Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

iphone fun

journal photo

Subscribe to Journal

Sunday, April 29th 2012

9:55 AM

Lack of NH media coverage: "Vetting your Veterinarian"

  • Mood:

When was the last time NH had coverage on this topic? Or should I ask: has there ever been coverage?

Has there ever been coverage on government resources such as medical review boards, or the pre- screen medical review panel requirement prior to submit a human malpractice claim ?

It should come as no surprise (but I bet would be to most NH citizens) , that in the last 10 years, NH has ranked in the BOTTOM ten states of issuing disciplinary action or insuring safety for its citizens in the HUMAN medical field~~

 

Yes, that's a fact: NH does very little enforcement of the standard of care and has earned the rank of 44 out of 51  ...."

Moreover, there is considerable evidence that most boards are underdisciplining physicians. For example, in a report on doctors disciplined for criminal activity that we published in 2006, 67 percent of insurance fraud convictions and 36 percent of convictions related to controlled substances were associated with only non-severe discipline by the board.

1

In this report, we have concentrated on the most serious disciplinary actions. Although the FSMB does report less severe actions, such as fines and reprimands, it is not appropriate to provide such actions with the same weight as license revocations, for example. A state that embarks on a strategy of switching over time from revocations or probations to fines or reprimands for similar offenses should have a rate and a ranking that reflects this decision to discipline less severely.http://www.citizen.org/documents/1949.pdf#page=10

 

Therefore, what is the likelyhood of New Hampshire pet Consumer Clients being assured that measures are taken to prevent or eliminate fraud, abuse, and decent care for our pet family?

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Sunday, April 1st 2012

12:27 PM

Suki's Safe Haven ~~A New Blog about Veterinary Abuse & the 1st Amendment :

  • Mood:
 
 
 
http://vetabusenetwork.blogspot.com/2012...

   ...."You're crazy.” Yawn. A tired old standby.....You need psychiatric help.”.....“You're a liar.” Nice try, but that doesn't work when I have proof in the vet's own records, lab work, and timeline exactly what he did – and when, where, why, and how.....

 

These are the words Ms. Julie Catalano , Texas, heard over and over for decades after publishing her web site Vetabusenetwork.com , a comprehensive site and matter of public concern about the lack of accountability in the veterinary profession for any type of negligence to companion animals and the resulting shared damage to their consumer human owners.
 
And the same and similar statements were made to me years and years later, but pretty much confined by those directly related and that derived income from the pet medical profession or involved within the particulars of the circumstances.
 
As I reflect back on the many contacts I made, oddly, no government resource, no legal resource, no medical resource, no protective resource (local or county police or humane peace officers), no media resource, and no casual acquaintance ever expressed doubt in the validity of my statements or descriptions. All those resources shared a privileged knowledge of the reasoning behind the abuse and that my experience was certainly not the "first", nor likely to be the last. As this continued over the course of years and months, so did my driven quest for answers.
 
It took me through a four year journey that no one should ever experience, particularly when one's simple and honest goal was to :
 
accomplish compassionate, kind, and HUMANE euthanasia and end of suffering for their OWN beloved dog that was loved and had been devoted the utmost care towards, for 11 and 1/2 years and was fully expected to accomplish this FOR MONEY~~
 
And so Veterinary Malpractice, Negligence, and Abuse that takes many forms, and as the "related industry" has grown and magnified , so will the realization that living companion animals are no longer "chattel" and the veterinary "double standard" enjoyed will experience change.  
 
Follow Vetabusenetwork.blogspot.com on Twitter, Facebook, and Subscribe, there are a plethora of media accounts, I hope to keep up and share also.
 
0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Sunday, April 1st 2012

9:55 AM

Probation for this licensed vet: today's dirty news :

  • Mood:
 

Veterinarian on probation for horse sex in Oklahoma

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120330/NEWS90/120339995/-1/NEWS01

 

 

A man who had been practicing as a veterinarian in the Wyoming Valley pleaded guilty in Oklahoma court Monday to a sodomy charge in a case in which investigators say he had sex with a horse.

Thomas Barret Lyle Wilson, 28, last known address Terrace Street, Wilkes-Barre, was sentenced to five years probation by a district judge in Tulsa County.

District Judge William Musseman granted a request by Wilson's attorney, Robert Wyatt, to have the probation transferred to Pennsylvania to be supervised by a probation department.

Wilson was charged in October 2010 in an incident from September 2009 when a doctor working at the Legacy Equine Centre in Glenpool, Okla., observed Wilson having sex with a horse via a live video feed from a barn.

The doctor approached Wilson, who had been working at the center while studying at Oklahoma State University, about the incident.

"I'm glad you caught me," Wilson told the doctor, according to court papers. "I need help."

Wilson had previously worked at the Back Mountain Veterinarian Hospital in Dallas. A call there by The Times Leader in January was answered by a woman who said Wilson was "no longer with" the hospital.

As of March 21, Wilson voluntarily surrendered his Pennsylvania veterinary license, making him ineligible to practice veterinary medicine.

Wilson must register as a sex offender, according to court documents, and must complete 80 hours of community service.

Investigators say Wilson graduated from OSU with a doctorate of veterinary medicine in July 2010.

Wyatt, of Oklahoma City, could not be reached for comment.

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Thursday, March 22nd 2012

4:27 PM

Yesterday's real life veterinary issues: upclose and personal

  • Mood:

What's that superstition that things come in "3"s? Yesterday was one of those "3" days. Started off with two people sharing their bad vet stories with me, and how angry they are that it happened and how they wished they were informed pet "consumers".

