)
Monday, May 20, 2013
7 AM - 2 PM
Registration/Information Desk Open7 - 8:15 AM
NABP/USP BreakfastSponsored by United States Pharmacopeial Convention
8:15 - 10:15 AM
Joint CPEVeterinary Pharmacy Issues: Identifying Illegal Practices and Distinguishing Supply Chain VariationsACPE #205-000-13-004-L03-P(0.2 CEUs – 2 contact hours) 10:30 AM - noon Second Business SessionNoon - 12:30 PM
Informal Member/Candidate Discussion1:30 - 5:30 PM
Optional TourGateway to St LouisReservation Required
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
7:30 AM - 4:15 PM
Registration/Information Desk Open7:45 - 8:45 AM
NABP Breakfast 8:45 - 10:15 AM
Executive Officer and Board Member CPEVirtual Pharmacy Practice – Out of Thin AirACPE #205-000-13-005-L03-P(0.15 CEUs – 1.5 contact hours)8:45 - 10:15 AM
Compliance Officer CPEPill Mills, Non-Therapeutic Drug Use, and Prescription Drug Monitoring: What to Look for During InvestigationsACPE #205-000-13-006-L03-P(0.15 CEUs – 1.5 contact hours)10:30 AM - noonJoint CPEAre Biosimilars the Same as Generics? Point-Counterpoint ACPE #205-000-13-007-L05-P(0.15 CEUs – 1.5 contact hours) Noon - 1:30 PM
Lunch Break(On your own)
1:30 - 4 PM
Final Business Session5:45 - 6:45 PM
Awards Dinner Reception7 - 11 PM
Annual Awards DinnerDress: semiformal
Note: The 109th Annual Meeting schedule is subject to change.
march 2013
59
109th Annual Meeting
Find Exciting Networking Opportunities in St Louis! Attend the NABP 109th Annual Meeting’s Optional Events
Looking for opportuni-ties to share information with fellow state board of pharmacy members and other pharmacy profes-sionals at the NABP 109th
Annual Meeting? Look no further than the optional events taking place through-out the meeting. Set for May 18-21, 2013, at the Hyatt Regency St Louis at the Arch in St Louis, MO, the Annual Meeting offers attendees the opportunity to participate in the Optional Tour, NABP AWARxE Fun Run/Walk, the Hospitality Brunch, the Educational Poster Session, and the An-nual Meeting and District Meeting Orientation.
Group Tour Explores St Louis
NABP invites attend-ees to get out and explore the city that surrounds the 109th Annual Meeting during the Gateway to St Louis Optional Tour, which will be held Monday, May 20, from 1:30 to 5:30 PM. The motor coach tour begins with a drive through the nine-block historic Laclede’s Landing. Along the tour, attendees will take in views of Old Cathedral, the oldest Cathedral west of the Mississippi River; Busch Stadium, home of the St Louis Cardinals; and St Louis Union Station. Participants will also have the opportunity to explore the Old Courthouse, where the Dred Scott Freedom Trial took place.
One of the most notable stops on the tour will be the Cathedral Basilica of St Louis, which contains one of the largest collections of mosaics in the world. Also known as the New Cathedral, it houses 84,000 square feet of mosaics in 8,000 shades of color. Par-ticipants will have an op-portunity to exit the motor coach for an up-close view of the mosaics.
Later in the tour, take a glimpse back into the “Golden Age” of St Louis by exploring the sprawling mansions bordering Forest Park. Forest Park itself is one of the largest city parks in the United States, was the host of the 1904 World’s Fair, and today houses the Saint Louis Zoo, the Saint Louis Art Museum, and the Science Center.
The cost of the tour is $49 per person. Advanced payment and registration is required by Tuesday, April 30, to hold a spot on the tour, as space is limited. Please note, no other functions are scheduled during this time.
NABP AWARxE Fun Run/Walk
The NABP AWARxE Fun Run/Walk, sponsored by Rite Aid Corporation, will be held Sunday, May 19, from 7:30 to 8:30 AM. The Fun Run/Walk will begin just outside the hotel’s doors where attendees will then travel along one of St Louis’ most scenic trails in Laclede’s Landing. Attendees
will continue the run/walk along the Mississippi riverfront between the Eads and Poplar Street Bridges.
