aid to governmentthe profession

the public1904 to 2010

Upcoming EventsJanuary 24-February 4, 2011 PCOA Administration

January 25-26, 2011 Second Meeting of the Task Force to Review and Recommend Revisions to the Controlled Substances ActNABP Headquarters

May 21-24, 2011 NABP 107th Annual MeetingSan Antonio, TX

In This Issue. . . .Feature News:Implementation of DEA CS e-Prescribing Rule Prompts Boards to Offer Licensees Guidance

195

Legal Briefs:Doody to Warn

196

Feature News:IPEC Plan Maps Out Strategy to Combat Counterfeit Medications

199

Feature News:State Boards of Pharmacy Take Action to Stop Licensees Involved in Unlawful Internet Drug Outlet Schemes

205

Association News:Seventeen Boards of Pharmacy Utilizing New NABP Secure Online NAPLEX/MPJE Score Retrieval Service for Candidates

211

November-December 2010 / Volume 39 Number 10

(continued on page 194)

GreyGrey: Black Process 70% Black: Process 100K

newsletterNational Association of Boards of Pharmacy®

fromNABP

Board Member Participants Contribute to Success of First Interactive Member Forum

Energized by the oppor-tunity to network and dia-logue with their peers about shared challenges – from fighting prescription drug abuse and establishing drug take-back programs, to regu-lating the use of technology in pharmacy practice – state board of pharmacy members from 46 states and jurisdic-tions contributed to the success of the first NABP Interactive Member Forum, Prescription for Shared Fu-ture: The 3-Year Partnering Plan to Protect Public Health through AWARxEness. The forum, held September 22-23, 2010, generated discussion about timely topics and common board challenges through presentations from expert panels and related video clips. In each discus-sion, board members gained valuable new ideas as their fellow participants posed challenging questions and offered a variety of rel-

evant experiences, perspectives, and information.

Kick-off events for the Forum included a tour of NABP Headquar-ters, staff presenta-tions about NABP programs and departments, and a networking din-ner. Prior to the dinner, NABP President William T. Winsley, MS, RPh, spoke to attendees, welcoming them to NABP Headquarters, emphasizing the aims of the Forum, and encouraging active participation from all attendees.

To begin the Forum on Thursday, Gary A. Schnabel, RN, RPh, chairperson, NABP Executive Committee, deliv-ered a welcome address that set the framework for the day’s discussions. Schnabel stressed that the Executive Committee is committed to structur-ing programs and services

that will empower the state boards of pharmacy and ease funding gaps. To set the tone and encourage maximum participation, Schnabel also invited attendees to suggest topics for discussion in the mid-morning “Shared State Topics” session.

Speakers were then invited to present, beginning with the topic, “Navigating the Con-trolled Substances Act.” This portion of the Forum began with a presentation outlin-ing some of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) issues that can create challenges for the state boards of pharmacy. A panel of expert speakers

nabp newsletter

194

The NABP Newsletter (ISSN 8756-4483) is published 10 times a year by the National

Association of Boards of Pharmacy® (NABP®) to educate, to inform,

and to communicate the objectives and programs of the Association and its 63 member boards

of pharmacy to the profession and the

public. The opinions and views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the

official views, opinions, or policies of NABP or any board unless

expressly so stated. The subscription rate is

$35 per year.

National Association of Boards of Pharmacy

1600 Feehanville Drive Mount Prospect, IL

60056 847/391-4406 www.nabp.net

custserv@nabp.net

Carmen A. Catizone Executive Director/

Secretary

Larissa Doucette Communications

Manager

©2010 National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. All rights

reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner without the

written permission of the executive director/

secretary of the National Association of

Boards of Pharmacy.

Interactive Member Forum

Member Forum(continued from page 193)

then presented on specific CSA-related topics of concern including CSA issues related to long-term care facility registration, the Iowa Board of Pharmacy’s experience as they prepared to make a recommendation to the Iowa Legislature regarding the legalization of medical mari-juana, and details about drug disposal programs created by the Connecticut Commission of Pharmacy.

Forum participants were surveyed regarding topics of high priority in advance of the Forum. Results showed that many boards are chal-lenged to address the issue of prescription drug abuse in their states. Thus, as part of the “Shared State Topics” session, the Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy shared actions the Board has taken to address this issue. A highlight of the presentation included clips from the public service film, The Road to Nowhere, and a description of the goals, and making of this film, as well as its use across the state of Okla-

homa. (For more information about The Road to Nowhere and obtaining complimentary CDs or bookmarks, contact John A. Foust, PharmD, DPh, executive director, Oklahoma Board of Pharmacy, by calling 405/521-3815 or by sending an e-mail to jfoust@pharmacy .ok.gov.)

Following this presenta-tion, attendees were asked

topic, “Board of Pharmacy Challenges – Dwindling State Resources, Decision-Making Process, Integrity.” The opening presentation reminded attendees of ser-vices offered by the recently expanded NABP Govern-ment Affairs department. It was noted that NABP wants to understand the individual needs of each state board of pharmacy and that the department is currently in the process of reaching out to boards. Boards that have not yet been contacted can expect to receive an outreach call from NABP Govern-ment Affairs staff by the end of 2010.

Panels composed of expert speakers, including NABP staff, then provided overviews of relevant NABP programs and services that can assist boards of phar-macy. Available inspection services and accreditation programs were discussed, as well as the development of a community pharmacy accreditation program and development of a prescrip-tion monitoring program

Boards that have not yet been contacted, can expect to receive an outreach call from NABP Government Affairs staff by the end of 2010.

to discuss the shared topics suggested earlier in the morning. Topics included regulatory issues related to the use of text messaging to clarify prescription details, “pill mill” pain clinics, pharmacy benefit managers, and coupons for transferred prescriptions.

The afternoon remained lively, as panelists and attendees addressed the

Visit to NABP Headquarters Helps Set the Stage for an Interactive Event Following a tour of NABP Headquarters (above left), and an opportunity to meet and greet one another, Interactive Member Forum attendees continued their discussions at a networking dinner. See pages 200-201 for more photos from the Interactive Member Forum.

(continued on page 204)

november-december 2010

195

Feature News

Executive CommitteeGary A. SchnabelChairpersonOne-year term

William T. Winsley PresidentOne-year term

Malcolm J. BroussardPresident-electOne-year term

Michael A. BurlesonTreasurerOne-year term

James T. DeVitaMember, District 1Serving first year of a three-year term

Edward G. McGinleyMember, District 2Serving first year of a three-year term

Mark T. ConradiMember, District 3Serving first year of a one-year term

Gregory Braylock, SrMember, District 4Serving third year of a three-year term

Lloyd K. JessenMember, District 5Serving first year of a three-year term

Joseph L. “Joe” AdamsMember, District 6Serving second year of a three-year term

Cathryn J. LewMember, District 7Serving second year of a three-year term

Hal WandMember, District 8Serving third year of a three-year term

NABP Executive Committee elections are held each year at the Association’s Annual Meeting.

Implementation of DEA CS e-Prescribing Rule Prompts Boards to Offer Licensees Guidance

Since new Drug Enforce-ment Administration (DEA) regulations for controlled substance e-prescribing took effect June 1, 2010, state boards of pharmacy are of-fering guidance to licensees regarding DEA e-prescribing software requirements and the legality of controlled substance e-prescribing in their respective states. E-prescribing software developers are currently in the process of ensuring that products meet the new DEA requirements and have the required certifications. In addition, some state laws and regulations will require changes before controlled substance e-prescribing will be fully legal.

Rule in Review

DEA’s Interim Final Rule on e-prescribing, formally allows (but does not man-date) electronic prescribing of Schedule II through V controlled substances, and provides the regulations by which this e-prescribing will be governed. According to the new rule, before any given prescriber or pharma-cist can prescribe or receive an electronic prescription for a controlled substance, the system (or software) being used must be certified by an approved, outside agency that it meets the new regulations. The new requirements help ensure that controlled sub-stance e-prescribing regula-tions minimize the potential of controlled substance

diversion. And, as DEA notes in its rule, the agency considered the burden on regis-trants, and allowed enough flexibility to accommodate future advances in technolo-gies and standards.

Boards Offer Guidance

Due to some confusion among prescribers and phar-macists on the front lines, state boards of pharmacy are pro-viding guidance, and stressing to pharmacists that controlled substance e-prescribing shall not be allowed until DEA requirements are met. The North Carolina Board of Pharmacy highlighted the issue for its registrants in an August news post on its Web site, reminding pharmacists that the DEA rule “is ‘effective’ only in the academic sense.” The Board stated that as of the date of posting, “DEA has not certified any transmitting or receiving system as meeting these security standards. Ac-cordingly, [electronic prescrip-tions for controlled substanc-es] still do not meet federal law requirements.” The North Carolina Board also assured pharmacists that they are cor-rect in not accepting electronic prescriptions for controlled substances at this point. “Board staff is aware,” the post indicates, “that a number of physicians and physician office managers have insisted – often vehemently – that electronic prescriptions for controlled substances are allowable. This

insistence, however well inten-tioned, is simply not correct.”

The Nevada State Board of Pharmacy issued a similar caution to pharmacists in its October 2010 Newsletter: “No such systems [meeting the security requirements speci-fied in the rule] are certified to date, nor have any third-party entities been identified to conduct such audits and certification.”