 

Which the above post will debut a link of a new blog devoted to that very topic. I hope it continues, is shared, and read for updates.

 

The afternoon turned quickly into an unexpected and very sad day. For me, the one thing that makes me sad is not only when one of my pets are sick or dying, but when a good friend is experiencing the very same.

 

I knew when I got a call on my cell phone during work hours from my friend, that this was one of real concern.And I suspected before answering that this was not to share happy news.  Her 12 yr. old dog had vomited that morning and appeared "very weak".  Weak meant "unable to stand for any length of time, unaided.

Yes, I've sure witnessed that many, many times and it is pretty scary. She decided not to panic, but see if a few hours would change the picture. It did not, it appeared to worsen and she called her vet to make an appointment and was told to come right in. As the evening progressed , so in fact were the tragic updates. An x-ray and bloodwork were taken and interpreted. The liver was enlarged as well as the heart, and the bloodwork indicated KIDNEY FAILURE. The sad words that no pet owner looks forward to and the words that every vet dreads to speak.

 

The good news in all this? There was absolutely NO suggestion of ultrasound, there was no suggestion of leptospiros or lyme disease confirmation, and there was absolutely NO suggestion of treatment to "reverse" what cannot be reversed. Kidney failure is just that : FAILURE. It does not matter a hoot as to what the underlying cause is. And yes, she was fully informed, the vet did not spew the run-around, and kind and compassionate euthanasia was offered and completed. Doe this sound too simple?

Maybe just too darn, well.....honest? Is this vet upholding to the AVMA guidelines of "fair and honest dealings with the public"? Is this veterinarian taking his OATH  seriously to prevent needless and unwarranted suffering to an animal? (my paraphrase) YOU bet he has. And I am most heartened to learn of another GOOD Vet in a difficult and sad situation. They, the good Vets, are out there. They come in all ages, sex, and faces. They respect animals, people, and know that YOU-the pet owner will remember and come back in the future, because they have deservedly earned your trust.

 

Do you have a good long term Vet? Thank your lucky stars and him or her occasionally, and pray that there is no relocation or retirement. Don't nickel and dime them, and they won't do it to you. Form respectful, mutual, open, and honest communciation. You will then have nothing to worry about and neither will your vet.

 

(Thank you to the un-named Veterinarians both pre and post Pocket, for their kind , humane, and compassionate euthanasias of all my pet family members.

http://walnut-hill.bravehost.com  Pocket's Story from NH)

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Tuesday, March 20th 2012

4:36 PM

Veterinary Malpractice, damages, in NH? NOT!

  • Mood:
 


DVM NEWSMAGAZINE

NATIONAL REPORT— A lawsuit in Clearwater, Fla., is calling for the court to award $15,000 in emotional damages due to alleged negligence.

In fact, pet owner Liza Baceols sued a veterinary practice after her dog chewed off his tail and died while at the hospital. While the recent week-long trial ended after the jury deadlocked, some officials say it signals a change in the perceived status of pets in our society.

Matthew Liedman, staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, said this is one of many legal cases where people may be beginning to view animals as family members.

"Unfortunately, the law is slow to catch up with changing societal norms," Liedman says.

While the courts still view animals as property, Liedman says that some judges are beginning to look at pets as a different type of property, "special property."

"The trend seems to be that the courts are more and more willing to break the old rules and compensate for the animals involved," he says. "While litigation for emotional damages has not been very effective, some courts have been compensating for animals over and above the worth of the animals. There is more sympathy for the pet owners."

An American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) study in 2007 showed that 50 percent of Americans viewed their pets as family, 48 percent saw them as companions, and just 2 percent felt they were property.

So, where does that leave veterinarians?

"Ideally, it will have the same effect on veterinarians that it has had in traditional court cases," Liedman says. "Hopefully, they will be more conscientious and live up to the standards of care of other professionals, which will benefit the profession and benefit animals and their guardians."

As long as veterinarians are not negligent in the delivery of care, Liedman does not see a problem for the profession.

"Given the trend in animal law, the courts are taking the human-animal bond more seriously," he says. "There is no question that people do feel real emotion for their pets ,and injuries deserve to be compensated by the courts. Whether the law will catch up with society is anyone's guess."

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Monday, March 19th 2012

1:23 PM

Pets are living family, not mere objects~~a non-medical perspective:

  • Mood:
 http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120229/NEWS01/202290318

LOS ANGELES — They still fight like cats and dogs in divorce court. But more and more they are fighting about cats and dogs.

Custody cases involving pets are on the rise across the country.

In a 2006 survey by the 1,600-member American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, a quarter of respondents said pet custody cases had increased noticeably since 2001. The academy is due for another survey, but there is no doubt such cases have grown steadily since then, said Ken Altshuler of Portland, Maine, a divorce attorney and AAML president.

If there is a child involved in a divorce, many judges will keep the pet with the child, attorneys said.

"But what do you do when the pet is the child?" Altshuler asked.

Breakups in same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships are among reasons pet custody fights have become more common, attorneys said.

Pet custody cases have grown as much as 15 percent in his office over the last five years, said attorney David Pisarra of Santa Monica.

He is his own best example. He shares custody of 8-year-old Dudley, a longhaired standard black-and-tan dachshund, with his ex, who has remarried and introduced a step-dog to Dudley.

Pet consultant Steven May hired Pisarra six years ago to handle his divorce. Besides a daughter, May and his ex worked out custody of three dogs, two cats and Tequila the parrot.

Pisarra and May became good friends and often take their dogs for walks in Santa Monica. They also teamed up last year to write a book about co-parenting a pet with an ex titled "What About Wally?"

