Pharmacies May be Liable for Filling Valid Prescriptions

Posted on February 27, 2015 by thehealthlawfirm

By Lance O. Leider, J.D.

Florida pharmacies have had their potential liability significantly expanded by the Fifth District Court of Appeal. In its recent decision, Oleckna v. Daytona Discount Pharmacy, the appellate court held that a pharmacy owes a duty to its patients that go beyond following the prescribing physician’s directions and properly dispensing the medication.

The court defined the pharmacy’s duty to use due care in filling a prescription to mean more than what it called “robotic compliance” with the instructions of the prescribing physician.

From the court’s decision and some others from around the state it would seem that Florida pharmacists are now under an obligation to question the quantity, frequency, dosage, combination, and possibly even the purpose of a valid prescription. Florida pharmacies are no longer simply a conduit for validly prescribed prescription medications. They are now an integral part of the health care system where trained professionals are expected to act as a check and balance on physicians and other prescribers.

This decision is in keeping with recent Florida Board of Pharmacy cases dealing with narcotic pain medications. The Board has interpreted Section 465.003(6), Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B16-27.820, Florida Administrative Code, to place a duty on a pharmacist to use his or her skill and experience to evaluate the propriety of every prescription presented on a global level.

While courts and the Board are more than willing to expand the scope of a pharmacist’s duty to his or her patients, unfortunately, neither have provided any prospective guidance on how to fulfill the duty.

Suggestions for Compliance.

Below are some suggestions for ensuring your pharmacy is fulfilling its obligation to its patients. This list is by no means exhaustive and is only intended to offer some basic guidance.

1. Know the physician and verify the credentials of an unfamiliar one;
2. Check the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP);
3. Do not fill prescriptions that are more than 30 days old without verifying them with the prescribing physician;
4. Question higher than normal dosages and more frequent administration instructions;
5. Do not provide early refills without verifiable documentation and contact the physician when the patient is seeking an early refill on a medication with a high potential for abuse (the physician is usually in the best position to recognize drug seeking behaviors);
6. Flag concerning prescriptions for mandatory counseling prior to dispensing to give you an opportunity to discuss the risks with the patient;
7. Check the patient’s profile for interactions and discuss them with the patient and, if necessary, the prescribing physician;
8. Periodically check with the prescribing physician on long term medications;
9. Document everything done to verify the propriety of a prescription in the patient’s record; and
10. Most importantly, don’t be afraid to refuse a fill.

In addition to these steps, you should also be conducting regular staff meetings and routine reviews of your processes to ensure that they remain functional and able to be followed.

Comments?

Do you think a pharmacy or pharmacist should be held liable for filling valid prescriptions? How do you verify you or your employees are in compliance? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in DEA, DOH and FDA investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, administrative hearings, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author: Lance O. Leider is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2015 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Selling Tobacco Can Get You Penalized By Insurance Panels

Posted on November 12, 2014 by thehealthlawfirm

By Lance O. Leider, J.D., The Health Law Firm

Beware: selling cigarettes could burn a hole in your pocket.

The CVS Health Corporation (CVS), the nation’s second-largest drug store, is currently in the midst of launching a tobacco-free prescription-drug network. The company announced in October 2014, that it will begin offering a tobacco-free pharmacy plan to employers, unions, and insurance companies for which its Caremark arm manages prescription benefits. CVS is slapping patients with an extra co-payment “penalty” if they purchase their medications from pharmacies that sell tobacco products, regardless of whether the patient is a tobacco user.

According to US News, by adding a variable co-payment of up to $15, CVS hopes that this new strategy, comparable to a narrow network insurance design, will perpetuate the company’s health-and-wellness based initiatives.

The new network will start in 2015. Customers will receive a list of participating pharmacies before any network change will take place.

Click here to read more from US News.

The Tobacco-Free Retail Trend.

Target and CVS have become the poster children for tobacco-free retailers. In 1996, Target spearheaded the fight against tobacco by eliminating all sales of the toxic substance. In September 2014, the CVS Corporation followed suit and completed its tobacco-free overhaul by removing all tobacco products from store shelves across the nation.

The tobacco-free pharmacy networks would include CVS and Target nationally, as well as local or regional pharmacies such as independent pharmacies that abstain from tobacco sales. Walgreens and Walmart pharmacies, two large-scale rival drug chains that sell tobacco, as well as any other grocery or community pharmacy, should expect patient penalties and negative impacts on prescription-drug revenue.