In addition, attendees will pass the Old Cathedral, which until 1845 was the only parish church in the city of St Louis. Finally, at-tendees will get a spectacu-lar view of the Gateway Arch from the high side of the Arch grounds.
Preregistered par-ticipants will receive a Fun Run/Walk t-shirt, display-ing the AWARxE® logo, when they check in for the meeting at the NABP Reg-istration/Information Desk. The morning of the event, participants will meet in the hotel lobby at 7:15 AM and bottled water and granola bars will be provided at the end of the activity. Attend-ees are asked to preregister (at no charge) by Tuesday, April 30, to participate and receive a t-shirt.
Hospitality BrunchAttendees of the 109th
Annual Meeting will have
another chance to network during the Hospitality Brunch on Sunday, May 19. From 8 to 11:30 AM, attend-ees will be able to gather with colleagues supportive of the objectives of the boards of pharmacy, while partaking in a full buffet brunch sponsored by Omnicare, Inc.
In addition, educational table top displays by NABP, federal regulatory agencies, and other associations that highlight important issues and programs will be set up in the area. During this time, attendees will also have the opportunity to meet members of the Mis-souri Board of Pharmacy and get a local perspective on the must-see sites of St Louis at the host state table top display.
Educational Poster Session
Just a few steps away from the brunch is the NABP annual Educational Poster Session. Displays will
(continued on page 60)
The Old Courthouse, where the Dred Scott Freedom Trial took place, is a downtown St Louis landmark. Photo courtesy of St Louis Convention and Visitors Commission.
nabp newsletter
60
109th Annual Meeting
Deadline Approaching Fast to Present at Educational Poster Session: Reserve a Spot by Friday, March 8
The deadline to reserve a spot as a presenter for the NABP 109th Annual Meet-ing Educational Poster Session is Friday, March 8, 2013. Board of pharmacy members and staff as well as schools and colleges of pharmacy are invited to participate.
The Poster Session, which will focus on the theme “Sharing Respon-sibility for Public Protec-tion,” will be held Sunday, May 19, 2013, from 8 to 11:30 AM during the NABP 109th Annual Meeting, May 18-21, at the Hyatt Regency St Louis at the Arch in St Louis, MO.
The session will offer those displaying posters the opportunity to share information about their organization’s latest legisla-tive issues, technology, policy development, and/or disciplinary cases as they relate to “Sharing Respon-
sibility for Public Protec-tion” with other pharmacy professionals.
Participants may earn one contact hour (0.1 CEU) of Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education-accredited continuing pharmacy education (CPE) credit for their attendance and participation. Present-ers are not automatically qualified for CPE. To earn CPE, both presenters and participants must spend at least one hour interacting with other Poster Session presenters and complete a post-session test.
Posters must coincide with the Poster Session theme, “Sharing Respon-sibility for Public Protec-tion.” Participating boards and schools and colleges of pharmacy will be provided with one four-foot by six-foot bulletin board, which should be manned by a qualified representative,
such as a registered phar-macist, during the display time. Assembly time will be available on Sunday, May 19, from 7 to 7:45 AM. Stu-dent presenters are welcome and must be accompanied by a licensed pharmacist. Pharmacy school student presenters will receive a free voucher valued at $50 to take the Pre-NAPLEX®,
a practice examination for students preparing for the North American Pharma-cist Licensure Examina-tion®.
Those interested in par-ticipating should contact NABP Professional Affairs Senior Manager Eileen Lewalski via e-mail at [email protected] by the Friday, March 8 deadline.
contain information such as a board of pharmacy’s best or most noteworthy legislative issues, policy development, disciplinary cases, and research results that fall within the Poster Session’s theme “Sharing Responsibility for Public Protection.” Universities and colleges of pharmacy
will also display posters. Participants of the Poster Session can earn up to one contact hour (0.1 CEU) of Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education-accredited continuing pharmacy education (CPE) credit. Attendees will need to spend at least 60 minutes in the Poster Session area discussing the displays with presenters and pass an on-line post-session test in or-der to earn CPE credit.