Pets are considered property in every state in the country. For years, they have been divvied up like furniture during divorce proceedings. But times are changing.

"Judges are viewing them more akin to children than dining room sets. They are recognizing that people have an emotional attachment to their animals," Altshuler said.

More people have pets than ever before and they consider them part of the family rather than possessions, said Silvana Raso, a family law attorney with the Englewood Cliffs, N.J., law firm of Schepisi & McLaughlin.

"People are not embarrassed to fight for custody of a pet today. In the past they might have shied away from it because society didn't really accept a pet as anything other than an accessory to your life," she said.

When Pisarra and Jay Redd (who wrote an introduction in the book) split up, they agreed to share Dudley.

"There is no law that recognizes visitation with an animal," Raso said, so couples have to work it out themselves.

Reaching a pet custody agreement without a lot of help from attorneys and judges will save money, Raso said. Divorces can cost $1,000 and be resolved quickly or cost millions and take years.

Pet decisions are often more agonizing to make than those about mortgages, credit card debt or student loans, Raso said. But if they can be resolved, the rest usually goes smoother.

After their 2006 breakup, Pisarra and Redd worked out shared custody, long-distance visitation and a new family (including a beagle) in Dudley's life, Pisarra said. Today, they live in the same city, so visitation no longer includes flight time.

The two have a plan for everyday, vacation and holiday schedules, travel arrangements, doggie daycare, boarding, food, treats, grooming, vet care, moving and end-of-life decisions. They split costs and sometimes, with things like toys, leashes and dog bowls, they buy two of each so Dudley has one at each home.

May and his wife Nina (who also wrote an introduction for the book) separated six years ago after 16 years of marriage. "Everything was fresh and raw. It was not easy."

It's taken time, but he and his ex live about two miles apart in West Los Angeles now and sharing custody of their daughter and pets is easy, he said. To make it work, "you learn the true meaning of concession," May said.

The three dogs the couple had then have died, but Winnie, his 3-year-old Cavalier King Charles spaniel, is very much like a family pet, said May, a consultant to veterinary and other pet-related companies.

Most of the time, custody battles grow out of love. But there are cases rooted in spite or retaliation.

Pisarra represented a man whose estranged wife had the family's two German shepherds euthanized. "They were his running dogs. It was really cruel and he had no recourse," he said.

In years past, pets could not be protected in domestic violence restraining orders in any state. But because abusers can use pets to threaten victims, maybe even kill the animals, the laws have changed in states like Maine, New York, California and Illinois. Other states are looking into changes. And there will be changes in other laws too, Altshuler predicted.

He believes there will one day be statutes for pets, much like there are for children, giving judges guidelines to rule by

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Saturday, March 17th 2012

7:47 PM

Oh me, oh my, being accused of lies and lies-NH Veterinary issues!!

  • Mood:

I'm going to be the first to admit to lousy grammar, not thinking in a "crafty" manner to my choice of words. And ok, run me over flat, to being just a wee tad (no, I really mean "hugely") damaged emotionally , mentally, and physically to what happened to me in 2006 surrounding the events of what happened to my dog Pocket.

 

But when I receive a letter that calls out a blatant falsehood, yep, then I get really pissed off. I don't need to lie, nor do I arbitrarily choose anyone at all to fancy "lying" about. I have been accused of making up a falsehood of John M. MacGregor, DVM DEA license status:

I filed two separate FOIA's on this very issue, and with space constraints will incorporate the following documents that address the issue, but are not all inclusive of the requests (which I will include in total on my website, along with received documents about Sarah Curry & Catherine Gajewski, in complete and total fairness) But as I have stated, I am being "called out" on this following subject:

Well, the above letter included in the NH foia-rtk only leaves me with a multitude of questions:

1. when was it submitted and why? It has no date. But it does lead one to believe it was post 2004.

2. Dr. MacGregor states he had a DEA license (issued by the Federal Government), if so, where? And why was it not renewed for years?

3. If it is so "non-important" to possess, why address the point at all, in the letter?

4. And why would a medical professional go without one for such a long period of time (as in at least 2 years)

5. And just exactly how would this impact a patient and client for non-possession of DEA under the laws of 2006?

6. And finally, what statement made (in the included letter) is "redacted" by the state of NH? As you note above, many answers are redacted on the license application that just may possibly have influence on your choice of professional and YOU-the consumer are not allowed to know

And yes, I am the first one to notice that BOTH the NH Controlled Substance Act and NH Veterinary Practice Act was "modified and ammended in 2008". And I do not, nor have ever claimed that Dr. MacGregor does not currently hold a valid DEA license after one year post-death of Pocket and to this very day.

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Saturday, March 17th 2012

4:59 PM

DEA registration types, who qualifies, etc~~~

  • Mood:

Second, if the locum tenens service is with a hospital or other institution registered with DEA, if the hospital agrees, and if State law allows, the practitioner may use the DEA registration of that hospital or other institution to administer, dispense, or prescribe controlled substances so long as all requirements are met (21 CFR 1301.22(c)). Specifically:

An individual practitioner who is an agent or employee of a hospital or other institution may, when acting in the normal course of business or employment, administer, dispense, or prescribe controlled substances under the registration of the hospital or other institution which is registered in lieu of being registered himself, provided that:

 
 
 
 
Publications > Manuals > Pharmacist's Manual > Content


Pharmacist's Manual


SECTION IX – VALID PRESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS

To dispense controlled substances, a pharmacist must know the requirements for a valid prescription which are described in this section. A prescription is an order for medication which is dispensed to or for an ultimate user. A prescription is not an order for medication which is dispensed for immediate administration to the ultimate user (i.e., an order to dispense a drug to an inpatient for immediate administration in a hospital is not a prescription).