Those Participating in the Tobacco-Free Network.

According to Yahoo! Finance, CVS representatives said the network was created in a response to pharmacy benefit management (PBM) clients that indicated interest in tobacco-free pharmacies. The tobacco-free network will only be used by the PBM customers that voluntarily participate.

The first employer to sign on is the city of Philadelphia, as it promotes a tobacco-free workforce. Philadelphia officials estimate that between 150 and 200 CVS pharmacies will participate in the Philadelphia network.

To read more on this topic from Yahoo! Finance, click here.

Sincere Motives or a Monopoly in the Making?

There are a myriad of arguments regarding CVS’ genuine motive behind the tobacco-free network. Health benefit analysts argue that the network is a disguised anti-competition scheme. With the announcement of the new network plan, CVS opens itself up to criticism for appearing to steer patients to CVS pharmacies, or strong arm the competition into giving up lucrative tobacco revenue. Although the corporation denies these claims of ulterior motives, Dave Balto, a former policy director at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission argued that “…It’s really another effort to limit the ability of their rivals to effectively compete.”

Independent pharmacies are also questioning the industry benefits of such a plan. Small, local pharmacies that have not carried tobacco products for years may be overlooked by the consumers knowingly aware of CVS as a tobacco-free drug store. These mom-and-pop pharmacies will be forced to spend a pretty penny on increased marketing to stand on their own two feet against these mass retail chains.

The Narrow Network Comparison.

Many critics argue that the new CVS plan could be considered a narrow network strategy. A narrow network applies to any health insurance plan that places constraints on doctors and hospitals that are available to their beneficiaries. Typically plans will not cover medical services received out-of-network or they will increase co-payments.

These designs are becoming more common for insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers. By limiting the choices, insurers say they can better focus on the quality of medical care that is delivered to plan customers.

Comments?

What is your opinion of the new CVS tobacco-free network plan? Do you think it will be beneficial for overall community health or more detrimental to the livelihood of small pharmacies? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Silverman, Ed and Ziobro, Paul. “CVS Plays Hardball with Rival Drug Chains.” (October 20, 2014). From: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cvs-plays-hardball-rival-drug-231400764.html

Murphy, Tom. “CVS Health Stretches Anti-tobacco Push to New Prescription Drug Network.” (October 21, 2014). From: http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2014/10/21/cvs-develops-tobacco-free-prescription-network

DEA Offers New Prescription Drug Return Policy

Posted on September 17, 2014 by thehealthlawfirm

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

Looking to improve the prescription drug abuse epidemic in the United States, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced September 8, 2014, that it would permit patients to return their unused prescription medications to pharmacies. This new rule, covering all types of prescription drugs, will give patients the option of mailing unused prescriptions to an authorized collector using packaging provided by the pharmacy.

Hopefully this will help to eliminate many of the problematic situations that pharmacists and physicians found themselves in when they accumulated returned or unused medications from patients for destruction.

This move intends to address the rising number of injuries and deaths associated with controlled substance drugs, particularly opioids. Reducing the stockpile of unneeded prescription drugs from American homes will limit teenagers’ accessibility to their parents’ medications and reduce burglaries for such substances. According to The New York Times, this demographic is known to be the most prevalent abuser of such controlled substances.

To read the full story from The New York Times, click here.

Prior Methods of Prescription Drug Disposal.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, patients were only allowed to dispose of unused drugs themselves or surrender them to law enforcement. Personal disposal of controlled substances typically means flushing pills down a toilet or throwing them in the trash. Because this can pose a risk toward animals and clean drinking water, these methods are frowned upon by environmentalists and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Drug “take back” programs are another option when it comes to disposing of unused prescription drugs. These events are organized by the DEA and are held twice a year at local police departments across the country. During these programs, citizens can anonymously drop off any unused prescription drugs. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that a nationwide event in April 2014 brought in 390 tons of prescription drugs at more than 6,000 sites. In the past four years, these collection events have removed from circulation more than 4.1 million pounds of prescription medication from across the country.

Although these events prove successful, many healthcare professionals are optimistic for the bigger impact the pharmacy “take back” programs may have. Providing consumers convenient year-round access to medication disposals will be positive reinforcement to regularly dispose of unused prescription medications. This method is believed to be more likely to accomplish the mission of shrinking the pool of unused and potentially fatal controlled substances in American homes.