The North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy likewise issued written clarification on its Web site for registrants on electronic prescriptions and what constitutes a legitimate prescription. In its guidance, the Board notes the necessity of e-prescribing software to be certified before it can be used for controlled substance prescribing, and adding, “[I]t is not anticipated that any software systems will be ready and certified [in the near future].”

Even prior to the new rule, pharmacists navigated the complexities of e-pre-scribing laws. For example, in its report, the 2009 NABP Task Force on Electronic Pre-scribing Software Standards and Data Storage noted that many e-prescribing systems allowed the transmission of

(continued on page 204)

nabp newsletter

196

Legal Briefs

Doody to WarnBy Dale J. Atkinson, JD

The standards of practice set forth in the practice act and/or regulations

(preferably explicitly, but sometimes implicitly) are the barometer or measure expected of a licensed pharmacist when undertaking professional duties and responsibilities. The boards of pharmacy are created and empowered to enforce the relevant laws in the interest of public protection and the failure of a pharmacist to adhere to such standards may threaten the licensure status of the practitioner. In many jurisdictions, the burden of proof necessary to establish wrongdoing in an administrative prosecution is measured by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence has been described as “more likely than not.” Granted, some jurisdictions adhere to a clear and convincing standard in administrative prosecutions, a somewhat more stringent burden.

Of course, patients or consumers harmed by a pharmacist who fails to adhere to the standards of practice have the right to pursue judicial relief in a civil setting for the remedies and damages caused by such a breach of the standards of practice. Generally, civil remedies for such a breach surface in the form of monetary dam-ages based upon the harm suffered and its relationship to the breach of the duty owed by the pharmacist to the patient. The bur-den of proof necessary to

establish civil wrongdoing is a preponderance of the evidence. The establish-ment and application of the standards of practice in a civil proceeding will be developed through expert testimony with the findings of a breach of such stan-dards determined by the jury (or judge).

At times, the standards of practice in a civil setting can differ from the applica-ble standards of practice in an administrative proceed-ing. This differentiation does not follow common logic, defies statutory or

regulatory responsibilities required of a pharmacist operating in a professional setting, and has the poten-tial to result in inconsis-tent findings of a licensee based upon the same set of facts and under a same (or similar) burden of proof. Further, such determina-tions undercut the licensure process and threaten the expectations of the con-suming patient. After all, pharmacists are the most trusted professionals. Con-sider the following.

A longtime patient of a physician has been con-sistently (over a 10-year period) prescribed lithium for her probable manic depressive psychosis. After years of using the lithium, on January 16, 2003, the physician prescribed Teno-retic® to treat the patient’s high blood pressure. When presented at the chain phar-macy, the pharmacist called the physician to verify the Tenoretic prescription. The inquiry was based upon the pharmacist’s knowledge that an interaction between the lithium and Tenoretic could cause lithium toxicity. According to the pharma-cist’s notes, the physician told the pharmacist to fill the script and that the phy-sician agreed to monitor the patient. It should be noted that the physician, when deposed in preparation for the civil trial, indicated that he had no recollection of the conversation. The judicial opinion does not

november-december 2010

197

(continued on page 211)

Legal Briefs

Attorney Dale J. Atkinson is a partner in the law firm of Atkinson & Atkinson, outside counsel for NABP.

address whether there were notes in the physician’s files of this alleged conversa-tion. The prescription was filled on January 20, 2003. Again, the judicial opinion does not address whether the pharmacist undertook counseling of the patient.

On January 27, 2003, the patient appeared at the same pharmacy with a subsequent prescription for lithium, which was filled by a different pharmacist. However, this second phar-macist checked and referred to the notes in the patient’s file with the pharmacy and specifically noted the fact that the physician was to monitor the patient. The sec-ond pharmacist did not call the physician. The patient ingested the medications, became ill, and passed away on February 3, 2003, as a result of lithium toxicity.

The estate filed a wrong-ful death action against the physician and pharmacy. In part, the complaint alleged that the pharmacy failed to warn the decedent of the interaction between lithium and Tenoretic. After some procedural gymnastics, the physician was dismissed from the case based upon a settlement of the allegations related to his involvement. In short, the pharmacy filed a motion for summary judg-ment whereby the matter can be decided as a matter of law by the judge and without the need for a trial as there are no material issues of fact in dispute. The pharmacy

alleged that as a matter of law, the pharmacist was under no duty to warn the physician or the patient of a drug interaction.

The trial court dis-missed the pharmacy from the case finding that the “learned intermediary doc-trine” precluded an obliga-tion of the pharmacist from a duty to warn. The estate appealed the matter to the appellate court arguing that the lower court erred in finding that the doctrine did not require the phar-macist to warn. In addition, the estate argued that the lower court improperly distinguished a previous Illinois case, Happel v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Addressing the learned intermediary doctrine, the appellate court reiterated such doctrine as providing that manufacturers of pre-scription drugs have a duty to warn prescribing physi-cians of a drug or drugs known dangerous propen-sities, and the physicians, in turn, using their medical judgment, have a duty to convey the warnings to the patient. The court cited sev-eral cases recognizing the doctrine as imposing a duty to warn on the physicians, rather than the pharma-cists. These previous cases have applied the doctrine and professed a reluctance to require a pharmacist to “interject himself into the doctor-patient relation-ship and practice medicine without a license.”

Under the facts of the current matter, the court found that the pharma-cist (1) properly filled the prescription, (2) took notice of the warning system regarding the potential for interaction, and (3) noti-fied the physician of the potential interaction prior to filling the prescription. Based upon this court’s in-terpretation of the learned intermediary doctrine, the court found that the phar-macist fulfilled his profes-sional obligations and did not breach any such duty to warn as none existed under the circumstances.

The appellate court next addressed the es-tate’s argument that the Happel case was disposi-tive in establishing a duty to warn under the facts of the dispute. In Happel, the Illinois Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether a pharmacy “has a duty to warn about a known drug contraindica-tion where the pharmacy is aware of a customer’s drug allergies and knows that the medication prescribed by the customer’s physician is contraindicated for a person with those aller-gies.” In Happel, decided in 2002, the supreme court found a duty to warn based upon the following facts of the case. First, it was undisputed that the pharmacy was aware of the patient’s drug allergies and that the drug combination

nabp newsletter

198

Feature News

DEA Collects More Than 242,000 Pounds of Medications During First-Ever Nationwide Drug Take-Back Day

Collecting approximately 242,000 pounds of pharma-ceuticals, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), in collaboration with state and local law enforcement agen-cies, successfully coordinated the first-ever national drug take-back day. Nearly 3,000 state and local law enforce-ment agencies, managing more than 4,000 different collection sites, participated in the event, which was held September 25, 2010. On this day, people across the nation dropped off their expired,

unwanted, or unused pharmaceutical controlled substances and other medica-tions from 10 am to 2 pm to their local law enforcement officers. This nationwide ini-tiative was conducted in an effort to reduce the potential risks caused by the accumu-lation of unused prescription medications.

Within a few weeks of the take-back event, Con-gress approved and President Obama signed into law The Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act (S. 3397), which

gives the Department of Justice the authority to create regulations to allow ultimate users to deliver controlled substance prescription drugs for disposal. As such, the act could allow community pharmacies that offer disposal programs to accept controlled substances in accordance with such regulations.

By removing these poten-tially dangerous controlled substances from the nation’s medicine cabinets, DEA is taking steps to eliminate a major source of abused

prescription drugs. NABP shares this focus and pro-vided its full support to DEA during the nationwide initiative. Others involved in the September 25 event included the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, The Partner-ship at Drugfree.org, The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Federation of State Medical Boards, and the National District Attorneys Association.

On October 5-6, 2010, members and invited guests convened for the Task Force to Review and Recommend Revisions to the Controlled Substances Act meeting held at NABP Headquarters. Due to the scope of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), four subgroups of the task force also discussed issues via conference calls in October and November. These subgroups consisted of experts who focused on reviewing the CSA from perspectives of specific pharmacy practice environments: community pharmacy, hospital pharmacy, long-term care pharmacy, and other pharmacy environments. Pictured above back row from left to right: Ross Brickley, RPh, MBA, CGP, American Society of Consultant Pharmacists; Charles Thomas, RPh, FAPhA, Alabama Department of Public Health; Lloyd K. Jessen, RPh, JD, Executive Committee liaison; Rebecca Snead, RPh, National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations; Daniel Bellingham, Healthcare Distribution Management Association; Kevin Nicholson, RPh, JD, National Association of Chain Drug Stores; and Suzan Kedron, JD, Texas State Board of Pharmacy. Middle row left to right: Mark Caverly, Drug Enforcement Administration; Lawrence Mokhiber, MS, RPh, New York State Board of Pharmacy; Susan Janeczko, PharmD, National Community Pharmacists Association; Karen Ryle, MS, RPh, Massachusetts Board of Registration in Pharmacy; Kristi Dover, PharmD, Purdue Pharma L.P.; and Suzanne Neuber, RPh, Omnicare, Inc. Front row left to right: Brenda Warren, DPH, Tennessee Board of Pharmacy; Jeanne Waggener, RPh, Texas State Board of Pharmacy; Task Force Chairperson Jay Campbell, RPh, JD, North Carolina Board of Pharmacy; Kelly Alfred, MS, Federation of State Medical Boards; and Danna Droz, RPh, JD, Ohio State Board of Pharmacy. Not pictured: Ilisa Bernstein, PharmD, JD, Food and Drug Administration; Kay Hanson, RPh, Minnesota Board of Pharmacy; and Virginia Herold, MS, California State Board of Pharmacy.