A prescription for a controlled substance must be dated and signed on the date when issued. The prescription must include the patient’s full name and address, and the practitioner’s full name, address, and DEA registration number.

The prescription must also include:

  1. Drug name
  2. Strength
  3. Dosage form
  4. Quantity prescribed
  5. Directions for use
  6. Number of refills authorized (if any)

A prescription must be written in ink or indelible pencil or typewritten and must be manually signed by the practitioner on the date when issued. An individual (i.e., secretary or nurse) may be designated by the practitioner to prepare prescriptions for the practitioner’s signature. The practitioner is responsible for ensuring the prescription conforms to all requirements of the law and regulations, both federal and state.

Who May Issue

A prescription for a controlled substance may only be issued by a physician, dentist, podiatrist, veterinarian, mid-level practitioner, or other registered practitioner who is:

  1. Authorized to prescribe controlled substances by the jurisdiction in which the practitioner is licensed to practice, and
  2. Registered with DEA or exempted from registration (e.g., Public Health Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, military practitioners), or
  3. An agent or employee of a hospital or other institution acting in the normal course of business or employment under the registration of the hospital or other institution which is registered in lieu of the individual practitioner being registered, provided that additional requirements as set forth in the C.F.R. are met.

Purpose of Issue

To be valid, a prescription for a controlled substance must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice. The practitioner is responsible for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances.

A prescription may not be issued in order for an individual practitioner to obtain controlled substances for supplying the individual practitioner for the purpose of general dispensing to patients.

Corresponding Responsibility

A pharmacist also needs to know there is a corresponding responsibility for the pharmacist who fills the prescription. An order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of professional treatment or in legitimate and authorized research is an invalid prescription within the meaning and intent of the CSA (21 U.S.C. § 829). The person knowingly filling such a purported prescription, as well as the person issuing it, shall be subject to the penalties provided for violations of the provisions of law relating to controlled substances.

A pharmacist is required to exercise sound professional judgment when making a determination about the legitimacy of a controlled substance prescription. Such a determination is made before the prescription is dispensed. The law does not require a pharmacist to dispense a prescription of doubtful, questionable, or suspicious origin. To the contrary, the pharmacist who deliberately ignores a questionable prescription when there is reason to believe it was not issued for a legitimate medical purpose may be prosecuted along with the issuing practitioner, for knowingly and intentionally distributing controlled substances. Such action is a felony offense, which may result in the loss of one’s business or professional license (see United States v. Kershman, 555 F.2d 198 [United States Court Of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 1977]).

Electronic Prescriptions

On March 31, 2010 the DEA published in the Federal Register an interim final rule Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances which became effective June 1, 2010. The rule revises DEA regulations to provide practitioners with the option of writing prescriptions for controlled substances electronically. The regulations also permit pharmacies to receive, dispense, and archive these electronic prescriptions. These regulations are an addition to, not a replacement of, the existing rules.

Persons who wish to dispense controlled substances using electronic prescriptions must select software that meets the requirements of this rule. As of June 1, 2010, only those electronic pharmacy applications that comply with all of DEA’s requirements as set forth in 21 C.F.R. §1311 may be used by DEA-registered pharmacies to electronically receive and archive controlled substances prescriptions and dispense controlled substances based on those prescriptions.

 

A pharmacist has a responsibility to ensure that a prescription has been issued by an appropriately registered or exempt practitioner (see above, Who May Issue). As such, it is helpful to be familiar with how a DEA registration number is constructed and to whom such registrations are issued.

Construction of Valid DEA Registration Number for Practitioners

Knowing how a DEA registration number is constructed can be a useful tool for recognizing a forged prescription (see Appendix D, Pharmacist’s Guide to Prescription Fraud). Prior to October 1, 1985, DEA registration numbers for physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and other practitioners started with the letter A. New registration numbers issued to practitioners after that date begin with the letter B or F. Registration numbers issued to mid-level practitioners begin with the letter M. The first letter of the registration number is almost always followed by the first letter of the registrant’s last name (e.g., J for Jones or S for Smith) and then a computer generated sequence of seven numbers (such as MJ3614511).

Practitioner’s Use of a Hospital’s DEA Registration Number

Practitioners (e.g., intern, resident, staff physician, mid-level practitioner) who are agents or employees of a hospital or other institution, may, when acting in the usual course of business or employment, administer, dispense, or prescribe controlled substances under the registration of the
hospital or other institution in which he or she is employed, in lieu of individual registration
, provided that:

  1. The dispensing, administering, or prescribing is in the usual course of professional practice.
  2. The practitioner is authorized to do so by the state in which they practice.
  3. The hospital or institution has verified that the practitioner is permitted to administer, dispense, or prescribe controlled substances within the state.
  4. The practitioner acts only within the scope of employment in the hospital or institution.
  5. The hospital or institution authorizes the practitioner to administer, dispense, or prescribe under its registration and assigns a specific internal code number for each practitioner.

An example of a specific internal code number is depicted below:

Example of Internal Code Number

A current list of internal codes and the corresponding individual practitioners is to be maintained by the hospital or other institution. This list is to be available at all times to other registrants and law enforcement agencies upon request for the purpose of verifying the authority of the prescribing individual practitioner. Pharmacists should contact the hospital or other institution for verification if they have any doubts in filling such a prescription.