To read the full article from The Wall Street Journal, click here.

Ironing Out Details of the New Plan.

There are many logistics to consider to ensure these pharmaceutical “take back” programs will be successful. The programs will not be mandatory, as the decision to take part will be the under the sole discretion of each company. The pharmacies must voluntarily choose to register with the DEA in order to start receiving the leftover prescriptions. In the past, pharmacies have not generally wanted to accept the hassle of offering such a program. However, the DEA expects many pharmacies to jump on the bandwagon to showcase good-faith effort of keeping drugs out of the wrong hands.

DEA-approved organizations collecting the unused drugs will include hospital pharmacies, narcotic treatment programs, and companies contracted by other collectors to destroy controlled substances.

There are concerns circling the initiative. Some pharmacies do not have the resources required to accommodate incinerators, thus limiting the locations available to consumers. In addition, professionals are concerned with the lack of regulations listed in the new plan. There are no set requirements on how the prescriptions should be destroyed. The rules simply mandate that the drugs are altered into a permanent, irreversible state.

The burden of payment has also not been discussed or outlined in the new plan. Who will cover the cost of packaging and disposal has yet to be decided. Also, to be considered is the challenge of keeping the returned prescriptions safe until destruction. An unsecured, unmonitored return site containing stock piles of addictive drugs would be a gold mine for many addicts and criminals. Should a theft occur at one of these drop-off receptacles, who would be held liable? The American Pharmacists Association has already expressed concern of pharmacy legal liability.

The biggest obstacle of all, however, may be convincing the general public that returning unused pills is a necessary moral obligation.

Comments?

Would you participate in this type of prescription drug return program? As a pharmacist or someone who works at a pharmacy, what are your concerns with this take back program? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Consult With A Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Pharmacists and Pharmacies.

We routinely provide deposition coverage to pharmacists, pharmacies and other health professionals being deposed in criminal cases, negligence cases, civil cases or disciplinary cases involving other health professionals. We can review business referral arrangements and provide legal counsel on whether they are not in violation of federal and state anti-referral laws. The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing physicians, physician assistants and other health professionals in investigations and at Board of Pharmacy hearings.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Barrett, Devlin. “U.S. to Allow Pharmacies to Take Back Unused Prescription Drugs.” The Wall Street Journal. (September 08, 2014). From: http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-allow-pharmacies-to-take-back-unused-prescription-drugs-1410186602

Saint Louis, Catherine. “D.E.A. to Allow Return of Unused Pills to Pharmacies.” The New York Times. (September 08, 2014). From: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/health/unused-pills-return-to-pharmacies.html?_r=0

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

OIG Issues Advisory Opinion to Specialty Pharmacy for Support Service Payments

Posted on August 28, 2014 by thehealthlawfirm

By Lenis L. Archer, J.D., M.P.H., The Health Law Firm

There is an inherent risk in entering into financial arrangements where payments to a service provider are only made when a referral is generated. On August 15, 2014, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) made this perfectly clear in an unfavorable advisory opinion issued to a specialty pharmacy that wanted to pay local retail pharmacies for providing support services to it.

Background of Request for OIG Advisory Opinion.

According to the OIG, the requestor, a specialty pharmacy, dispenses specialty pharmaceuticals used to treat a variety of chronic and life-threatening illnesses. The specialty pharmacy stated that the drugs offered at its establishment are frequently unavailable to retail pharmacies. In light of this, the specialty pharmacy asked whether it would be permissible to enter into agreements with various local pharmacies in which the specialty pharmacy would provide its specialty drug prescriptions to local pharmacies’ patients. Under the proposed contractual arrangement, the local pharmacies would be required to provide various support services, including:

1. Accepting the prescription from the patient or prescriber;
2. Gathering patient and prescriber demographic information;
3. Recording patient-specific history and use, including drug names, strength and directions;
4. Patient counseling;
5. Informing the patients about access to specialty drugs, including the availability from pharmacies other than the specialty pharmacy;
6. Obtaining patient consent to forward the prescription to the specialty pharmacy;
7. Transferring prescription information to the specialty pharmacy; and
8. Providing ongoing patient assessments for subsequent refills.

The retail pharmacies would be paid a “per-fill fee” by the specialty pharmacy at the time that the initial prescription was transmitted and upon each subsequent refill.

OIG Issued Negative Opinion Due to Anti-Kickback Statute.

The OIG issued an unfavorable opinion for this proposed agreement, concluding that the federal Anti-Kickback Statute was implicated because the specialty pharmacy would pay a per-fill fee for support services each time a local pharmacy referred a specialty drug prescription. After evaluating the arrangement, the OIG concluded that the per-fill fees were inherently subject to abuse because they were paid only when the support services provided by the retail pharmacy resulted in a referral to the specialty pharmacy. Thus, the OIG found that such a per-fill fee is directly linked to business generated by the local pharmacy for the specialty pharmacy, and could influence the local pharmacy’s referral decisions. OIG noted that the Anti-Kickback Statute is implicated if one purpose of the remuneration is to generate referrals.

Click here to read OIG Advisory Opinion No. 14-06.

Exceptions to Anti-Kickback Laws.

Like many other regulatory frameworks, the Anti-Kickback Statute has exceptions. The law provides a number of safe harbors to the rule which allow otherwise impermissible referral arrangements to pass muster.

Because the exceptions are numerous and often subject to change, it is highly recommended that any new business arrangement, or substantial change to an existing one, is reviewed by a health law attorney experienced in the area of Anti-Referral and Anti-Kickback Laws.

Consult With A Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Pharmacists and Pharmacies.

We can review business referral arrangements and provide legal counsel on whether they are not in violation of federal and state anti-referral laws.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing physicians, physician assistants and other health professionals in investigations and at Board of Pharmacy hearings. Call now or visit our website www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. “OIG Advisory Opinion No. 14-06” (August 15, 2014). From: https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/docs/advisoryopinions/2014/AdvOpn14-06.pdf

Ciesla, Frank, Christian, Beth, and Burd, Ari. “Office of Inspector General (OIG) Issues Unfavorable Advisory Opinion to Specialty Pharmacy for Support Service Payments.” The National Law Review. (August 18, 2014). From: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/office-inspector-general-oig-issues-unfavorable-advisory-opinion-to-specialty-pharma

About the Author: Lenis L. Archer is as attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

Need Last Minute Deposition or Hearing Representation? Call The Health Law Firm

Posted on August 18, 2014 by thehealthlawfirm

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

Our office often takes phone calls from pharmacies and pharmacists needing short-notice representation at a Board of Pharmacy hearing or at a deposition related to a health care matter.

In our experience, many other law firms refuse to represent clients at a hearings unless the firm is given plenty of advance notice. We always prefer to have sufficient time to obtain documents, review files, interview witnesses, conduct research and prepare, in order to provide the best possible representation to our client. However, we realize that in certain cases, the alternative is that the client either gets legal representation on little or no advance notice, or has to suffer the consequences of having no legal representation.

Be Aware that Administrative Proceedings Can be Complex.

In some cases individuals may be fooled into believing that they can effectively represent themselves. They later find out that they have gotten in over their heads. Laypersons (meaning, in this case, nonlawyers) who are not aware of such complex matters as the Administrative Procedure Act, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Evidence, the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rules which the Board of Pharmacy and the Department of Health (DOH) have enacted, may quickly be confused.

The inexperienced individual, or even the inexperienced attorney, in these matters can fall into a number of procedural traps that damage an effective defense. This can be advising the individual to talk to the DOH investigator, filing an unnecessary answer to an Administrative Complaint, forgetting or not knowing that the client’s right to be free of self-incrimination applies in this type of case and many, many others.

Procedural Mistakes Can Be Damaging To Your Defense.

Often you will find that merely having an experienced attorney to represent you at a hearing or Board meeting will assist you in avoiding mistakes that damage your case and assist you in preserving your rights for an appeal. In other cases it may even be possible to obtain a change in forum to obtain a better result. For example, many laypersons do not know that if you elect an informal hearing before the Board of Pharmacy, you have waived your right to prove you are innocent by contesting the facts alleged against you.

What few know or think of in the heat of the moment is that you can ask at the informal hearing before the Board of Pharmacy to contest the facts, to prove you are not guilty of the charges, and to have the hearing converted to a formal hearing. A formal hearing will be in front of a neutral Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and you have a great many more procedural rights than you have at an informal hearing. However, we still recommend that you have an experienced health lawyer represent you at a formal hearing.

Professional Liability Insurance May Pay Legal Fees for Deposition Coverage.

If you are a pharmacist or pharmacy that has professional liability insurance, these often provide legal coverage for depositions. This is primarily because the outcome of the deposition may include having you named as a defendant in a professional liability or negligence lawsuit or having disciplinary charges filed against you.

One of the first things you should do if you receive a subpoena or a notice of a deposition is to contact your professional liability insurance carrier and see if it will pay for an attorney to represent you. For example, Healthcare Providers Service Organization (HPSO), CPH & Associates, Nurses Service Organization (NSO), Dentists Advantage and many other malpractice insurance companies provide excellent deposition coverage.

The second thing you should do is to call an experienced attorney and schedule a consultation. Even if you cannot afford to retain the services of the attorney for the actual deposition, a consultation may assist you in properly preparing.

Consult With A Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Pharmacists and Pharmacies.

Comments?

Have you ever had an informal or formal hearing before the Board of Pharmacy? What was the experience like? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

Florida Legislature Reforms Pharmacy Benefit Manager Audit Practices

Posted on July 7, 2014 by thehealthlawfirm

According to the Florida Legislature, it’s time for pharmacists to focus on their patients instead of paperwork. On June 13, 2014, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed Florida Senate Bill 702 into law. This law introduces clear guidelines of acceptable audit practices of pharmacies in the Sunshine State.

There are more than 2,700 pharmacies across Florida that are routinely evaluated by Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). The purpose of these audits is to verify that certain claims are submitted and handled properly. If a PBM audit uncovers fraud or abuse, the pharmacy will be subject to penalties, including reimbursement of amounts paid. With the increase of rules regulating pharmacies, these audits have progressively become more time consuming for pharmacists.

Florida SB 702 becomes effective on October 1, 2014. To read a summary of the law, click here.

What’s the Need of the New Law?

In the United States, a PBM is most often a third party administrator of prescription drug programs. The PBM is primarily responsible for processing and paying prescription drug claims.
Currently, PBMs have broad discretion to penalize pharmacies. This means that pharmacies can be forced to pay thousands of dollars as the result of basic clerical or typographical mistakes, many of which are not the fault of the pharmacist or pharmacy staff. This law was enacted to provide reasonable standards for pharmacy audits while allowing PBMs to continue penalizing for true fraud and abuse.

Pharmacy Rights Included in New Law.

SB 702 makes common-sense auditing standards that include:

–   At least seven days advance notice before an on-site audit is conducted;
–   On-site audits scheduled after the first three days of the month;
–   A limit on the audit period of 24 months after the date claim is submitted;
–   Audits requiring clinical judgment must be conducted by or with a pharmacist;
–   Use of written practitioner records to validate pharmacy records in accordance with state and federal law;
–   Reimbursement of claims retroactively denied for clerical, typographical or computer errors unless pharmacy has a pattern of fraudulent billing;
–   Delivery of initial audit reports to pharmacists within 120 days after an audit is completed;
–   Receipt of final audit report within six months of the preliminary report;
–   Allowing 10 days for pharmacists to provide documentation to address any discrepancies found during an audit;
–   Prohibiting the use of extrapolations in auditing claims; and
–   The Office of Insurance Regulation will study pharmacy complaints of willful violations of audit provisions by PBMs.

Stipulation of Rights.

The rights listed above do not apply to audits that are based on suspicions of fraud or willful misrepresentation; audits of claims paid for by federally funded programs; or concurrent reviews or desk audits that occur within three business days after transmission where no chargeback or recoupment is demanded.

An entity that audits a pharmacy located within a Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team Task Force area designated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is not required to provide seven days prior notice of an audit if the pharmacy has been a member of a credentialed provider network for less than 12 months.

What This Means for You.

For once there is a new law that does not make a pharmacist’s job more complicated. This law may actually alleviate some of the stress that comes with dealing with an audit. We’re hoping with the implementation of this law pharmacists will be able to spend more time focusing on patient care.

Comments?

What do you think of this new law? Will it affect your pharmacy? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Florida Board of Pharmacy Updates Record Retention Rules for Pharmacies

Posted on February 25, 2014 by thehealthlawfirm

By Lance O. Leider, J.D., The Health Law Firm

At its meeting held on February 12, 2014, the Florida Board of Pharmacy voted to approve language changes to a number of rules. Specifically, those changes were put into effect to establish a uniform four-year retention policy for pharmacy records.

Previously the Board’s rules were not consistent with respect to how long pharmacies were required to retain different types of records.

When approving new rules or changes to existing rules, administrative bodies are required to evaluate the regulatory costs of the changes. In examining these costs the Board found that any financial costs imposed upon small businesses would be balanced by the efficiencies created by a uniform retention period.

Board of Pharmacy Voted to Change the Wording in These Rules.

Below is a list of the administrative rules that were changed:

– Standards for the Approval of Registered Pharmacy Technician Training Programs
Rule 64B16-26.351, Florida Administrative Code

– Standards for Approval of Courses and Providers
Rule 64B16-26.601, Florida Administrative Code

– Continuing Education Records Requirements
Rule 64B16-26.603, Florida Administrative Code

– General Terms and Conditions to be Followed by a Pharmacist When Ordering and Dispensing Approved Medicinal Drug Products
Rule 64B16-27.210, Florida Administrative Code

– Standards of Practice – Continuous Quality Improvement Program
Rule 64B16-27.300, Florida Administrative Code

– Requirement for Patient Records
Rule 64B16-27.800, Florida Administrative Code

– Change of Ownership
Rule 64B16-28.2021, Florida Administrative Code

– Centralized Prescription Filling, Delivering and Returning
Rule 64B16-28.450, Florida Administrative Code

– Transmission of Starter Dose Prescriptions for Patients in Class I Institutional or Modified II B Facilities
Rule 64B16-28.503, Florida Administrative Code

– Class II Institutional Pharmacies
Rule 64B16-28.605, Florida Administrative Code

– Remote Medication Order Processing for Class II Institutional Pharmacies
Rule 64B16-28.606, Florida Administrative Code

– Automated Pharmacy System – Long-Term Care, hospice, and Prison
Rule 64B16-28.607, Florida Administrative Code

– Modified Class II Institutional Pharmacies
Rule 64B16-28.702, Florida Administrative Code

– Record Maintenance for Animal Shelter Permits
Rule 64B16-29.0041, Florida Administrative Code

Make Sure Your Facility is Prepared.

While these rule changes are not final, it is important to recognize if they will be affecting your facility. You should also be making arrangements in your facility to ensure that there is enough computer disk space or physical space to retain these records. Keep in mind that these records retention rules are in addition to any others imposed by other Florida or federal statutes or rules relating to controlled substances or other pharmacy practices.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in DEA investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, administrative hearings, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

How do you feel about the requirement of pharmacy records to be retained for four years? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Author: Lance O. Leider is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

“Operation Main Pain” Targets More Than 60 in Fraudulent Prescription Drug Ring

Posted on October 7, 2013 by thehealthlawfirm

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office announced a fraudulent prescription drug ring bust that spanned throughout Sarasota and Manatee counties in Florida, on September 19, 2013. So far, 61 people, including the alleged ringleader have been arrested. The operation has been dubbed “Operation Main Pain” by the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office.

Click here to view the press release from the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office.

Investigation Unveiled Complex Fraudulent Drug Ring.

The investigation began in July 2011, when a fraudulent oxycodone prescription was noticed at a CVS pharmacy in Sarasota County. When more of the same fake prescriptions were presented at the CVS pharmacy, the prescriptions were identified as suspicious and declined, according to the Bradenton Herald.

Investigators uncovered that the fraudulent prescription drug ring involved several recruiters who employed runners to enter into pharmacies multiple times a day with identical prescriptions. The recruiters had runners fill fake prescriptions primarily at two pharmacies, one in Venice, Florida, and one in Sarasota, Florida.

According to the Bradenton Herald, detectives say the ringleader wrote 220 phony prescriptions that were exchanged for nearly 20,000 oxycodone pills.

To read the Bradenton Herald article, click here.

Charges Against Those Involved Include Trafficking.

According to the Herald-Tribune, the arrests have been ongoing for two years, with the latest arrests made as recently as September 2013. The ringleader is charged with conspiracy to traffic in oxycodone. The other 60 people arrested face multiple counts of obtaining oxycodone by fraud and trafficking charges.

Sarasota Sheriff Expresses Disappointment in Two Main Pharmacies Accused of Filling Fake Prescriptions.

The two pharmacies targeted by the drug ring allegedly filled more than 100 of the fraudulent prescriptions in a short amount of time. According to the Herald-Tribune, the Sarasota Sheriff’s Office works to educate pharmacies to notice warning signs. The sheriff stated that the pharmacies should have notified the authorities since there were hundreds of similar prescriptions, being brought in by similar customers, all allegedly written by the same doctor. According to the Herald-Tribune, the pharmacies are currently being investigated.

Click here to read the article from the Herald-Tribune.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

Given the information in the blog, do you think the two main pharmacies that were filling the fraudulent prescriptions should have notified the authorities? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Rose, Wendy. “Operation Main Pain Includes 61 Arrests.” Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office. (September 19, 2013). From: http://www.sarasotasheriff.org/press_detail.asp?R=13-182

Johnson, Elizabeth. “More Than 60 Arrested in Drug Fraud Ring.” Herald-Tribune. (September 19, 2013). From: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130919/ARTICLE/130919529?tc=ar

Bradenton Herald. “61 Charged with Prescription Drug Fraud in Manatee, Sarasota.” Bradenton Herald. (September 19, 2013). From: http://www.bradenton.com/2013/09/19/4726950/61-charged-with-prescription-drug.html

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

CVS Blacklists Second Set of Doctors Accused of Overprescribing Painkillers

Posted on August 30, 2013 by thehealthlawfirm

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

CVS is again stepping up its own internal efforts to combat the nation’s prescription drug abuse epidemic. According to Reuters, the second largest retail pharmacy chain announced it is cutting off access to the most powerful painkillers for more than 36 doctors and health care providers around the country. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has been keeping a close eye on CVS over the past few years. According to Reuters, CVS began revoking the dispensing privileges of certain providers back in 2011. CVS disclosed this round of suspensions on August 21, 2013.

To read the article from Reuters, click here.

CVS Closely Analyzed Prescription Practices of Health Care Providers Before Suspending Dispensing Privileges.

CVS said the suspension followed an analysis of prescriptions brought to its drugstores from March 2010 through January 2012, for painkillers such as oxycondone, hydrocodone, and methadone, according to Reuters. CVS said it first identified several dozen health care providers, from its database of nearly one million, with “extreme” patters of prescribing high-risk drugs. CVS allegedly compared their prescription rates to other providers in the same specialty and geographic region, the ages of the patients, and the number of patients paying with cash for the drugs.

After analyzing the results, CVS said the company’s stores and mail-order pharmacy will no longer dispense controlled substances for 36 providers who it said could not justify their prescribing habits, according to the Orlando Sentinel. CVS did not disclose the names or location of the physicians blacklisted this time around.

Click here to read the Orlando Sentinel article.

Second Time CVS Has Blacked Listed Specific Doctors.

In November 2011, at least 22 Central Florida doctors received an unsigned letter from CVS telling them that the company’s pharmacists would no longer fill prescriptions they write for painkillers and other powerful drugs. The letter was called a “blacklist” and was criticized as discriminatory. One Orlando doctor tried to fight back with legal action, claiming that CVS basically called him a criminal. To read more on the previous blacklist, click here to read my blog.

So far, we have not heard of any legal action pending against CVS from providers recently added to the blacklist.

DEA Previously Pulled Controlled Substance Licenses from Two Sanford, Florida, CVS Pharmacies.

As previously stated, the DEA has had its eyes on CVS for a while. You may remember that in September 2012, the DEA revoked the registrations (controlled substance licenses) from two CVS pharmacies in Sanford, Florida. I previously wrote about this, click here to read that blog.

Who is Responsible for the Prescription Drug Epidemic?

The act of prescribing powerful, and sometimes deadly, addictive drugs inappropriately for a health care provider’s personal gain has grown. It’s argued that pharmacies have a role to play in the oversight of controlled substance prescriptions. Pharmacists, as well as physicians and all health care providers, have an ethical (and legal duty) to ensure that a prescription for a controlled substance is appropriate.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced with DEA Cases.

