ABSTRACT
The U.S federal government leveraged emergency authority to allow pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir) during the COVID-19 pandemic. While heralded by pharmacy associations, the FDA framework included restrictions that ran counter to clinical guidelines and evidence-based research and recommendations. These restrictions will limit the utility of pharmacist prescriptive authority for Paxlovid in practice. The experience of Paxlovid prescribing and a similar recent federal action illustrate the challenges inherent in federal oversight of pharmacist prescriptive authority. While initially more difficult to navigate for stakeholders, working with state legislatures and state boards of pharmacy has much stronger long-term potential to enable broad pharmacist prescriptive authority and benefit patient care. This commentary uses Idaho's pharmacist prescribing regulations as a comparison to the federal actions.
ABSTRACT
The U.S federal government leveraged emergency authority to allow pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir) during the COVID-19 pandemic. While heralded by pharmacy associations, the FDA framework included restrictions that arguably ran counter to clinical guidelines and evidence-based research and recommendations. These restrictions will limit the utility of pharmacist prescriptive authority for Paxlovid in practice. The experience of Paxlovid prescribing and a similar recent federal action illustrate the challenges inherent in federal oversight of pharmacist prescriptive authority. While initially more difficult to navigate for stakeholders, working with state legislatures and state boards of pharmacy has much stronger long-term potential to enable broad pharmacist prescriptive authority and benefit patient care. This commentary uses Idaho's pharmacist prescribing regulations as a comparison to the federal actions.