 

Schedule II Controlled Substances

Schedule II controlled substances require a written prescription which must be manually signed by the practitioner or an electronic prescription that meets all DEA requirements for electronic prescriptions for controlled substances. There is no federal time limit within which a schedule II prescription must be filled after being signed by the practitioner. However, the pharmacist must determine that the prescription is still needed by the patient. While some states and many insurance carriers limit the quantity of controlled substances dispensed to a 30-day supply, there are no express federal limits with respect to the quantities of drugs dispensed via a prescription. However, the amount dispensed must be consistent with the requirement that a prescription for a controlled substance be issued only for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice. For a schedule II controlled substance, an oral order is only permitted in an emergency situation (see Section X, Emergency Dispensing).

Refills

The refilling of a prescription for a controlled substance listed in schedule II is prohibited
(21 U.S.C. § 829(a)).

Issuance of Multiple Prescriptions for Schedule II Controlled Substances

The DEA has revised its regulations regarding the issuance of multiple prescriptions for schedule II controlled substances. Under the new regulation, which became effective December 19, 2007, an individual practitioner may issue multiple prescriptions authorizing the patient to receive a total of up to a 90-day supply of a schedule II controlled substance provided the following conditions are met:

  1. Each prescription must be issued on a separate prescription blank.
  2. Each separate prescription must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice.
  3. The individual practitioner must provide written instructions on each prescription (other than the first prescription, if the prescribing practitioner intends for that prescription to be filled immediately) indicating the earliest date on which a pharmacy may fill each prescription.
  4. The individual practitioner concludes that providing the patient with multiple prescriptions in this manner does not create an undue risk of diversion or abuse.
  5. The issuance of multiple prescriptions is permissible under applicable state laws.
  6. The individual practitioner complies fully with all other applicable requirements under the CSA and C.F.R., as well as any additional requirements under state law.

It should be noted that the implementation of this change in the regulation should not be construed as encouraging individual practitioners to issue multiple prescriptions or to see their patients only once every 90 days when prescribing schedule II controlled substances. Rather, individual practitioners must determine on their own, based on sound medical judgment, and in accordance with established medical standards, whether it is appropriate to issue multiple prescriptions and how often to see their patients when doing so.

Facsimile Prescriptions for Schedule II Controlled Substances

In order to expedite the filling of a prescription, a prescriber may transmit a schedule II prescription to the pharmacy by facsimile. The original schedule II prescription must be presented to the pharmacist and verified against the facsimile at the time the controlled substance is actually dispensed. The pharmacist must make sure the original document is properly annotated and filed with the records that are required to be kept.

Exceptions for Schedule II Facsimile Prescriptions

DEA has granted three exceptions to the facsimile prescription requirements for schedule II controlled substances. The facsimile of a schedule II prescription may serve as the original prescription as follows:

  1. A practitioner prescribing a schedule II narcotic controlled substance to be compounded for the direct administration to a patient by parenteral, intravenous, intramuscular, subcutaneous or intraspinal infusion may transmit the prescription by facsimile. The pharmacy will consider the facsimile prescription a “written prescription” and no further documentation is required. All normal requirements of a legal prescription must be followed.
  2. Practitioners prescribing schedule II controlled substances for residents of Long Term Care Facilities may transmit a prescription by facsimile to the dispensing pharmacy. The facsimile prescription serves as the original written prescription for the pharmacy. No further documentation is required.
  3. A practitioner prescribing a schedule II narcotic controlled substance for a patient enrolled in a hospice care program certified and/or paid for by Medicare under Title XVIII or a hospice program which is licensed by the state, may transmit a prescription to the dispensing pharmacy by facsimile. The practitioner will note on the prescription that it is for a hospice patient. The facsimile serves as the original written prescription. No further documentation is required.

 

    • Patient’s name and address
    • Quantity and date dispensed on each refill
    • Name or identification code of the dispensing pharmacist
    • Original prescription number

    In any electronic system employed by a user pharmacy, the central recordkeeping location must be capable of providing a printout to a requesting pharmacy of the above information within 48 hours.
  1. In case a pharmacy's electronic system experiences downtime, the pharmacy must have a back-up procedure to document in writing refills of schedules III or IV controlled substances. This procedure must ensure that refills are authorized by the original prescription, that the maximum number of refills has not been exceeded, and that all required data is retained for online entry as soon as possible.

A pharmacy may use only one of the two systems described (i.e., manual or electronic) for storage and retrieval of prescription order refill information of schedules III or IV controlled substances.

Facsimile Prescriptions for Schedules III-V Controlled Substances

Prescriptions for schedules III-V controlled substances may be transmitted by facsimile from the practitioner or the practitioner’s agent to the dispensing pharmacy. The facsimile is considered to be equivalent to an original prescription as long as the practitioner has manually signed the prescription.

Telephone Authorization for Schedules III-V Prescriptions

A pharmacist may dispense a controlled substance listed in schedules III, IV, or V pursuant to an oral prescription made by an individual practitioner and promptly reduced to writing by the pharmacist containing all information required for a valid prescription except for the signature of the practitioner (see Appendix D, Pharmacist’s Guide to Prescription Fraud).

Transfer of Schedules III-V Prescription Information

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

Transfers are subject to the following requirements:

  1. Write the word “VOID” on the face of the invalidated prescription; for electronic prescriptions, information that the prescription has been transferred must be added to the prescription record.
  2. Record on the reverse of the invalidated prescription the name, address, and DEA registration number of the pharmacy to which it was transferred and the name of the pharmacist receiving the prescription information; for electronic prescriptions, such information must be added to the prescription record.
  3. Record the date of the transfer and the name of the pharmacist transferring the information.