The Health Law Firm represents physicians, pharmacists, pharmacies, nurses and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies.
If you are aware of an investigation of you or your practice, or if you have been contacted by the DEA or DOH, contact an experienced health law attorney immediately.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think of CVS’ ban on filling controlled substance prescriptions from certain doctors? Do you think this will help with the national prescription drug abuse epidemic? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Pavuk, Amy. “CVS Cracks Down on Doctors with ‘Extreme Patters’ of Prescribing High-Risk Drugs.” Orlando Sentinel. (August 29, 2013). From: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-cvs-crackdown-doctors-20130829,0,5193527.story?dssReturn

Wohl, Jessica. “CVS Cuts Access to Opiod Pain-Killers for Suspect Doctors.” Reuters. (August 21, 2013). From: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-cvscaremark-painkillers-idUSBRE97K17120130821

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

Jury Awards Walgreens Customer $1.44 Million Over HIPAA Violation

Posted on August 5, 2013 by thehealthlawfirm

By Lance O. Leider, J.D., The Health Law Firm and George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

An Indiana jury awarded a Walgreens customer $1.44 million on July 26, 2013, over a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violation, according to the Indianapolis Star. The Walgreens pharmacist was found to have violated the customer’s privacy by looking up and sharing the customer’s prescription history with others. The lawsuit alleged that there was a relationship between the pharmacist, her husband and the husband’s ex-girlfriend (who was the customer). The customer/ex-girlfriend was the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Click here to read the entire article from the Indianapolis Star.

Details of the Lawsuit.

According to the American Bar Association, the lawsuit alleged the pharmacist was married to the customer’s ex-boyfriend at the time the pharmacist viewed her prescription records. The pharmacist admitted to showing the confidential information to her husband, who shares a child with the customer/plaintiff. In doing this, the pharmacist breeched her statutory and common law duties of confidentiality and privacy.

Click here to read the entire article from the American Bar Association.

Walgreens Found Negligent.

The jury found Walgreens negligent in training and supervising the pharmacist. The pharmacist admitted she was aware of the pharmacy’s privacy policy and knew she was violating it. Walgreens claims the pharmacist has been appropriately disciplined.

Deadline to Comply with Omnibus Rule Close-Are You Ready?

The Department of Health and Humans Services (HHS) released stronger rules and protections governing patient privacy on January 17, 2013. This omnibus rule strengthens the privacy and security protection established under HIPAA. Physicians, hospitals, clinics, health care providers and their business associates need to take into account the corrections as they work to update business associate agreements, policies, practices and training to comply with the rule changes by the September 23, 2013, deadline. To learn more on the omnibus rule changes, click here to read a previous blog.

Be Proactive-Get a HIPAA Risk Assessment.

A HIPAA risk assessment can significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate, your exposure to regulatory and litigation sanctions. It will identify areas for improvement and allow them to be corrected before an auditor finds the issue and causes unwanted problems for you and your practice.

HIPAA laws have most likely changed since you last edited your privacy forms and procedures. Many health providers simply don’t have the time to re-review their policies and revise documents. In a perfect practice, this would be done every six months.

To learn more on HIPAA risk assessments, click here.

Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Defending HIPAA Complaints and Violations.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals and other healthcare providers and institutions in investigating and defending alleged HIPAA complaints and violations and in preparing Corrective Action Plans (CAPs).

For more information about HIPAA violations, electronic health records or corrective action plans (CAPs) please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001.

Comments?

What are your thoughts on this HIPAA violation? Do you think Walgreens failed to train and supervise the pharmacist? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Neil, Martha. “Walgreens Must Pay Customer $1.44M After Pharmacy Shared Her Prescription Records.” American Bar Association. (July 29, 2013). From: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/jury_says_walgreens_must_pay_1.44m_because_pharmacist_gave_her_husband/

Evans, Tim. “Walgreens Must Pay Woman $1.44 Million Over HIPAA Violation.” Indianapolis Star. (July 26, 2013). From: http://www.indystar.com/article/20130726/NEWS/307260079/

About the Authors: Lance O. Leider is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999. Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Pharmacy Law Blog

Category Archives: Pharmacist

Pharmacies May be Liable for Filling Valid Prescriptions

Selling Tobacco Can Get You Penalized By Insurance Panels

DEA Offers New Prescription Drug Return Policy

OIG Issues Advisory Opinion to Specialty Pharmacy for Support Service Payments

Need Last Minute Deposition or Hearing Representation? Call The Health Law Firm

Florida Legislature Reforms Pharmacy Benefit Manager Audit Practices

Florida Board of Pharmacy Updates Record Retention Rules for Pharmacies

“Operation Main Pain” Targets More Than 60 in Fraudulent Prescription Drug Ring

CVS Blacklists Second Set of Doctors Accused of Overprescribing Painkillers

Jury Awards Walgreens Customer $1.44 Million Over HIPAA Violation