Annual Meeting and District Meeting Orientation
Recently appointed board of pharmacy mem-bers attending their first NABP Annual Meeting are encouraged to attend the Annual Meeting and Dis-trict Meeting Orientation on Saturday, May 18, from 5 to 6 PM, where information will be provided regarding the events being held and
the procedures followed during the Annual Meet-ing. During this session, district meetings and the assistance NABP can provide will also be discussed.
Registration and more information about the 109th Annual Meeting are available in the Meetings section of the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net/meetings.
109th Annual Meeting Optional Events(continued from page 59)
Student presenter Nicole Marie Yakobitis from Temple University School of Pharmacy presents a poster to Michael A. Moné, JD, RPh, member, Ohio State Board of Pharmacy, at last year’s 108th Annual Meeting.
march 2013
61
109th Annual Meeting
Travel Grants for 109th Annual Meeting Still Available
NABP is still accepting travel grant applications from representatives of active member boards of pharmacy to attend the 109th Annual Meeting to be held May 18-21, 2013, at the Hyatt Regency St Louis at the Arch in St Louis, MO. One grant will be awarded to a current board member or administrative officer of each active NABP mem-ber board of pharmacy, as designated by the board’s administrative officer.
In years past, the travel grant was provided only for voting delegates. Although that restriction no longer applies, active member
boards of pharmacy still must have a voting delegate in attendance at the Annual Meeting to vote during all applicable business sessions in order to receive reim-bursement.
The grant was estab-lished to assist boards in sending voting delegates to the Annual Meeting so they may participate in impor-tant business including discussing and voting upon resolutions and amend-ments to the NABP Consti-tution and Bylaws, electing NABP Executive Commit-tee members and officers, and attending educational sessions regarding current
issues facing pharmacy regulators.
The Annual Meeting Travel Grant program lessens the costs for quali-fied individuals by pro-viding funds for needed expenses, including travel, hotel rooms, meals, taxis, parking, and tips. Eligible individuals can receive up to $1,500 in grant monies to attend the NABP 109th
Annual Meeting. The grant does not include Annual Meeting registration fees.
Grant applications may be obtained from NABP upon the direct requests of executive officers of the state boards of phar-
macy. Applications can be submitted by mail to Lisa Braddy, at NABP Headquarters or via fax at 847/391-4500. NABP requests that applications be submitted prior to the Annual Meeting. All ap-plicants will be informed of whether or not they have qualified for the grant. Last year, 40 state boards of pharmacy applied and were approved for the 108th
Annual Meeting Travel Grant.
For more information on the Annual Meeting Travel Grant, contact the NABP Executive Office at [email protected].
Convenient Annual Meeting Registration Now Available at NABP.netRegister by April 8 to Obtain the Early Registration Rate for the 109th Annual Meeting
Online registration is now available for the NABP 109th Annual Meeting, “Gateway to Shared Re-sponsibility and Success,” to be held May 18-21, 2013, at the Hyatt Regency St Louis at the Arch in St Louis, MO. Attendees are encouraged to register early to receive the reduced registration rates. In order to receive the early registration rate, attendees must register on or before April 8, 2013. Registra-tion will be available in the Meetings section of the NABP Web site at www .nabp.net/meetings.
NABP offers attendees three payment options: 1. Mailing in the pay-
ment 2. Using a credit card
(American Express, MasterCard, or Visa)
3. Paying in St LouisTo maintain the ac-
curacy of attendee infor-mation and streamline the registration process, all registration will be handled electronically. Attendees who do not have access to a computer may contact the NABP Customer Service Depart-ment at 847/391-4406.
More information about the 109th Annual Meeting is available in the Meetings
NABP 109th Annual MeetingMay 18-21, 2013 Hyatt Regency St Louis at the Arch St Louis, MO
section of the NABP Web site at www .nabp.net/ meetings.
nabp newsletter
62
PRESCRIPTION DRUG SAFETY®
AWARXE News
GET INFORMED | WWW.AWARERX.ORG
AWARxE Encourages Consumers to Safeguard Medications and Shares Drug Disposal Resources With Pharmacists
Over 50% of 12th graders said prescription narcot-ics, such as Vicodin® and OxyContin®, would be very easy or fairly easy to obtain, according to the 2012 Monitoring the Future Survey. The annual survey conducted by the University of Michigan also revealed that over 20% of 12th grad-ers who used tranquilizers or prescription narcotics in the past year, took the drugs from a friend or relative.