For paper prescriptions and prescriptions received orally and reduced to writing by the pharmacist, the pharmacist receiving the transferred prescription information must write the word “transfer” on the face of the transferred prescription and reduce to writing all information required to be on a prescription and include:

  1. Date of issuance of original prescription.
  2. Original number of refills authorized on original prescription.
  3. Date of original dispensing
  4. Number of valid refills remaining and date(s) and locations of previous refill(s).
  5. Pharmacy’s name, address, DEA registration number, and prescription number from which the prescription information was transferred.
  6. Name of pharmacist who transferred the prescription.
  7. Pharmacy’s name, address, DEA registration number, and prescription number from which the prescription was originally filled.

For electronic prescriptions being transferred electronically, the transferring pharmacist must provide the receiving pharmacist with the following information in addition to the original electronic prescription data:

  1. The date of the original dispensing
  2. The number of refills remaining and the date(s) and locations of previous refills
  3. The transferring pharmacy’s name, address, DEA registration number, and prescription number for each dispensing.
  4. The name of the pharmacist transferring the prescription.
  5. The name, address, DEA registration number, and prescription number from the pharmacy that originally filled the prescription, if different.

The pharmacist receiving a transferred electronic prescription must create an electronic record for the prescription that includes the receiving pharmacist’s name and all of the information transferred with the prescription (listed above).

The original and transferred prescription(s) must be maintained for a period of two years from the date of last refill.

Pharmacies electronically accessing the same prescription record must satisfy all information requirements of a manual mode for prescription transferal.

The procedure allowing the transfer of prescription information for refill purposes is permissible only if allowable under existing State or other applicable law.

Pharmacies electronically sharing a real time, online database may transfer up to the maximum refills permitted by law and the prescriber’s authorization.

Prescription Monitoring Programs

 

SECTION X – DISPENSING REQUIREMENTS

Required Information for Prescription Labels

The pharmacist dispensing a prescription for a controlled substance listed in schedules II, III, IV, or V must affix to the package a label showing date of filling, the pharmacy name and address, the serial (prescription) number, the name of the patient, the name of the prescribing practitioner, and directions for use and cautionary statements, if any, contained in such prescription or required by law. If a prescription is filled at a central fill pharmacy, the central fill pharmacy must affix to the package a label showing the retail pharmacy name and address and a unique identifier (i.e., the central fill pharmacy's DEA registration number) indicating that the prescription was filled at the central fill pharmacy.

Federal Food and Drug Administration regulations require that the label of any drug listed as a "controlled substance" in schedules II, III, or IV of the CSA must, when dispensed to or for a patient, contain the following warning: CAUTION: Federal law prohibits the transfer of this drug to any person other than the patient for whom it was prescribed. In addition, a pharmacist who receives a prescription for a controlled substance must dispense that prescription to the patient or a member of the patient’s household. To provide the controlled substance to anyone other than the patient or a member of the patient’s household is distribution, not dispensing.

Schedule II Controlled Substance Prescriptions

A pharmacist may dispense a schedule II controlled substance, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, only pursuant to a written prescription signed by the practitioner, except in an emergency situation as described below.

Emergency Dispensing

An “emergency prescription” in this context, is defined to mean that the immediate administration of the drug is necessary for proper treatment of the intended ultimate user, that no alternative treatment is available (including a drug which is not a schedule II controlled substance), and it is not possible for the prescribing practitioner to provide a written prescription for the drug at that time. In a bona fide emergency, a practitioner may telephone a schedule II prescription to the pharmacist who may then dispense the prescription. The prescribing practitioner must provide a written and signed prescription to the pharmacy within seven days and meet the below requirements:

  1. The drug prescribed and dispensed must be limited to the amount needed to treat the patient during the emergency period. Prescribing or dispensing beyond the emergency period must be pursuant to a written prescription order.
  2. The prescription order must be immediately reduced to writing by the pharmacist and must contain all information, except for the prescribing practitioner’s signature.
  3. If the prescribing individual practitioner is not known to the pharmacist, he/she must make a reasonable effort to determine that the oral authorization came from a registered individual practitioner, which may include a call back to the prescribing individual practitioner using his or her telephone number as listed in the telephone directory and/or other good faith efforts to insure his or her identity.
  4. Within seven days after authorizing an emergency telephone prescription, the prescribing practitioner must furnish the pharmacist a written, signed prescription for the controlled substance prescribed. The prescription must have written on its face “Authorization for Emergency Dispensing” and the date of the oral order. The written prescription may be delivered to the pharmacist in person or by mail, but if delivered by mail, it must be postmarked within the seven day period. Upon receipt, the dispensing pharmacist must attach this written prescription to the oral emergency prescription which had earlier been reduced to writing by the pharmacist. By regulation, the pharmacist must notify the local DEA Diversion Field Office (Appendix K) if the prescriber fails to provide a written prescription within seven days. Failure of the pharmacist to do so will void the authority conferred on the pharmacy to dispense the controlled substance without a written prescription of a prescribing practitioner.
  5. For electronic prescriptions, the pharmacist must annotate the record of the electronic prescription with the original authorization and date of the oral order.

Partial Dispensing

A prescription for a schedule II controlled substance may be partially dispensed if the pharmacist is unable to supply the full quantity of a written or emergency oral (telephone) prescription, provided the pharmacist notes the quantity supplied on the front of the written prescription, on a written record of the emergency oral prescription, or in the electronic prescription record. The remaining portion may be dispensed within 72 hours of the first partial dispensing. However, if the remaining portion is not or cannot be filled within the 72 hour period, the pharmacist must notify the prescribing practitioner. No further quantity may be supplied beyond 72 hours without a new prescription.