Task Force Reviews CSA, Identifies Areas Needing Revisions

november-december 2010

199

Feature News

IPEC Plan Maps Out Strategy to Combat Counterfeit MedicationsEfforts to counteract the

proliferation of counterfeit pre-scription medications received a boost with the federal govern-ment’s 2010 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, released last June by the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordi-nator (IPEC). The plan includes strategies focused on fighting counterfeit pharmaceuticals and securing the United States drug supply chain, as part of a multi-faceted approach to ad-dress threats to US intellectual property in general.

The number of counterfeit drugs entering the US supply chain continues to grow, with fake pharmaceutical products accounting for 6% of seized counterfeits in 2007, and 10% in 2008. In 2007, more than 600 types of fake drugs were sold globally, including counter-feits of branded, generic, and over-the-counter medications, according to the Partner-ship for Safe Medicines. With comparatively low penalties in much of the world and high potential profits, counterfeiting pharmaceuticals has attracted criminal gangs capable of pro-ducing sophisticated, realistic-looking drugs and packaging, distributed through complex, difficult-to-trace supply routes. Such drugs may contain harm-ful substances, diluted amounts of the expected active ingredi-ent, or no active ingredients. For example, counterfeit drugs containing heavy metals caused heart arrhythmia and sub-sequent death in a Canadian woman in 2006, and fake anti-malarials containing low doses of the active ingredient con-tinue to create drug-resistant

forms of the disease in Africa. Recently, a Canadian man was sentenced to prison by a US dis-trict court on charges of selling counterfeits of an experimental cancer drug, with most of the product he delivered containing starch and sugar.

The IPEC plan targets counterfeit drugs entering the US supply system as well as those counterfeits finding their way directly to consumers via the Internet.

As one of its 33 “enforce-ment strategy action items,” the plan announced that IPEC will establish a counterfeit pharma-ceutical interagency committee to “examine the myriad of prob-lems associated with unlicensed Internet pharmacies, health and safety risks in the US associated with the distribution of coun-terfeits and the proliferation of the distribution of counterfeit pharmaceuticals in Africa.” The committee, composed of experts from numerous federal agencies, will release a report recom-mending specific government actions.

The IPEC plan also proposes several actions that would require alteration in current laws or regulations and are intended to secure the US drug supply chain. For example, the plan calls for amending federal statutes so that manufacturers and im-porters are required to notify Food and Drug Administra-tion (FDA) “in the event of a known counterfeit of any pharmaceutical and other medical product,” includ-ing specifying any known potential adverse health con-sequences of the counterfeit. Manufacturers would also

be required to provide “a list and complete description of any legitimate drug prod-ucts that are currently being distributed in the stream of US commerce” biannually. Moreover, the plan recom-mends amending the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require implementation of a track-and-trace system that would allow product authen-tication and create an elec-tronic pedigree. As noted in the plan, in March 2010, FDA issued standards for unique identification for prescription drugs, a step that will assist in implementing track-and-trace system requirements. E-pedigree laws have been passed in a majority of states, with California law mandat-ing e-pedigree requirements for manufacturers, wholesal-ers, and pharmacies start-ing in January 1, 2011, with a gradual implementation through 2015. By amending the federal law to require e-pedigree, the IPEC plan could assist efforts to fight counter-feits across the nation.

The IPEC office also stressed the role of various collaborative efforts in its strategic plan. For example, IPEC will work with relevant federal agencies “to estab-lish increased enforcement cooperation, coordination and information sharing” and “make certain that they have the enforcement authority that they will need to address the problems associated with counterfeit pharmaceuticals and medical devices.” IPEC will also continue working with private sector entities – including search engine

operators, advertising brokers, and payment processors – to establish voluntary protocols denying paid advertising to those illegally selling phar-maceuticals online. In fact, on September 29, 2010, IPEC hosted a meeting at the White House with domain name registrars (DNRs) and senior US government officials to discuss voluntary efforts to confront the illegal sale of non-controlled prescription drugs – many of them counterfeit – online. DNRs register Web site domain names for a fee, and have the authority and ability to suspend a domain name if a registered Web site is engaged in criminal activity.

The IPEC plan’s strategies draw particular attention to those entities facilitating the connection between illegal sellers and potential custom-ers, including Internet service providers, search engines, DNRs, and payment service providers. The IPEC plan emphasizes private sector cooperation, including such private-sector voluntary ef-forts as the Google, Yahoo!, and Bing search engines’ policy change to restrict US

(continued on page 206)

©iS

tock

phot

o.co

m/S

chu

lteP

rodu

ctio

ns

nabp newsletter

200

Interactive Member Forum

Maximum Participation Encouraged at the NABP Interactive Member ForumGary A. Schnabel, RN, RPh, chairperson, NABP Executive Committee (left), and Malcolm J. Broussard, RPh, NABP president-e l ec t ( r i g h t ) , encou r aged maximum par ticipation from at tendees at the f irst NABP Interact ive Member Forum, held September 22-23, 2010, in Northbrook, IL.

Expert Panel Sparks Discussion on ‘Navigating the Controlled Substances Act’As part of an expert panel, William T. Winsley, MS, RPh, NABP president (left); Edith “Edie” G. Goodmaster, member, Connecticut Commission of Pharmacy (second from left); and Lloyd K. Jessen, RPh, JD, NABP Executive Committee member (right), delivered presentations that generated discussion on the topic, “Navigating the Controlled Substances Act.” Michael A. Burleson, RPh, NABP treasurer (second from right), moderated the session.

Presenters Share Their Expertise During First-Ever NABP Interactive Member Forum

On Thursday, September 23, 2010, speakers provided their expertise on current issues facing the boards of pharmacy dur-ing the first-ever NABP Interactive Member Forum, Prescription for Shared Future: The 3-Year Partnering Plan to Protect Public Health through AWARxEness. Encouraging participation from the members, the speakers focused on important top-ics specifically requested by the attendees. More details on the Forum are available in the cover story of this Newsletter.

november-december 2010

201

Interactive Member Forum

Presenters Introduce ‘Shared State Topics’ for DiscussionCathryn J. Lew, RPh, Executive Commit tee member ( lef t), called for attendee discussion dur ing the “Shared State Topics” session, and John A. Foust, PharmD, DPh, executive director, Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy (right), initiated the session with a presentation on the Oklahoma Board’s efforts to fight prescription drug abuse.

Forum Brings Opportunity for New Executive Officers Orientation ProgramFrank Gammill, RPh, executive director, Mississippi Board of Pharmacy ( lef t ) , and Patr ic ia “Trish” D’Antonio, MS, MBA, RPh, CGP, executive director, District of Columbia Board of Pharmacy (center), attended a New Executive Officer Orientation Program led by Malcolm J. Broussard, RPh, NABP president-elect (right).

‘Board of Pharmacy Challenges – Dwindling State Resources, Decision-Making Process, Integrity’ Session Includes Informative Panels and Lively Discussion Among the AudiencePanelists offered attendees new perspectives and information about NABP programs and services during the session “Board of Pharmacy Challenges – Dwindling State Resources, Decision-Making Process, Integrity.” Pictured from left to right: William T. Winsley, MS, RPh, NABP president; Sudhir C. Manek, RPh, member, Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Financial Regulation, State Board of Pharmacy; Joshua M. Bolin, BA, government affairs director, NABP; Matthew Popovich, PhD, pharmacy quality and safety accreditation manager, NABP; Leigh Briscoe-Dwyer, PharmD, BCPS, FASHP, member, New York State Board of Pharmacy; Philip P. Burgess, RPh, MBA, member, Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Financial Regulation, State Board of Pharmacy; Nancy Tay, accreditation director, NABP; Elizabeth Scott “Scotti” Russell, RPh, government affairs manager, NABP; and James T. DeVita, RPh, NABP Executive Committee member.

nabp newsletter

202

Association News

Deadline to Submit Proposed Amendments to NABP Constitution and Bylaws Announced

Proposed amendments to the NABP Constitution and Bylaws must be submitted between Monday, February 21, 2011 and Thursday, April 7, 2011, to be considered dur-ing the 107th Annual Meeting, to be held May 21-24, 2011, at the San Antonio Marriott Rivercenter in San Antonio, TX. Amendments must be

submitted in writing to NABP Ex-ecutive Director/Secretary Carmen A. Catizone at NABP Headquarters, 1600 Feehanville Dr, Mount Pros-pect, IL 60056 or via e-mail at exec-office@nabp.net. Submission dates are established by the NABP Constitution and Bylaws, which specifies that proposed amendments

may be accepted no earlier than 90 days and no later than 45 days be-fore the first business session of the Annual Meeting.

For more information on the proposed amendments to the NABP Constitution and Bylaws, please contact the NABP Executive Office at exec-office@nabp.net.

Survey of Pharmacy Law 60th Edition Coming Soon!Celebrating its 60th

edition in 2011, the Survey of Pharmacy Law is a con-venient reference source for individuals seeking an overview of the state laws and regulations that gov-ern pharmacy practice. The 2011 Survey of Phar-macy Law will be available in mid-December.

