ABSTRACT
National pharmacy associations have increasingly explored regulation according to a "standard of care." In such a model, pharmacists can provide a wide range of clinical services aligned with their education and training. Based on Idaho's experience implementing this model, there are five critical steps states must take to enact a standard of care: 1) Adopt a broad definition of "practice of pharmacy;" 2) Allow elasticity for practice innovation over time; 3) Decide which limited instances still necessitate prescriptive regulation; 4) Eliminate all unnecessary regulations; and 5) Strengthen accountability for deviations from the standard of care. States wishing to adopt a standard of care approach can follow this five-step process to enhance patient care and mitigate the lag that is otherwise constant between laws and practice.
Subject(s)
Pharmacists , Standard of Care , Pharmacists/legislation & jurisprudence , Pharmacists/standards , Humans , Standard of Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Pharmaceutical Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Pharmaceutical Services/standards , Pharmaceutical Services/organization & administration , Professional Role , Idaho , Societies, Pharmaceutical/standards , Patient Care/standardsABSTRACT
Pharmacists in all states have prescriptive authority in some form. We identify two broad categories of pharmacist prescribing: dependent and independent. There are gradients within these broad categories that allow us to chart pharmacist prescribing on a continuum from most restrictive to least restrictive. Independent prescribing has seen the most innovation in recent years at the state level, with at least three states adopting a "standard of care" prescribing framework that allows pharmacists to exercise broad prescriptive authority including for conditions that require a diagnosis. Each of the approaches to pharmacist prescriptive authority have perceived advantages and disadvantages as it relates to improving patient care.
Subject(s)
Drug Prescriptions , Pharmacists , Humans , Professional Role , Patient CareABSTRACT
In December 2022, Congress passed the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment Act, which removed the federal legal barrier to pharmacist buprenorphine prescribing. As a result, each state can now decide whether or not to allow pharmacists to prescribe buprenorphine as an additional access point to reduce fatal opioid overdoses. At least 10 states allow pharmacists to prescribe controlled substances under collaborative practice agreements. Two states (California and Idaho) have also created pathways for independent prescribing of buprenorphine by pharmacists. Additional states should seek to enable pharmacists to prescribe buprenorphine to increase access to a proven beneficial treatment and help reduce fatal opioid overdoses.
Subject(s)
Buprenorphine , Opiate Overdose , Opioid-Related Disorders , Humans , United States , Buprenorphine/therapeutic use , Pharmacists , Opiate Overdose/drug therapy , Drug Prescriptions , Idaho , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapyABSTRACT
The diagnosis of acne is typically straightforward and based on physical signs and symptoms. Some jurisdictions in Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States have enabled a pharmacist treatment model to diagnose and manage patients with mild acne using prescription medications. Studies have found the model to be safe and effective, while simultaneously increasing more timely access to care for patients which may reduce the potential adverse impacts of acne. Further, use of a standardized protocol may alleviate some of the concerns expressed over the model. This paper summarize answers to frequent questions to help policymakers consider the objective evidence for their jurisdiction.