Partial Filling of Schedule II Prescriptions for Terminally Ill or Long Term Care Facility Patients

A prescription for a schedule II controlled substance written for a patient in a Long Term Care Facility (LTCF) or for a patient with a medical diagnosis documenting a terminal illness, may be filled in partial quantities to include individual dosage units. If there is any question whether a patient may be classified as having a terminal illness, the pharmacist must contact the practitioner prior to partially filling the prescription. Both the pharmacist and the prescribing practitioner have a corresponding responsibility to assure that the controlled substance is for a terminally ill patient.

The pharmacist must record on the prescription whether the patient is "terminally ill" or an "LTCF patient." A prescription that is partially filled and does not contain the notation "terminally ill" or "LTCF patient" must be deemed to have been filled in violation of the CSA. For each partial filling, the dispensing pharmacist must record on the back of the prescription (or on another appropriate record, uniformly maintained, and readily retrievable) the date of the partial filling, quantity dispensed, remaining quantity authorized to be dispensed, and the identification of the dispensing pharmacist. The total quantity of schedule II controlled substances dispensed in all partial fillings must not exceed the total quantity prescribed. Schedule II prescriptions for patients in an LTCF or terminally ill patients are valid for a period not to exceed 60 days from the issue date unless sooner terminated by the discontinuance of medication.

Haight Act. This law amends the CSA by adding a series of new regulatory requirements and criminal provisions designed to combat the proliferation of so-called “rogue Internet sites” that unlawfully dispense controlled substances by means of the Internet. The Ryan Haight Act applies to all controlled substances in all schedules.

This law became effective April 13, 2009. As of that date, it is illegal under federal law to deliver, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance by means of the Internet unless the online pharmacy holds a modification of DEA registration authorizing it to operate as an online pharmacy. Thus, any person who knowingly or intentionally dispenses a controlled substance by means of the Internet that does not have a modification of DEA registration allowing such activity is in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(h)(1) and subject to potential criminal prosecution and (in the case of DEA registrants) loss of DEA registration.

Note: The information contained in this section is meant to summarize the Ryan Haight Act but should not be relied upon as setting forth all the requirements. As is always the case, pharmacies are responsible for complying with the actual text of the CSA and DEA regulations.

Definition of an Online Pharmacy

An online pharmacy is a person, entity, or Internet site, whether in the United States or abroad, that knowingly or intentionally delivers, distributes, or dispenses, or offers or attempts to deliver, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance by means of the Internet. Examples of an online pharmacy include (but are not limited to) the following:

  • Any website that sells, or offers to sell, any controlled substance or a prescription therefor to a person in the United States.
  • Any person who operates such a website.
  • Any person who pays a practitioner to write prescriptions for controlled substances for customers of such a website.
  • Any person who pays a pharmacy to fill prescriptions for controlled substances that were issued to customers of such a website.
  • Any pharmacy that knowingly or intentionally fills prescriptions for controlled substances that were issued to customers of such a website.
  • Any person who sends an e-mail that:
    1. offers to sell a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance in a manner not authorized by the Act;
    2. directs buyers to a website operating in violation of the Act;
    3. or otherwise causes or facilitates the delivery, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance in a manner not authorized by the Act.

Online Pharmacy Registration Exemptions

The following are exempt from the Ryan Haight Act's definition of an “online pharmacy” so long as their activities are limited solely to the exemptions provided:

  • Manufacturers or distributors registered under 21 U.S.C. § 823(a), (b), (d), or (e) who do not dispense controlled substances to nonregistrants.
  • Nonpharmacy practitioners who are registered under 21 U.S.C. § 823(f) and whose activities are authorized by that registration, provided that any website operated by such nonpharmacy practitioners complies with 21 C.F.R.§ 1304.50, which requires the website to post in a visible and clear manner on its homepage, or on a page directly linked thereto in which the hyperlink is also visible and clear on the homepage, a list of the DEA-registered nonpharmacy practitioners who are affiliated with the website.
  • Any hospital or other medical facility registered under 21 U.S.C. § 823(f) that is operated by an agency of the United States (including the Armed Forces).
  • A health care facility owned or operated by an Indian tribe or tribal organization carrying out a contract or compact under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
  • Any agent or employee of any hospital or facility that is operated by an agency of the United States, and any agent or employee of any hospital or facility owned or operated by an Indian tribe or tribal organization carrying out a contract or compact under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, provided such agent or employee is lawfully acting in the usual course of business or employment, and within the scope of the official duties of such agent or employee, with such hospital or facility, and, with respect to agents or employees of such health care facilities only to the extent such individuals are furnishing services pursuant to those contracts or compacts.
  • Mere advertisements that do not attempt to facilitate an actual transaction involving a controlled substance.
  • A person, entity, or Internet site that is not in the United States and does not facilitate the delivery, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance by means of the Internet to any person in the United States.
  • A pharmacy registered under 21 U.S.C. § 823(f) whose dispensing of controlled substances via the Internet consists solely of "refilling prescriptions for controlled substances in schedule III, IV, or V," as that term is defined in 21 C.F.R. § 1300.04(k). (This definition is set forth at the end of this section.)
  • A pharmacy registered under 21 U.S.C. § 823(f) whose dispensing of controlled substances via the Internet consists solely of "filling new prescriptions for controlled substances in schedule III, IV, or V," as that term is defined in 21 C.F.R. § 1300.04(d). (This definition is set forth at the end of this section.)
  • Any registered pharmacy whose delivery, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances by means of the Internet consists solely of filling prescriptions that were electronically prescribed in a manner authorized by the CSA.
  • Any registered pharmacy whose delivery, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances by means of the Internet consists solely of the transmission of prescription information between a pharmacy and an automated dispensing system located in a Long Term Care Facility when the registration of the automated dispensing system is held by that pharmacy as described in 21 C.F.R §§ 1301.17 and 1301.27 and the pharmacy is otherwise complying with the DEA regulations.