The Survey, produced in a CD format, consists of four sections including a state-by-state overview of organizational law,

Sponsorship and Educational Grant Opportunities for NABP 107th Annual Meeting Now Available

Organizations have an oppor-tunity to gain exposure through numerous sponsorship and educa-tional grant opportunities available at the NABP 107th Annual Meeting to be held May 21-24, 2011, at the San Anto-nio Marriott Rivercenter in San Anto-nio, TX. Contributing organizations help NABP provide quality programs designed to assist board of pharmacy members, executive officers, and

compliance staff to meet their respon-sibilities for safeguarding the public health while creating visibility for the sponsoring organization.

Contributing organizations will be recognized by session or event, and will also be identified in meeting program materials, the NABP News-letter, on meeting signage, and on the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net. In addition, sponsoring organizations

contributing $5,000 or more to the meeting are entitled to two compli-mentary meeting registrations valued at $575 each. Contributions of $1,000 to $4,999 entitle the donors to one complimentary meeting registration.

For more details on sponsorship and grant opportunities, organiza-tions may contact NABP via e-mail at custserv@nabp.net or via phone at 847/391-4406.

licensing law, drug law, and census data. Newly added this year, a ques-tion in Section 18, Drug Control Regulations, asks whether or not states have controlled substance(s) or drugs of concern scheduled differently than the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Updates for the 2011 Survey were graciously provided by the state boards of pharmacy. In addition to the boards’ support, NABP requested

data from relevant health care associations for the Survey’s prescribing authority and dispensing authority laws in Sections 24 and 25, and laws per-taining to the possession of non-controlled legend drugs and possession of controlled substances in Sections 26 and 27.

The Survey can be purchased online for $195 by visiting the Publications section of the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net/

publications. Online or-dering will be available as soon as the Survey is pub-lished in mid-December.

All final-year phar-macy students receive the Survey free of charge through the generous grant of Purdue Pharma L.P.

For more informa-tion on the Survey, please contact Customer Service via phone at 847/391-4406 or via e-mail at custserv@nabp.net.

november-december 2010

203

Feature News

Domain Name Registrar Agrees to Crack Down on Web Sites Selling Prescription Medications Unlawfully

Potentially thousands of rogue Internet drug outlets will have to board up their virtual storefronts, thanks to a new partnership agree-ment enforcing a major do-main name registrar’s ban on illegal use of the Web sites it hosts. On Septem-ber 21, 2010, the domain name registrar eNom Inc, and the Internet pharmacy verification and monitor-ing service LegitScript LLC announced that LegitScript will assist eNom in iden-tifying customers (ie, Web site operators whose domain names, or URLs, are registered with eNom) who are violating eNom’s terms of service by operat-ing online pharmacies in violation of United States

federal or state law, par-ticularly focusing on those selling prescription drugs without requiring a valid prescription.

Under the agreement, and in consultation with law enforcement authori-ties, LegitScript notifies eNom of domain names that knowingly facilitate the unlawful sale of pre-scription medications, the partners state in a Septem-ber 21 news release. This information enables eNom to better enforce its policy of taking action against Web site holders engaged in illegal activity.

The announcement follows NABP’s recent petitioning of the Internet Corporation for Assigned

Names and Numbers (ICANN) and 20 US-based domain name registrars, including eNom, to enforce policies prohibiting the use of Web sites for unlaw-ful purposes – namely, the illicit sale of prescription medications. NABP sent letters on August 31, urging these entities to take addi-tional steps to protect users from rogue Internet drug outlets that endanger the public health.

ICANN is the global entity that coordinates the Internet’s naming system, which refers to the unique domain names (ie, URLs, or Web site addresses) that provide access to all registered Web sites on the Internet. ICANN is

the accrediting body for hundreds of domain name registrars worldwide, ie, the merchants that sell and manage the domain names used by Web site operators.

The letters note that ICANN-accredited do-main name registrars are required to adhere to the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, which includes provisions prohibiting registrants from using domain names for unlawful activity. The letters also note that LegitScript standards are recognized by NABP for the purpose of identifying and classifying Internet phar-macy Web sites as operating legitimately or engaging in unlawful behavior.

AWARXE in ActionIn addition to reach-

ing out to the United States-based domain name registrars in order to fight rogue Internet drug outlets, NABP has taken action through its consumer protection program, AWARxE, to educate the public on the dangers of purchas-ing medications on the Internet. After being in-troduced to the AWARxE campaign earlier this year by the Minnesota Pharmacists Founda-tion, NABP obtained the

program so that its mes-sage could be shared on a national level. Participating in several events through-out the year, and publicly announcing the purchase of AWARxE in September, NABP has been taking ac-tion to spread the AWARxE message.

Most recently, NABP staff presented to the Senior Citizens Services Coordinat-ing Council in Northlake, IL, during the council’s monthly meeting. Staff introduced the AWARxE program and spoke about

purchasing pre-scription medica-tions online. In addition, they explained steps consumers can take to make online purchasing a safer experience as well as highlighted the alarming data about the prevalence of rogue Internet drug outlets that NABP has found in its research. Reaching out through other measures, the Association has also provided AWARxE informa-tional material to attendees of NABP/American Associa-

tion of Colleges of Pharmacy district meetings.

More information on the AWARxE pro-gram is available at www.AWARErx.org.The news release announc-ing NABP’s acquisition of AWARxE can be found in the Newsroom section of the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net/news.

GreyGrey: Black Process 70% Black: Process 100K

nabp newsletter

204

Feature News

e-Prescribing Rule(continued from page 195)

controlled substance pre-scriptions despite the legal restriction against doing so, and that “policing this issue unfairly falls on the phar-macist.”

State RegulationsAs software systems are

updated to meet DEA require-ments, laws and regulations in certain states will need changes in order for electronic prescribing of all controlled substances to be legal.

The Wyoming State Board of Pharmacy issued an advisory to this effect in its September 2010 Newsletter to pharmacists. “Under Wyo-ming state law [electronic] prescribing is still prohibited for scheduled medications,” it states. Other states fall into a similar category, includ-ing New York, Indiana, and Delaware.

A number of these states may modify their laws and regulations now that the DEA rule has taken effect. The Wyoming Board, for example,

announced in its Newsletter, plans to introduce legislation containing rule changes that would allow for e-prescribing scheduled drugs. The Board, in conjunction with a task force, hoped to have the changes ready to present to the state legislature at its session in February 2011.

Idaho’s current rules and regulations likewise require modification before DEA-compliant e-prescribing systems may be used in that state. “[T]he Idaho State Board of Pharmacy has iden-tified three sections of Idaho code and nine administrative rules that require updating in order for the electronic prescribing of controlled substances to be allowed within Idaho,” the Board told registrants in its September 2010 Newsletter. “This can only be accomplished with the approval of the 2011 Idaho Legislature.”

In certain states, the law does not allow Schedule II e-prescriptions and these laws may remain in place for some time. The Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy

reminded its registrants of this provision in the Board’s July 2010 Newsletter, emphasiz-ing that, even when software has been certified as compli-ant, “Currently, Oklahoma does not allow e-prescribing for Schedule II substances.” Nevada has taken a similar track. “The Board of Phar-macy has the regulations in place for the e-prescribing of controlled substances, with the exception of Schedule II controlled substances,” the Board advised pharmacists in its October Newsletter. “The Board has elected not to allow Schedule II e-prescriptions at this time, opting to see how things play out with Sched-ule III through Schedule V e-prescriptions before taking that step.”

Implementation to Impact e-Rx Trends

The new DEA rule re-moves a barrier to e-prescrib-ing adoption, as prescribers and pharmacists, in theory, would no longer need to maintain a dual workflow to accommodate electronic prescriptions for non-con-trolled substances and paper prescriptions for listed drugs. Surescripts, which operates an e-prescription network and issues regular reports tracking the status of e-pre-scribing adoption, in a press release issued March 29, 2010, characterized the “change in the current DEA rules as a top recommendation to support continued growth in e-prescribing.” And continued growth is certainly happen-ing. At the annual Safe-Rx Awards event on Capitol Hill this last September, Sure-scripts announced that more

than 200,000 office-based prescribers were using e-prescribing, up from 156,000 at the end of 2009 (and from 74,000 at the end of 2008).

Further, as implementa-tion efforts continue, various stakeholders may seek further clarification on certain elements of the DEA rule, possibly helping to imple-ment controlled substance e-prescribing across different health care environments. For example, a response sent in by the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP), a non-profit, data standards development organization, drew attention to and requested clarification on issues affecting long-term care and post-acute care set-tings, and also on such issues as the digital signature option and references to the NCPDP SCRIPT standard.

While the legality of e-pre-scribing controlled substances will vary from state-to-state for some time to come, e-prescribing as a whole will likely continue to take a firmer hold throughout the country – with the new DEA regulations removing a major barrier to its further adoption. As hurdles are overcome – from logistical challenges at the practitioner level, to the standardization and patient safety deficiencies in software noted by the NABP Task Force on Electronic Prescrib-ing Software Standards and Data Storage, to the updating of state laws – e-prescribing will have a chance to achieve its potential as a universal, efficient, and safer method of helping patients access their medications. NABP will continue to provide updates as the process continues.

Member Forum(continued from page 194)

(PMP) interface designed to facilitate interoperability among state PMP programs.

In his closing summary, Malcolm J. Broussard, RPh, NABP president-elect, thanked attendees for their participa-tion and stressed that the additional new topics they sug-gested were noted and will be addressed at future meetings.

In fall 2011, the NABP Interactive Executive Officer Forum will be held. This meeting will enable the executive officers of boards of pharmacy to come together to discuss regulatory trends and the challenges they face. NABP will again cover all expenses in order to facilitate participa-tion by as many boards as possible and allow for increased opportunity for networking as executive officers use the forum to share ideas and develop potential solutions to meet common challenges.

november-december 2010

205

Feature News

State Boards of Pharmacy Take Action to Stop Licensees Involved in Unlawful Internet Drug Outlet Schemes

Pharmacists across the nation continue to receive too-good-to-be-true offers from rogue Internet drug outlets attempting to entice them to fill questionable prescriptions in return for large monetary reimburse-ments. While most phar-macists reject such offers, and some forward informa-tion about suspicious offers to their boards, others opt to fill such prescriptions, at times entering into agree-ments with these ille-gally operating online drug outlets. Depending upon the authority of the state board of pharmacy, and the circumstances of the case, board actions to stop these activities have taken vari-ous forms.

Boards Discipline Licensees for Role in Schemes

Several state boards of pharmacy have taken ac-tion by disciplining board licensees, both pharmacists and pharmacies, discov-ered to have filled invalid prescriptions on behalf of rogue Internet drug out-lets. As early as 2002, the California State Board of Pharmacy issued citations against a pharmacy and pharmacists that allegedly dispensed prescriptions on behalf of Internet drug outlets in violation of state law. Specifically, a Los Angeles pharmacy and two pharmacists were issued a citation which claimed

that they filled more than 3,500 prescriptions that were written without a “good faith prior medical examination” as required by California law. In recent years, the California State Board of Pharmacy has been aggressively pursu-ing California-licensed pharmacies, as well as pharmacies licensed in other states, that are dis-pensing prescription drugs to Californians without a valid prescription on behalf of rogue Internet drug outlets. And, as Vir-ginia “Giny” Herold, MS, executive officer, California State Board of Pharmacy explains, California law requires that the prescrib-ing physician be licensed in California and that an appropriate medical exam be conducted prior to writing a prescription for a California patient. Since 2009, the California Board has assessed $600 million in fines against pharmacies and pharmacists who, in association with Internet drug outlet operations, have dispensed medica-tions based on invalid pre-scriptions that did not meet the requirements stipulated by California law.

Herold notes that of-fers to dispense for such illegal Internet operations are generally conspicu-ously illegal. For example, when multiple patients are receiving prescriptions for the same Schedule III drugs from a single pre-

scriber, or when overnight envelopes from another state arrive containing a stack of “prescriptions” for patients in California and elsewhere, licensees should suspect that the situation may well be in violation of pharmacy law. While phar-macists recognize the signs, unfortunately some opt to take the risk of participat-ing in these illegal Internet outlet operations.

The California Board has become aware of such cases in various ways including receiv-ing complaints, receiving information from other state boards of pharmacy, or by being informed of unusually high quantities of certain medications pur-chased from wholesalers by a single buyer.

The Minnesota Board of Pharmacy has also disciplined licensees for involvement with Internet drug outlets that offered to arrange for the sale of legend drugs. In mid-2008, pharmacists at two Min-nesota pharmacies ac-cepted “prescriptions” sent electronically, and written by a physician and a physi-cian assistant based on reviews of online question-naires. The pharmacists then shipped legend drugs to customers located across the country, and one phar-macy shipped controlled substances. As noted in the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy Newsletter, the Minnesota Board “has the (continued on page 206)

authority to pursue action against pharmacists and pharmacies involved in the processing of prescriptions that they know originate from illegitimate Web sites.” In this case, the Board placed most of the pharmacists involved on probation and issued fines. One of the pharmacists voluntarily surrendered his license, and one of the pharmacies had its license placed on probation and received a civil penalty.

Boards of pharmacy in two states have taken a dif-ferent route to shut down pharmacies involved in such arrangements.

The Iowa Board of Pharmacy took emergency disciplinary action against the Union Family Phar-macy in Dubuque, IA, and two pharmacists. The case initiated federal investiga-tions and a six-year crimi-nal prosecution. Federal authorities found evidence that the pharmacy had dispensed more than one

©iS

tock

phot

o.co

m/M

ario

13

nabp newsletter

206

Feature News

Drug Outlet Schemes(continued from page 205)

million prescription pain, diet, and psychiatric med-ications over a six-month period for two Florida-based Internet companies. The invalid prescriptions were filled although no medical examinations were conducted and the physicians involved had no contact with the patients. Ultimately, 26 people, including 19 doc-tors, were convicted in a United States District Court.

In a similar action, the Kansas State Board of Pharmacy issued an emer-gency order on March 12, 2008, which closed Hogan’s Pharmacy and declared it an imminent danger to the public. The Kansas Board’s order al-leged that Hogan’s did not obtain valid prescriptions before dispensing pre-scription drugs to Internet customers and that 95% of Hogan’s business was Internet based.

The Ohio State Board of Pharmacy has also

taken action against in-volvement in Internet drug outlet operations by revok-ing the licenses of pharma-cies and pharmacists. For example, in April 2007, the Board revoked the licenses of Dublin-based Caringwell Pharmacy Inc and its owner for allegedly dispensing more than 667,000 drug tab-lets – mostly hydrocodone – without valid prescriptions from November 29, 2006 through March 29, 2007. Nearly all the prescrip-tions were generated from Web sites by out-of-state physicians.

State Boards Use Newsletters to Caution Pharmacists

Rogue Internet drug outlets have offered similar arrangements to pharmacies and pharma-cists across the country. Throughout 2007, state boards of pharmacy in Kentucky, Oklahoma, Alabama, North Carolina, and Delaware, used their newsletters to remind licensees of the illegality of Internet drug outlets that

offer prescriptions that are not based on face-to-face medical examinations by a prescribing physician, and to warn licensees about solicitations requesting that pharmacies act as “fulfillment centers” for these invalid prescriptions.

In 2009, boards of phar-macy in Nevada, Alabama, and Vermont updated their registrants with informa-tion about the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Con-sumer Protection Act. The North Carolina Board of Pharmacy also reminded pharmacists that pre-scriptions filled through Internet pharmacies for patients in North Carolina are governed by the stricter laws in their state. For ex-ample, Internet pharmacies dispensing to residents in North Carolina must have VIPPS® (Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice SitesCM) accreditation.

State Data Influences Federal Action

The details of cases in Ohio, including two that were investigated in the Ohio State Board of Phar-macy’s capacity as a law enforcement agency, were presented by William T. Winsley, MS, RPh, execu-tive director of the Ohio Board, in written testi-mony to a congressional subcommittee, which was considered at the Hearing on Online Pharmacies and the Problem of Internet Drug Abuse on June 24, 2008. In the testimony, Winsley noted that state laws and rules related to

Internet pharmacies vary widely and explained that a federal law would allow federal agencies to take ac-tions even in states that do not have related laws, or in which the law is not strong enough.

The hearing impacted the passage of the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, which became effective April 13, 2009. On May 12, 2010, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a news release an-nouncing that the first charges in violation of the Ryan Haight Act were filed against two individu-als, Carleta Carolina and Wayne White. Allegedly, from at least April 2005 to December 7, 2009, the defendants illegally distributed controlled and non-controlled prescrip-tion drugs to individuals without valid prescriptions as part of a large-scale rogue Internet drug outlet operation.

“The Ryan Haight Act has placed pressure on Internet drug outlets especially for controlled substances distribution,” explains Virginia Herold, “But there are still some who are bold enough to continue these illegal op-erations, and to continue soliciting board licensees for their participation.” The vigilance of the state boards of pharmacy, as well as their partnerships with DEA, remain para-mount in the fight against Internet drug outlets that involve licensees of the states.

pharmacy search “spon-sored results,” ie, paid advertisements that appear in response to users’ search criteria, to those accred-ited under NABP’s VIPPS® (Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice SitesCM) program. (Shortly after this policy was implemented NABP also developed the complemen-tary NABP e-Advertiser

ApprovalCM Program to target Internet advertis-ers that offer limited pharmacy services or other limited pre-scription drug-related services online.)

The IPEC Joint Strategic Plan can be accessed in its entirety at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/intellectualproperty/intellectualproperty_strategic_plan.pdf.

IPEC Plan(continued from page 199)

november-december 2010

207

Association News

FPGEE Item Writers Utilize Workshop to Review Exam Questions

Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination® (FPGEE®) item writers convene to research and review examination questions during an item writing workshop. Pictured left to right: Janene Madras, PharmD, associate professor of pharmacy practice and director of admissions and student services, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine School of Pharmacy; Suzanna Gim, assistant professor of pharmacy practice, Long Island University Arnold and Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences; Shridhar V. Andurkar, PhD, associate professor, Midwestern University Chicago College of Pharmacy; and Srikanth Kolluru, assistant professor, PhD, Texas A&M Health Science Center Irma Lerma Rangel College of Pharmacy.

NABP Developing System to Link Prescription Monitoring Programs Across States and Facilitate Data Exchange

To address the need for interoper-ability among prescription monitor-ing programs (PMPs) identified by the 2009 Task Force on PMP Standards, NABP is developing an intercon-nected communications hub for state PMPs that will facilitate the sharing and exchanging of data among PMP systems. The “interconnect hub,” which will be operational in sum-mer 2011, will be made accessible to the states at little or no cost in order to help further the protection of the public health.

Once the system is in place, authorized clients will log in to their PMP as usual and make requests for information from other participating PMPs through the interconnect hub 24 hours a day. The interconnect hub will facilitate the completion of the data request so that clients can quickly

obtain the data they need to identify possible prescription drug abuse and diversion. The interconnect hub will also enforce each program’s access rules to ensure only authorized and appropriate access to information.

Used only to facilitate the com-munications process, the intercon-nect hub will retain no prescription data and all PMP data will remain resident with the PMP. In addition, the interconnect hub will be housed in highly secure facilities, to maintain the confidentiality of this sensitive information.

The development of this intercon-nect hub is supported by the recom-mendations of the 2009 Task Force on PMP Standards, which included that NABP work with the state boards of pharmacy, PMPs, pharmacists, pre-scribers, and other interested stake-

holders to ensure that PMPs serve two critical purposes: 1. assist pharmacists and prescribers

in assessing patient information and providing appropriate patient care; and

2. assist law enforcement efforts in identifying and acting in instances of drug abuse and diversion. NABP is following the direc-

tion of that task force and is excited to collaborate with all agencies and organizations that have successfully developed and implemented, or are in the process of implementing, a state PMP. The interconnect hub under development by NABP will continue these efforts and assist the states in addressing the interoperability and data sharing challenges now faced as PMPs become operational across the country.

nabp newsletter

208

Feature News

FDA Unveils Plan to Advance New Treatment DevelopmentIn addition to its

primary role to protect the public health, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will play an in-creasing role in promoting public health by advanc-ing new treatments and innovative products.

This emerging role is outlined by FDA in the recently published docu-ment, Advancing Regula-tory Science for Public Health, in which FDA presents a vision for its new Regulatory Science Initiative. FDA defines regulatory science as “the science of developing new tools, standards and approaches to assess the safety, efficacy, quality and performance of FDA-regulated products.” And, according to the docu-ment, FDA will expand its participation in scientific research that develops new treatments and interven-tions and will modernize the evaluation and ap-proval process for new products.

One priority for FDA’s Regulatory Science Ini-tiative is accelerating the delivery of new medical treatments to patients. For example, FDA scientists have recently worked with other scientists to advance stem cell research for use in treatments, and to test a developing treatment for breast cancer that targets tumors using genetic or biological markers in order to individualize treat-ments. Future plans for regulatory science include

supporting the develop-ment of safer pain medica-tions and the development of vaccines, drugs, and di-agnostics for tuberculosis.

In recent years, FDA has worked to advance public health through allowing specific patient populations to participate in trials for Investigational New Drugs (INDs). In a July 22, 2010 Webinar, “FDA, Medical Product Regulation, and Advocate Involvement,” David Banks, RPh, PhD, of the FDA Office of Special Health Issues discussed FDA’s role in advanc-ing public health and in particular, the agency’s mission, constraints, and goals with regard to the development of INDs to treat rare diseases. Banks explained that FDA has provisions in place to make promising drugs that have not been studied in clinical trials available to patients with serious or life-threat-ening diseases. Since such treatments are potentially dangerous, they may only be used if they are the patient’s best option and if patients are advised of associated risks.

Further, while the use of INDs is typically restricted to clinical trials, there are FDA guidelines for providing certain patient populations with expanded access to new drugs that are not yet approved for marketing. In “compassionate use” cases, certain patients may receive treatment INDs or single-patient INDs.

In addition, FDA might grant permission for the manufacturer to make the drug available to certain patients during the clinical trial. Banks did stress that

the manufacturer decides whether or not to make the drug available to anyone prior to its final release.

Banks also described a “fast track” accelerated approval process, in which FDA provides intensive technical assistance to help manufacturers design the best possible study for a developing drug. In all of these endeavors, noted Banks, FDA constantly seeks a balance between protecting and advancing public health.

The Advancing Regu-latory Science initiative aims to bring new drug products and other devel-oping medical products to market more efficiently, while ensuring their safe-ty. In a speech delivered October 6, 2010, at the National Press Club, Mar-garet A. Hamburg, MD, commissioner of food and drugs, FDA, introduced the initiative by emphasiz-ing the need for develop-ing new drug treatments and stressing that FDA

must play a more integral role in advancing new treatments and modern-izing the approval process. Hamburg stated, “A bench scientist may develop a new approach to a disease, a clinician may be able to show that it can work, but regulatory scientists must help develop the knowl-edge and tools to translate discovery and innovation into those products that hold so much promise.” Hamburg noted that regulatory science is “the discipline at the very heart of our mission at FDA,” and that it is “an issue that more and more people are recognizing as critical to progress for patients.” She stressed that the goal of the Advancing Regulatory Sci-ence initiative is to “trans-late breakthrough discov-eries and innovation into benefits for people,” and that the initiative promises to enable better diagnoses, better treatments, and new opportunities to prevent or cure disease.

The pamphlet, Advanc-ing Regulatory Science for Public Health, may be downloaded from the FDA Web site at www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/Regulatory Science/UCM228444.pdf.

Additional information about patient access to INDs is also available on the FDA Web site at www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/By Audience/ForPatient Advocates/Accessto InvestigationalDrugs/ default.htm.

In all of these endeavors, noted Banks, FDA constantly seeks a balance between protecting and advancing public health.

november-december 2010

209

Association News

NABP Clearinghouse Experiences Increase in Reporting Volume Boards Strive to Remain Compliant with HRSA Reporting Requirements

With an increase of nearly 99%, disciplinary actions reported by the boards of pharmacy to the NABP Clearinghouse between January 1 and Au-gust 31, jumped from 1,667 in 2009 to 3,316 in 2010. Of the actions reported this year, 2,071 were taken against pharmacists and 1,245 were taken against pharmacy technicians.

Showing an even more dramatic increase than the Clearinghouse, the United States Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administra-tion (HRSA) Division of Practitioner Data Banks (DPDB) published in its October 2010 issue of the NPDB-HIPDB Data Bank News that more than 72,000 reports were submitted to the Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank (HIPDB) and National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) between February 1 and June 21, 2010. This represented nearly double the number of reports submitted during the entire year in 2009.

Since NABP acts as a reporting agent for many of the boards of phar-macy, often providing electronic records directly to HIPDB, these increases in reporting experienced by both organizations may likely be attributed to the new requirements set by DPDB. Earlier this year, DPDB began requir-

ing that all state health care practitioner licensing and certification authori-ties, state health care entity licensing and certification authorities, peer review organizations, and private accreditation organizations report adverse licensing ac-tions taken against licensed health care practitioners since January 1, 1992, to HIPDB and NPDB.

Ensuring ComplianceIn March 2010, DPDB

implemented a multiphase compliance plan to ensure that the information in the HIPDB and NPDB remains complete and accurate. As part of the initial phase of the compliance plan, DPDB focused on 13 state nursing boards, comparing the data obtained from the boards with the data available in HIPDB. These comparisons

professions that are certi-fied or authorized by the state or territory. Addition-ally, DPDB identified six professions most frequently queried by hospitals and conducted similar compari-sons of the data as it did for the nursing boards. The six professions included phar-macists, nursing-related professions, physician as-sistants, podiatrists, social workers, and psycholo-gists. As with the nursing boards, each state board within those six professions was then sent a request to reconcile data and provide a corrective action plan to submit the missing infor-mation as appropriate.

Beginning June 21, 2010, DPDB also began posting the compliance status of government agencies on its Web site at www.npdb-hipdb.hrsa.gov/news/temp/ reportingCompliance.jsp. Doing so after the agencies were audited, DPDB catego-rized each as Compliant, Non-Compliant, Working Toward Compliance, or Under Review. DPDB is committed to improving the completeness and accu-racy of the data banks and will continue to monitor reporting compliance, post-ing updated compliance statuses on its Web site.

Resource to the Boards

Working to gather the necessary information to further assist the boards of

NABP is prepared to assist the board in every way possible in order to ensure that it is compliant with reporting requirements.

resulted in lists of poten-tially missing reports, which were then sent to the nursing boards along with requests to reconcile the data. Next, DPDB honed in on the states and territo-ries that appeared to have never reported on licensed

pharmacy, NABP has been in contact with HRSA and recently attended the Data Banks Education Forum in Chicago, IL. Should a board of pharmacy receive an au-diting letter from the DPDB indicating that the board is missing information, NABP is prepared to assist the board in every way possible in order to ensure that it is compliant with reporting requirements.

The Association contin-ues to encourage all of the state boards to designate NABP as their reporting agent to HIPDB. By doing so, boards are able to free up valuable resources and staff time to focus on more important issues. To date, 29 boards of pharmacy have designated NABP as a re-porting agent, allowing the Association to electronically transmit records provided by the board directly to HIPDB. As stated in the NABP Constitution and Bylaws, the boards of phar-macy are required to report disciplinary actions and up-dates to the NABP Clearing-house as this information is essential to maintaining the lines of communication among the states, especially in instances where a phar-macist or technician holds licensure or registration in multiple states.

Additional information on designating NABP as a reporting agent is available on the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net/programs/member-services/hipdb.

nabp newsletter

210

Association News

2011 Administration of PCOA Approaches

The fourth annual Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment® (PCOA®) administration is scheduled to be held January 24 to February 4, 2011. Participating schools and colleges of pharmacy choose one date within this two-week time period to have the assessment admin-istered to their students.

As of press time, 18 schools have signed up to participate in the admin-istration. The PCOA is

Revisions to MPJE Competencies Effective January 25, 2011

Effective January 25, 2011, the Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination® (MPJE®) competency statements and blueprint will ref lect a shift in the application of pharmacy law within the practice of pharmacy. It was found, after thorough analysis of a validation survey conducted in 2009 and 2010, that the boards of pharmacy are placing more emphasis on the importance of pharmacy jurisprudence as it applies to the practice of phar-macy. More information as well as the updated competency statements and blueprint are available on the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net/programs/examination/mpje.

Around the Association

Survey Luncheon WinnerCongratulations to the New Hamp-shire Board of Pharmacy for winning the 2011 Survey of Pharmacy Law Lun-cheon Drawing. NABP awarded the Board $125 toward a Board member and staff luncheon for returning their updated Survey data by the July 23, 2010 deadline.

Executive Director ChangesLisa Durden, MA, has resumed her position as executive director of the Georgia State Board of Pharmacy. Pri-or to taking this position, Durden was the assistant director for the regulatory division at the Administrative Office of the Courts in Atlanta, GA. She re-ceived her bachelor of science degrees in criminal justice and legal assistance studies, and a master’s degree in public administration from the Georgia Col-lege and State University.

Nora Wilson, JD, began her position as bureau director of the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board on August 4, 2010. Prior to this position, Wilson

served as a law clerk for the Wisconsin Division of Enforcement, Department of Regulation and Licensing. She earned a bachelor of arts degree in political science from the University of Iowa and a doctor of jurisprudence degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School.

Board Member Appointments

• Todd Inafuku, RPh, has been appointed a member of the Hawaii State Board of Pharmacy. Inafuku’s appointment will expire on June 30, 2014.

• Karen Ryle, MS, RPh, has been appointed a member of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Pharmacy. Ryle’s appointment will expire on November 30, 2014.

• Mark Cousens, JD, has been appointed a public member of the Michigan Board of Pharmacy. Cousens’ appointment will expire on June 30, 2014.

• Janine Burkett, RPh, has been appoint-ed a member of the Missouri Board of Pharmacy. Burkett’s appointment will expire on April 18, 2015.

• Michael Moné, RPh, JD, has been ap-pointed a member of the Ohio State Board of Pharmacy. Moné’s appoint-ment will expire on June 30, 2014.

• Lori Woodson, RPh, PharmD, MBA, has been appointed a member of the Ohio State Board of Pharmacy. Woodson’s appointment will expire on June 30, 2014.

• Edward Cain has been appointed a public member of the Ohio State Board of Pharmacy. Cain’s appointment will expire on June 30, 2013.

• Robert Rhodes, RPh, has been appointed a member of the Virginia Board of Pharmacy. Rhodes’ appointment will expire on June 30, 2014.

• Jody Allen, PharmD, has been appointed a member of the Virginia Board of Pharmacy. Allen’s appointment will expire on June 30, 2014.

• Ellen Shinaberry, PharmD, has been appointed a member of the Virginia Board of Pharmacy. Shinaberry’s appointment will expire on June 30, 2014.

• Pratt Stelly has been appointed a public member of the Virginia Board of Pharmacy. Stelly’s appointment will expire on June 30, 2014.

a comprehensive assess-ment tool developed by NABP and key stakehold-ers in response to the need expressed by the United States schools and colleges of pharmacy for assistance with curriculum develop-ment and measurement of student performance and growth.

Additional information regarding the PCOA is avail-able on the NABP Web site at www.nabp .net/programs/assessment/pcoa.

november-december 2010

211

Association News

Seventeen Boards of Pharmacy Utilizing New NABP Secure Online NAPLEX/MPJE Score Retrieval Service for Candidates

As a new service to the state boards of phar-macy, NABP now has the capability to display candidate scores for the North American Pharma-cist Licensure Examina-tion® (NAPLEX®) and Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examina-tion® (MPJE®) on its Web site. By displaying these scores on a secure Web page, NABP hopes to assist the boards of pharmacy by reducing the number of candidate calls to the boards, thereby allowing the boards to devote their resources to other tasks.

In addition, candidates will have the convenience of checking their scores

online, typically within seven business days of completing their exami-nations at Pearson VUE testing centers. To retrieve their scores, candidates must enter their first and last name, date of birth, and last four digits of their Social Security number, and choose the state for which they are seeking a score report. Upon sub-mission of the required data, all available NAPLEX and MPJE scores for the specified state and can-didate will be displayed. Score information provid-ed through the new inter-face does not constitute an official score report, and candidates will still need

to obtain such information directly from their board of pharmacy, if necessary.

“NABP is pleased to be able to offer this addi-tional service to its mem-ber boards,” states NABP President William T. Winsley, MS, RPh. “Mak-ing scores available on our Web site for informational purposes should alleviate inquiries to the boards, freeing up valuable staff time for important regula-tory matters while protect-

ing the integrity of official score reports.”

At press time, 17 boards of pharmacy uti-lized this service. NABP can add additional state boards of pharmacy into the process at any time. State boards of pharmacy interested in implement-ing this new benefit may contact Robert Cowan, chief operating officer, via phone at 847/391-4406 or via e-mail at rcowan@nabp.net.

Legal Briefs(continued from page 197)

was contraindicated. Second, the burden on the pharmacist was minimal in that a phone call to the physician could have been made or, alternatively, the contraindication could have been brought to the attention of the patient. Third, there was no real consequence to the phar-macy as it already had a practice of notifying patients of drug aller-gies. Under the facts, the Happel court found an obligation on the part of

the pharmacy to warn the patient and/or physician.

However, the appellate court in the instant case found Happel distinguish-able. The court found that the pharmacy did notify the physician by telephone of the interaction between lithium and Tenoretic prior to filling the script. The appellate court in the cur-rent matter found that the notification of the physi-cian (whereby the physician was alleged to have agreed to monitor the patient) discharged the pharmacist of any duty that may have existed under a Happel analysis. Accordingly, the

appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the pharmacy from the litigation.

Judicial opinions that fail to recognize the education, training, and patient expectations of the pharmacist in the chain of distribution and consumption of danger-ous drugs will continue to not only fail to recognize the vital role of pharma-cists, but threaten the very public designed to be protected in a state-based licensure system. This opinion whittles away at the duty of a pharmacist to meaningfully partici-pate in the health care of

patients. What is equally disturbing is that a judicial opinion of this magnitude is rendered without a citation to the professional responsibil-ities of pharmacists set forth in the practice acts and regulations, which universally requires counseling of patients. One assumes such coun-seling would encompass an explanation of po-tential drug interactions which allow the patient to make an informed medical decision.

Digiovanni v Albert-son’s, Inc, No. 1-09-1297 (App. Ct. IL 2010)

nabp newsletter

212

State Board News

Arkansas Task Force Reports on Diversion Prevention and Detection

The Arkansas State Board of Pharmacy appointed a Narcotics Task Force for Control and Detection com-mittee, which consists of pharmacists from various areas of practice, to highlight issues related to diversion. At the Board’s June 2010 meet-ing, the committee reported different approaches to both prevent and detect diversion, which included reporting medication ordered versus medication dispensed, con-ducting quarterly audits for selected products, performing annual inventories for con-trolled substances to verify on-hand quantities of each medication, and checking validity of changes made to inventory in dispensing sys-tems by reviewing routinely run reports. In addition to these detection measures, the committee also discussed potential regulation changes, such as adding responsibility to the pharmacy permit hold-ers for having policies and systems in place for prevent-ing and detecting diversion of controlled substances, as well as clarifying requirements for pharmacists to utilize these tools.

South Carolina Pharmacists Now Administer Flu Vaccines Without Prescription

Effective July 1, 2010, the South Carolina Code of Laws was amended to allow

pharmacists to administer influenza vaccines without a prescription. The South Car-olina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation – Board of Pharmacy empha-sizes that only a pharmacist can administer the influenza vaccine and the pharmacist must use the protocol which will be provided by the Board of Medical Examiners. Fur-ther, the law allows pharma-cists to administer influenza vaccines only to patients 18 years of age or older. Accord-ing to the Board, the primary purpose of the amended law is to promote, preserve, and protect the public health and safety and to prepare for the threat of pandemic influenza by expanding access to influ-enza vaccines.

The amended section of the code can be found in the Board’s August 2010 Newsletter, which can be downloaded from the NABP Web site at www .nabp.net/publications/assets/SC082010.pdf.

Oregon Board Addresses Identity and Credentials of Pharmacy Staff

The Oregon State Board of Pharmacy is addressing concerns from licensees and patients regarding the identity and credentials of the person with whom they are speaking in the phar-macy, both in person and by telephone. This concern has also been noted by Board of Pharmacy staff during inspections. The Board notes that while name tags can provide a clue when pharmacists and

technicians wear the same color lab coat, tags can flip over or be worn at a level that may not be visible, and in some instances, no name tag is worn.

The Board states that it is important that no confu-sion exists around the com-munication with pharmacy personnel, especially with regard to the person’s posi-tion or professional qualifi-cation. The Board reminds pharmacies that per Board rules, pharmacists, phar-macist interns, pharmacy technicians, and certified pharmacy technicians must be clearly identified as such to the public. When answering the telephone, technicians should identify themselves as technicians to avoid the risk of being ex-pected to answer questions, provide information, or perform duties that should only be answered, provided, or performed by a phar-macist. In the pharmacy, for the same reasons, all personnel should be easily identifiable to the public as to their license title.