To help prevent teens and others from helping themselves to medicine cabinet contents, AWARxE® issued a press release reminding consumers to safeguard medications just prior to the Christmas and New Year holidays. AWARxE encouraged consumers to move medi-cations to a secure location prior to holiday gatherings and visits.
AWARxE reminded consumers that young teens do not realize that prescrip-tion drugs, when not taken according to a doctor’s di-rections, can be deadly. In fact, while Monitoring the Future shows that a major-ity of eighth grade students perceive regular marijuana use and occasional heroin use as a great risk, only 29.4% see occasional non-
medical use of Vicodin as a great risk and only 35% see occasional non-medical use of OxyContin as a great risk.
With engaging pho-tographs and a link to AWARERX.ORG, the press release was published by 55 media outlets, including outlets in Canada, Germa-ny, and the United States, with a potential readership of over 56.5 million. In addition, the release was distributed to over 14,000 subscribers to the bi-weekly AWARxE Prescription Drug Safety News. These subscribers include phar-macists, pharmacy techni-cians, health educators, and community organizers who were likely to share the message with patients, clients, and community residents.
The news release was also shared via the AWARxE Facebook page, which has gained double the number of “likes” since the relaunch of the page by NABP. Board members and staff may assist in sharing the AWARxE message by sim-ply giving AWARxE Face-book posts a “like,” which helps expand the reach of the messages. Boards may also send information on prescription drug abuse
prevention activities and related photographs to AWARxE for posting to the page.
In addition to these consumer outreach efforts, NABP staff will share AWARxE resources with attendees at the American Pharmacists Association Annual Meeting, March
AWARxE Alerts Consumers Before the HolidaysThe AWARxE® holiday news release alerted consumers that “some teenagers secure pills from unsuspecting friends, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, sisters, and brothers, and go to a Pharm Party or a Skittles Party where all those who attend throw various pills into a bowl. Then each teen grabs some pills and ingests them,” and reminded consumers to “lock your medicine out of sight in a secure place other than a drawer or cabinet, as these are the first places a determined person will look.”
1-4, 2013, in Los Ange-les, CA. Handouts that included drug disposal information for patients as well as information on the risks of illegal online drug sellers and counter-feits will be available. The handouts are posted on the Pharmacists page of AWARERX.ORG.
©iStockphoto.com/redbaronsbrother
march 2013
63
Association News
NABP Celebrates Five Years of Educating and Empowering Patients to Avoid Potential Dangers When Buying Medications Online
Launched by NABP on May 16, 2008, the Internet Drug Outlet Identification program celebrates its five-year anniversary for educat-ing patients on the potential dangers of buying medica-tions online and empower-ing them to make informed choices. The program, developed as an outgrowth of a 2007 NABP resolution “Internet Pharmacy Public Safety Awareness,” in which NABP pledged to continue collaborating with federal agencies and other interest-ed stakeholders to educate the public and health care professionals on the dangers of acquiring drugs illegally through the Internet and from foreign sources.
NABP developed standards for the Internet
Drug Outlet Identification program with input from its member boards of pharma-cy, interested stakeholders, and regulatory authorities, including the United States Food and Drug Administra-tion and the US Drug En-forcement Administration.
From the program’s start, NABP was commit-ted to identifying Internet drug outlets operating in conflict with these standards, listing them on the NABP Web site as “Not Recommended,” and advising that patients buy medication online only from Internet pharmacies accredited through the Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice SitesCM (VIPPS®) program – a commitment NABP maintains today.
The Internet Drug Out-let Identification program has come a long way since May 2008. At the time of the program’s launch, NABP reported 79 Internet drug outlets that appeared to be operating out of compliance with state and federal laws and NABP patient safety and phar-macy practice standards. As reported in the above-men-tioned January 25, report, NABP has identified nearly 10,000.
The program has also received outside recognition for its efforts in combating rogue Internet drug outlets. In 2009, NABP was one of 21 organizations nationally to receive the American Society of Association Executives As-sociations Advance America
Award of Excellence for its Internet Drug Outlet Iden-tification program.
In recent efforts, NABP has begun stressing the im-portance of global collabo-ration among members of the international pharmacy community to protect pa-tients worldwide from dan-gers posed by illegal online drug sellers. For example, a collaborative effort between LegitScript and NABP shut down over 5,000 rogue Web sites in August 2012.
More information about the Internet Drug Outlet Identification program may be found in the Buying Medicine Online section of the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net/programs/consumer-protection/buying-medicine-online.
NABP Finds Education and Collaboration the Key to Continued Progress in Fighting Rogue Prescription Drug Sellers
In a report released on Friday, January 25, 2013, NABP outlined how continued collaboration among global stakeholders is vital to eliminating the public health threats posed by rogue Internet drug outlets. As described in the Internet Drug Outlet Iden-tification Program Progress Report for State and Federal Regulators: January 2013, NABP detailed its five-year progress in providing data on illegal online drug sell-ers to public agencies and private entities in support
of policy efforts to shut down these rogue sites.
NABP continues to review and monitor Web sites selling prescription drugs to protect public health and its findings were also presented in the January 25 report – of more than 10,000 Web sites analyzed, nearly 97% operate out of compliance with pharmacy laws and practice standards estab-lished in the United States, and many other developed countries. Such sites pro-vide an outlet for counter-
feit medicines to enter the US drug supply, endanger-ing the health and safety of Americans.
The report provided an overview of the NABP Internet Drug Outlet Identification program’s research and education efforts over the past five years, including efforts to raise awareness about the increased likelihood that drug products purchased online are substandard or counterfeit, and to educate about the danger that Web sites illegally selling pre-
scription drugs, including controlled substances, likely contribute to the prescription drug abuse epidemic in the US.
Significant collab-orative and global efforts initiated over the past five years to protect patients from dangerous prod-ucts distributed by illegal online sellers are also highlighted in the report. Such NABP collaborative efforts include:
•Working with search engines Google, Bing,
(continued on page 64)
nabp newsletter
64
Association News
NABP Announces 2013-2014 MPJE Review Committee MembersIntroducing one new
member and commend-ing 14 returning members, NABP is pleased to announce the 2013-2014 Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Ex-amination® (MPJE®) Review Committee.
Dedicated to review-ing and safeguarding the integrity and validity of the MPJE, the committee is composed of pharmacists, pharmacist attorneys, and regulatory authorities who are representative of the di-versity of pharmacy practice and share the responsibility for developing and review-ing the items in the MPJE. This team of dedicated volunteers acts under the policy and planning guid-
ance of the Advisory Com-mittee on Examinations and the Executive Commit-tee. Responsibilities include reviewing the examination questions to ensure compli-ance with pharmacy law as it applies to contemporary practice, and participating in meetings.
NABP appreciates the assistance of these commit-tee members as they evalu-ate examination content and ensure that it meets the specified competency as-sessment statements, which, in essence, determine the question pool. The list of MPJE Review Commit-tee members follow. Their terms began February 1, 2013.
MPJE Review Committee
•Vance Alexander, Birmingham, AL
•C. Richard Allen, Athens, GA
•Grace Cheung, Kenmore, WA
•Danna Droz,* Ohio State Board of Pharmacy
•Denise M. Frank, Princeton, MN
•Randy Jones, South Dakota State Board of Pharmacy
•Amy Matilla, Washburn, WI
•Michael A. Moné, Ohio State Board of Pharmacy
•Richard Morrison, Bothell, WA
• Steve Morse, Dublin, OH
•Charles W. Sauer, Sycamore, IL
•Vickie Seeger, Midlothian, VA
•Alan M. Shepley, Mount Vernon, IA
• John D. Taylor, Tallahassee, FL
•David C. Young, Utah Board of Pharmacy
*Denotes new member
and Yahoo! to block online advertisements for rogue Internet drug outlets beginning in 2010.
•Participating, with other stakeholders, in a December 2010 White House forum to address the problem of counterfeit medications and their frequent distribution over the Internet.
•Participating in a June 2011 Congressional briefing on rogue Internet drug outlets.
•Applying to the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers, with the support of a global coalition of stakeholders, in March 2012, to be the registry operator for the new .PHARMACY domain.As indicated in the
January 25 report, NABP has reviewed more than 10,000 Web sites and the vast majority of sites (97%) were found to be operat-ing out of compliance with US pharmacy laws and are listed as Not Recommend-ed on NABP’s consumer protection Web site, WWW
.AWARERX.ORG. The 9,938 Internet drug outlets cur-rently listed as Not Recom-mended are characterized as follows:
• 4,839 offer foreign or non-Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs
• 8,701 do not require a valid prescription
• 2,302 have a physical address located outside of the US (most rogue sites post no address whatsoever)
• 1,121 dispense controlled substancesTo help consumers
find the safest sources for purchasing medicine on-line, NABP developed the VIPPS® (Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice SitesCM) accreditation program. Consumers are encouraged to look for the VIPPS Seal on an accredited site, or check NABP’s database on
its consumer protection Web site, WWW.AWARERX
.ORG. As part of its con-tinued initiatives aimed to combat these rogue sites, NABP and the state boards of pharmacy are stepping up their efforts to educate the public through the AWARXE® Consumer Protection Program. The AWARXE Web site pro-vides information on safely obtaining medications as well as updated news, tips, and links to relevant NABP resources.
For the full report with detailed findings on the characteristics of rogue Web sites, visit WWW
.AWARERX.ORG/get-informed/safe-acquisition/not- recommended-sites.
Fighting Rogue Drug Sellers(continued from page 63)
march 2013
65
Association News
Newly Accredited DMEPOS FacilitiesThe following facilities were accredited through the durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) program:
A full listing of the over 600 accredited DMEPOS companies representing nearly 28,000 facilities is available on the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net.
Germantown PharmacyPhiladelphia, PA
Karemore PharmacyPrincess Anne, MD
Newly Accredited VAWD FacilityThe following facility was accredited through the NABP Verified-Accredited Wholesale Distributors® (VAWD®) program:
A full listing of more than 530 accredited VAWD facilities is available on the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net.
UPS Supply Chain Solutions, IncLouisville, KY
On January 22-23, 2013, members of the NABP Committee on Law Enforcement/Legislation met at NABP Head-quarters to review and comment on existing legislation and rules and to develop model regulations for the practice of pharmacy as assigned by the NABP Executive Committee, adopted resolutions, and task force reports. Members also recommended model regulation revisions to support the Association’s mission for protecting the public health.
Committee on Law Enforcement/Legislation Convenes to Discuss New, Existing Rules for the Protection of Public Health
Back row pictured from left to right: Hal Wand, MBA, RPh, executive director, Arizona State Board of Pharmacy, and NABP Executive Committee Liaison; Kevin Borcher, RP, member, Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Licensure Unit; Gay Dodson, RPh, executive director/secretary, Texas State Board of Pharmacy; Kevin Mitchell, RPh, member, Ohio State Board of Pharmacy; James Koppen, RPh, member, Minnesota Board of Pharmacy; and Susan Ksiazek, RPh, member, New York State Board of Pharmacy. Front row pictured from left to right: Caroline D. Juran, executive director, Virginia Board of Pharmacy; Alice G. Mendoza, RPh, member, Texas State Board of Pharmacy; Tony Moye, BS, member, Georgia State Board of Pharmacy; Lee Ann Bundrick, RPh, administrator, South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation — Board of Pharmacy; Lenna Israbian-Jamgochian, PharmD, member, Maryland Board of Pharmacy; and Gayle A. Cotchen, member, PharmD, MBA, Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy.
nabp newsletter
66
State Board News
Iowa License and Registration Fee Reduced
The Iowa Board of Pharmacy will be lower-ing nearly all of its various license and registration fees by at least 10% during 2013. This action is required by Iowa Code, Section 147.80(2), so that Board revenues align more closely with Board expenditures. The Board will publish a new fee schedule as soon as it is available. More infor-mation is available on the Board’s Web site.
Changes to K-TRACS Requirements
The Kansas State Board of Pharmacy made several modifications to the Kansas Tracking and Reporting of Controlled Substances (K-TRACS) reporting regula-tions. One of the amend-ments included changing the definition of “patient identification number.” The patient identification number is the patient’s unexpired or permanent driver’s license number or state-issued identification card number. If the patient does not have one of these numbers, the pharmacy uses the patient’s insur-ance identification number. If there is no insurance number, the dispenser uses the patient’s first, middle, and last initials, followed by the patient’s eight-digit birth date. The legislature required that the Board collect some type of unique number for each patient.
The unique number helps identify the correct pa-tient when a query is done through K-TRACS.
The second amendment to the regulation related to those dispensers who have a “zero report” or no dispensing of controlled substances or drugs of concern activity for a given period of time. If the pharmacy has a zero report, they will still need to report this every seven days. If the dispenser does not file a report, it ap-pears that they have failed to report; therefore, zero reports must be filed every seven days.
In January 2013, K-TRACS began requiring dispenser reporting every 24 hours. This will not apply if the dispenser has a zero report. Zero reports will still be required every seven days.
The Board amended the regulation classifying drugs of concern. The following are drugs of concern that must be reported under K-TRACS: 1. any product containing
all three of these drugs: butalbital, acetamino-phen, and caffeine;
2. tramadol; and 3. any compound, mix-
ture, or preparation that contains any detectable quantity of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, its salts or optical iso-mers, or salts of optical isomers, and is exempt from being reported to National Precursor Log Exchange (NPLEx).
In other words, pre-scription drugs containing pseudoephedrine or ephed-rine need to be reported through K-TRACS since only nonprescription sales are reported to NPLEx.
NDHIN Direct Provides Secure Health Information
The North Dakota Health Information Net-work (NDHIN) Direct went live in March 2012. NDHIN Direct provides a secure, encrypted method of exchanging protected health information such as prescriptions, lab reports, consults, and other clini-cal information between providers, payors, health department, etc.
NDHIN Direct is a Web-based application, so no additional hardware is required. There are no limits to the num-ber of users that can be enrolled for a NDHIN Direct e-mail account. NDHIN Direct is of-fered free of charge to all who participate in the NDHIN. As of November 2012, there were over 320 authorized users from 67 different facilities us-ing NDHIN Direct and the numbers continue to grow. To view a list of current participants visit www.ndhin.org/providers/participating-providers.
NDHIN Direct offers many benefits to phar-macies. These benefits include providing a solu-tion to the current process
of mailing, scanning, and/or faxing health informa-tion, thus making it faster, less expensive, and more secure.
For more information on NDHIN Direct, visit www.ndhin.org/services/ndhin-direct or send an e-mail to [email protected].
E-mail Option Added for Tennessee Board Notifications
As of January 1, 2013, the Tennessee Board of Pharmacy shall allow all registrants to have the option of being notified by e-mail of renewals of the holder’s license, cer-tification, or registration; any fee increases; any changes in state law that impact the holder and are implemented or enforced by the entity, including newly promulgated or amended statutes, rules, policies, and guidelines; and any meeting where changes in rules or fees are on the agenda. For purposes of notice of any meeting where changes are to be considered, the electronic notice shall be at least 45 days in advance of the meeting, unless it is an emergency meeting, then the notice shall be sent as soon as is practicable. For more information on Tennes-see Public Chapter 952, visit http://tnsos.org/acts/PublicActs.107.php. Use code 0952 and choose “Chapter Number” in the drop-down field.
march 2013
67
Professional Affairs Update
Around the Association
Pain Reliever Recalled for Excess Acetaminophen
In December 2012, Qual-itest, a subsidiary of Endo Health Solutions, issued a voluntary recall of 101 lots of hydrocodone bitartrate and acetaminophen tablets, USP 10 mg/500 mg. Bottles of the affected lots may contain tablets that have a higher dosage of acetamino-phen than what is indicated on the label. Consumers taking the painkiller could be at risk of acetaminophen overdose. Excess doses of acetaminophen can lead to liver toxicity, among other adverse events.