Notification Requirements

Thirty days prior to offering a controlled substance for sale, delivery, distribution, or dispensing by means of the Internet, the online pharmacy shall notify DEA and the State boards of pharmacy in any States in which the online pharmacy offers to sell, deliver, distribute, or dispense controlled substances. Completion of the Application for Modification of Registration for Online Pharmacies serves as the notification requirement to DEA.

The online pharmacy must make a separate thirty-day advance notice to the State boards of pharmacy in each State in which it intends to offer to sell, deliver, distribute, or dispense controlled substances. Online pharmacies that apply for the modification of registration are required to certify that the applicable State boards of pharmacy have been notified.

 

Prescription Requirements

In order for a prescription to be valid, it must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice by a practitioner who has conducted at least one in-person medical evaluation of the patient or by a covering practitioner. An in-person medical evaluation is a medical evaluation that is conducted with the patient in the physical presence of the practitioner, without regard to whether portions of the evaluation are conducted by other health professionals.

 

 

 

 

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Friday, March 16th 2012

12:27 PM

Internal conflicts among the veterinary industry--ultimately who pays for it?

  • Mood:

 Veterinary diagnostics giant sues multiple practitioners
March 9, 2012
By: Edie Lau
For The VIN News Service   

http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=21802

 

excerpts:


..."The contracts in dispute commit clinics to using Antech Diagnostics for laboratory services and to purchase a minimum dollar amount in services annually from the laboratory. In return, a participating clinic is awarded with incentives including cash, discounts, free lab work, radiology equipment or a combination. The cash typically is provided in the form of loans that are forgiven if a clinic meets its contractual obligations. Veterinarians in private practice say such agreements are common.
...."
“I currently am using Antech and I do get very competitive rates on them, but I’m sure I could get more competitive numbers if I locked into them for five years. Digital X-ray, ultrasound, they own a software company; I could get all sorts of stuff if I wanted, but there is a price,” said Dr. Robert Knapp, a clinic owner in Columbus, Ohio.

Knapp said the value of any incentive Antech gives to a clinic, “they’ll get it back over time. ... I think the contract is definitely one-sided. It’s going to favor them. The upside is that if you’re a clinic that needs digital X-ray or some piece of equipment, if you want to get in bed with them for three years or five years, it’s a way to get the stuff.”

In addition to a certain loss of freedom, the contracts pose a danger in their potential to influence a veterinarian’s medical judgment, some practitioners acknowledged.

“There is a potential that if you’re at the end of the month and you’re short $500 on a quota, are you going to do 15 more biopsies or something to get the number up that maybe wasn’t (medically) indicated?” Knapp said. “Ethically, I’d like to say, ‘No, we wouldn’t,’ but I know realistically, some would.”

....

"The American Veterinary Medical Association Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics state that “Veterinarians should not allow their medical judgment to be influenced by agreements by which they stand to profit through referring clients to other providers of services or products” and that “The medical judgments of veterinarians should not be influenced by contracts or agreements made by their associations or societies.”

The principles also state: “Veterinarians should disclose to clients potential conflicts of interest.”

Asked whether any of those principles apply to the extended laboratory-services contracts, the AVMA did not respond. However, Dr. Sylvie Cloutier, a past president and current officer of the Society for Veterinary Medical Ethics, pointed to the AVMA ethics principles in noting that the agreements “can be ethically challenging when they create opportunities for self-referral in which patients’ medical interests can be in conflict with veterinarians’ financial interests.”

Cloutier said the best way for a veterinarian to address a potential conflict of interest is to disclose the lab-services agreement to clients. However, the Antech contracts contain a confidentiality clause that precludes clinics from disclosing not only the terms of the agreement but its very existence.

'...."Those laws don’t apply to veterinary medicine, which is regulated state-by-state. In California, for example, such contracts per se are legal in that veterinarians are not prohibited from negotiating for best prices, which could involve committing to a single provider for certain services, according to the California Veterinary Medical Board (CVMB) .

CVMB Executive Officer Susan Geranen, after consulting with legal staff, provided this comment: “That the practitioner can negotiate a reduced fee is not axiomatic that the practitioner will then order unnecessary tests; rather, that the practitioner has negotiated for certain services means that he can reduce his fees to the customers. A practitioner willing to order unnecessary tests will do so regardless of the cost.”

However, Geranen said, the confidentiality clause would be illegal under California rules because veterinarians are required to disclose the actual price charged by the laboratory. (None of the practitioners being sued by Antech in the cases identified by the VIN News Service is located in California.)

Moreover, California veterinary licensees would be obligated to share the reduction in fees with clients, as they are prohibited under the
state business and professions code from profiting from clinical laboratory charges.

....


My editorial comment

It is acknowledged that lots of possibly unethical decisions can influence the care that consumer clients are receiving for their pets that include:

diagnostic services

referrals to "particular" specialists, clinics, and others

financial "pinch" may influence the outcome of treatment and diagnosis of your pet

and lastly:

full ethical disclosure may not be revealed because of financial consideration not in the consumer client nor patients best interest


another article of serious concern within the industry that filters down to the consumer client is the pressure of paying back debt: whether educational, business related, etc. and its potential to influence the rising costs placed on the consumer-client. I applaud the recognition of the industry to raising these serious concerns and hope for a reasonable and successful outcome that will benefit everyone , particularly the animal patient.

(link to follow)

 

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment