IC 25-26-13-16 Pharmacist’s professional judgment; honoring and refusal to honor prescriptions; immunity
Sec. 16. (a) A pharmacist shall exercise his professional judgment in the best interest of the patient’s health when engaging in the practice of pharmacy.
(b) A pharmacist has a duty to honor all prescriptions from a practitioner or from a physician, podiatrist, dentist, or veterinarian licensed under the laws of another state. Before honoring a prescription, the pharmacist shall take reasonable steps to determine whether the prescription has been issued in compliance with the laws of the state where it originated. The pharmacist is immune from criminal prosecution or civil liability if he, in good faith, refuses to honor a prescription because, in his professional judgment, the honoring of the prescription would:
- be contrary to law;
- be against the best interest of the patient;
- aid or abet an addiction or habit; or
- be contrary to the health and safety of the patient.
This is a section from the Indiana Practice Act.. there a numerous stories about the DEA taking pharmacies and wholesalers to task over the volume of controlled drugs that they are selling/dispensing.
It has been reported that one chain in PA, has decided that some/certain 24 hr stores will not dispense any C-II between midnight and 10:00 to those pts who are on maintenance meds that are C-II’s. However, if someone comes in with a C-II from a local emergency room with a Rx for a small quantity of C-II’s … they will fill those..
In the Louisville, KY metro area, it has been reported that the DPM, from the country’s largest chain, came down with a edict that all C-II’s Rxs have to have a ICD9 written on them by the prescriber, or they can’t be filled. It has been reported that some practices are not playing this game.
This is another issue that corporate mandates – and those that come up with these mandates – will not have any responsibility/liability when the patient(s) decides to take the RPH to task over denying to fill a otherwise legit C-II Rx, putting the RPH potentially in violation of their practice act.
Also, beside potentially violating the practice act… the RPH.. could find themselves in the position of defending that they were not involved in patient/senior abuse.. since a chronic pain pt will be thrown into withdrawal and elevated pain level.
Filed under: General Problems
The DM’s and the DEA need to leave pharmacists alone! If a pharmacist fills a CII for a patient, the rx is valid, and the pharmacist has no evidence the pt is abusing the drug, then the idiot chains and the over zealous DEA need to stay away. The broad sweep by the DEA is ‘illegal’. They need to find rx’s that are forged. If they have an issue with the rx being written by a pill mill, then they need to go after the pill mill and not the pharmacist. As with most things in our society, there is too much law enforcement, too many government agencies, and a sure enough ‘blind’ legal system.