The affected lots were distributed between Febru-ary 20, 2012 and November 19, 2012, to wholesale dis-tributors and retail pharma-cies nationwide. The recall applies to the following Na-tional Drug Code numbers and lot numbers beginning with the letter C:
• 0603-3888-16
• 0603-3888-20
• 0603-3888-02
• 0603-3888-21
• 0603-3888-22
• 0603-3888-26
• 0603-3888-04
• 0603-3888-28
• 0603-3888-32Additional informa-
tion is available in a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Safety Alert, avail-able at www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm331218.htm.
New FDA Training Video
FDA Drug Info Rounds, a series of online training
videos, provides impor-tant and timely drug information to practicing clinical and community pharmacists so they can help patients make better medication decisions. In the latest Drug Info Rounds video pharmacists discuss how FDA Drug Safety Communications let health care providers, patients, and consumers know about newly observed potential risks of FDA-approved drugs. Drug Info Rounds is developed with contri-butions from pharmacists in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Communications, and Division of Drug Infor-mation.
Most Community Pharmacies Enabled to Accept E-Prescriptions
The majority of com-munity pharmacies in the United States are enabled to accept e-prescriptions, and almost half of phy-sicians are now using e-prescribing, according to a new report from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. “From December 2008 through June 2012, com-munity pharmacies enabled to accept e-prescriptions increased from 76% to 94%,” indicates the report. In the same time period, the amount of physicians in the US that are e-pre-scribing using electronic health record technology increased from 7% to 48%. In 2012, about 45% of new and renewal prescrip-
tions were sent electroni-cally. The report, “State Variation in E-Prescribing Trends in the United States,” is available for download at www.healthit .gov/sites/default/files/us_e-prescribingtrends_onc_brief_4_nov2012.pdf.
Pharmacists Rated High for Honesty and Ethical Standards in Gallup’s 2012 Poll
Pharmacists ranked as the second most trusted
profession in the 2012 Gal-lup Poll that asked consum-ers to rate 22 professions according to their honesty and ethical standards. Phar-macists were ranked as very high or high in this category by 75% of those surveyed, with nurses ranking first at 85%, and medical doctors third at 70%. Additional information on the results of the 2012 poll is available on the Gallup Web site at www.gallup.com/poll/159035/congress-retains-low-honesty-rating.aspx.
Board Member Appointments
•Cherryl Peterson, PharmD, has been appointed a member of the Delaware State Board of Pharmacy. Peterson’s appointment will expire October 25, 2015.
•Rhonny Valentine, RPh, has been appointed a member of the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy. Valentine’s appointment will expire June 30, 2018.
•Kevin Eidson, PharmD, has been appointed a member of the Tennessee Board of Pharmacy. Eidson’s appointment will expire July 15, 2018.
Board Member Reappointments
•Richard Matens has been reappointed a
public member of the Maryland Board of Pharmacy. Matens’s appointment will expire April 30, 2016.
•Lynette Bradley-Baker, PhD, RPh, has been reappointed a member of the Maryland Board of Pharmacy. Bradley-Baker’s appointment will expire April 30, 2015.
•Brian Bond, RPh, has been reappointed a member of the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy. Bond’s appointment will expire July 1, 2018.
Board Officer ChangeThe Maryland Board of Pharmacy has elected the following officer to the Board:
•Lynette Bradley-Baker, PhD, RPh, Treasurer
National Association of Boards of Pharmacy1600 Feehanville DriveMount Prospect, IL 60056
nabp newsletter
A full listing of NABP approved e-Advertisers is available on the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net.
Newly Approved e-AdvertisersThe following entities were accredited through the NABP e-Advertiser ApprovalCM Program:
Birds Hill Pharmacyww.birdshillpharmacy.com
Hillsborough River Pharmacy, Incwww.hriverpharmacy.com
Payless Drug Long Term Care Pharmacywww.PaylessDrugSSP.com