Missouri Enacts Medical Devices, CS Legislation

The Missouri General Assembly enacted phar-macy-related legislation during the recent 2009-2010 legislative session. HB 2226 exempts out-of-state entities from drug distributor licensing for intra-company shipments of drug related medical devices to Missouri licensed distribution sites. SB 754 modifies supply limitations

for controlled substances dispensed to members of the United States Armed Forces serving overseas. The law also authorizes electronic prescription re-cords. These new provisions went into effect on August 28, 2010. The Missouri Board of Pharmacy is in the process of reviewing its rules to identify necessary changes/amendments. For additional information on Missouri’s 2010 pharmacy-related legislation or future rule changes, visit www .pr .mo.gov/pharmacists.asp.

Maryland Removes Sunset Date from DTM Program

Effective July 1, 2010, new Maryland legislation has removed any sunset date from the Drug Ther-apy Management Program and makes the act perma-nent, allowing pharmacists to enter into drug therapy management contracts in the state.

Maryland Board Reports Revisions to Pharmacy Regulations

Effective July 1, 2010, the Code of Maryland Reg-ulations were updated and include new regulations on pharmacy security, phar-macy equipment, removal of expired prescription drugs, reinstatement of expired licenses, reciproc-ity, and continuing educa-tion. To access the Code of Maryland Regulations visit www.dsd .state .md.us/comar/subtitle_chapters/10_Chapters .aspx#Subtitle34.

november-december 2010

213

Professional Affairs Update

FDA Committee Votes Not to Schedule DXM

On September 14, 2010, a Food and Drug Ad-ministration (FDA) Drug Safety and Risk Manage-ment Committee voted against recommending that dextromethorphan be scheduled as a controlled substance. The committee met in response to a Drug Enforcement Adminis-tration request that the Department of Health and Human Services provide a scientific and medical evaluation and schedul-ing recommendation for dextromethorphan. While the committee discussed scheduling the drug due to the increase in dextro-methorphan abuse, espe-cially among adolescents, committee members also considered how scheduling the drug could have a nega-tive impact on patients’ legitimate access to com-mon cough suppressants.

Iowa Tracks Group Using Fraudulent CS Prescriptions

The Iowa Department of Public Safety seeks assis-tance in tracking a group of individuals using fraudu-lent prescriptions to obtain controlled substances. Specifically, four uniden-tified individuals have obtained oxycodone using fraudulent prescriptions at a number of pharmacies in Iowa. Similar cases have occurred in Missouri, and it is believed that the same group of people is involved. The subjects are reported to

have used multiple aliases, to be in their 20s or 30s, and to have paid in cash. They have also been reported to use crutches when dropping off and picking up prescrip-tions. The fraudulent pre-scriptions were on legitimate prescription paper with valid prescriber names, but the addresses on them had been computer generated. Similar cases or relevant information can be reported to Criminal Intelligence Analyst Crystal Munson at the Mid-Iowa Narcotics Enforcement Task Force by calling 515/270-8233, exten-sion 119, or by e-mailing crystal.munson@ polkcountyiowa.gov.

Stolen Carbatrol, Adderall XR Surfacing in Supply Chain

Shire, along with FDA, alerts pharmacists and dis-tributors that certain lots of Carbatrol® that were stolen on October 17, 2008, have been found in the supply chain as expired returns. The stolen shipment also contained Adderall XR®. The manufacturer warns that more stolen product may still be on the market and that stolen Carbatrol and Adderall XR should not be used or sold because the safety and effectiveness of the product could have been compromised by improper storage and handling or tampering while outside of the legitimate supply chain. The following products and lot numbers are affected:

• Adderall XR 15 mg, Lot No: A38146A, Expiration Date: 02/29/2012

• Carbatrol 200 mg, Lot No: A40918A, Expiration Date: 04/30/2010

• Carbatrol 200 mg, Lot No: A40919A, Expiration Date: 04/30/2010

• Carbatrol 200 mg, Lot No: A41575A, Expiration Date: 05/31/2010 These lots of Carbatrol

and Adderall XR were stolen while in transit from Shire’s manufacturing facility in North Carolina to Shire Distribution Center in Kentucky. FDA seeks as-sistance and asks that any information regarding the stolen Carbatrol or Adderall XR, including suspicious or unsolicited offers for these products, be reported by contacting FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) at 800/551-3989, or by visiting the OCI Web site at www.accessdata.fda .gov/scripts/email/oc/oci/contact.cfm.

Massachusetts Pharmacist Pleads Guilty to Defrauding Medicaid and Medicare

Pharmacist Amadiegwu Onujiogu, owner of Cod-man Square Pharmacy in Dorchester, MA, pleaded guilty to defrauding the United States Government in a Medicaid billing scheme. Onujiogu obtained prescrip-tions from individuals – most who were suffering from chronic disease or psychiatric disorders – and billed Medicaid and/or Medicare in order to receive reimbursements for the prescriptions, but never dispensed the medications to the patients. Instead, Onujiogu paid the individu-

als a small percentage of the reimbursement for their prescriptions, and patients went without their legiti-mately prescribed medica-tions. Medicaid paid at least $292,000, and Medicare paid at least $60,000 to Codman Square Pharmacy for the fraudulently billed prescrip-tions. A September 13, 2010 US Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts press re-lease provides more informa-tion and is available at www.justice.gov/usao/ma/press.html.

FDA Online Videos Provide Timely Drug Information to Pharmacists

FDA Drug Info Rounds, a series of online training videos, provides important and timely drug informa-tion to practicing clinical and community pharmacists so they can help patients make better medication decisions. In the latest Drug Info Rounds videos, pharmacists discuss new safety information about a possible increased risk of fractures of the hip, wrist, and spine with the use of proton pump inhibitors, and FDA’s ongoing safety review of adverse event reports in children who may have been unintentionally exposed to EvamistTM through skin con-tact with women using the drug. Drug Info Rounds is developed with contributions from pharmacists in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evalu-ation and Research, Office of Communications, and Divi-sion of Drug Information and may be accessed on the FDA Web site.

nabp newsletter

214

nabp newsletter

214 *SI = Special Issue

Index Volume 39

106th Annual Meeting106th Annual Meeting Educational Poster

Session Offers Attendees Opportunity to Earn CPE Credit, Chance to Interact with Presenters (SI‚ pg 18)

106th Annual Meeting Program (No. 2‚ pg 40; No. 3‚ pg 66; No. 4‚ pg 89; No. 5‚ pg 111)

Anaheim Provides Family-Oriented En-tertainment and Modern Amenities for 106th Annual Meeting (No. 1‚ pg 15)

Board of Pharmacy Delegates Approve 10 Resolutions at NABP 106th Annual Meet-ing (SI‚ pg 4)

Board Staff Invited to Learn About NABP Programs‚ Services (No. 5‚ pg 110)

Deadline Extended to Reserve a Spot in Poster Session (No. 3‚ pg 64)

Educational Sessions Explore Current Issues Affecting Pharmacy Practice (SI‚ pg 16)

Experience Southern California! Find Ex-citing‚ New Networking Opportunities in Anaheim at the 106th Annual Meeting (No. 3‚ pg 65)

Federal Regulatory Agencies and Other Or-ganizations Provide Educational Table Displays to Highlight Important Issues and Programs (SI‚ pg 14)

Health Care Economist Joe Flower to Pro-vide Expertise on the Future of Health Care During Annual Meeting Keynote Address (No. 2‚ pg 41)

Leaders at the Forefront of Public Health Protection to be Honored at NABP 106th Annual Meeting (No. 4‚ pg 75)

Leaders Recognized for their Dedication to Protection of Public Health (SI‚ pg 12)

NABP 106th Annual Meeting Approaching; Register Today! (No. 4‚ pg 87; No. 5‚ pg 110)

NABP 106th Annual Meeting Offers Partici-pants Opportunity to Earn Six Hours of Continuing Pharmacy Education Credit (No. 4‚ pg 88)

NABP Accepting Travel Grant Applications for 106th Annual Meeting (No. 3‚ pg 64)

NABP Accepting Travel Grant Applications for Qualified Voting Delegates to Attend 106th Annual Meeting (No. 1‚ pg 17)

NABP Seeking Poster Session Participants for 106th Annual Meeting (No. 2‚ pg 42)

NABP Travel Grant Available for 106th An-nual Meeting (No. 4‚ pg 87; No. 5‚ pg 110)

New Officers, Members Inaugurated to Serve on NABP 2010-2011 Executive

Committee During 106th Annual Meet-ing (SI‚ pg 3)

New Registration Fees Set for 106th Annual Meeting (No. 1‚ pg 16)

Register for the 106th Annual Meeting To-day; Early Registration Rates Available through Monday‚ April 12 (No. 3‚ pg 64)

Registration Now Available for 106th An-nual Meeting (No. 2‚ pg 41)

Tips for Submitting a Poster (No. 2‚ pg 42)Travel Grant Available to Qualified Voting

Delegates for 106th Annual Meeting (No. 2‚ pg 42)

107th Annual MeetingDeadline to Submit Proposed Amend-

ments to NABP Constitution and By-laws Announced (No. 10, pg 202)

NABP Seeks Nominations for 2011 Awards to be Presented at 107th An-nual Meeting in San Antonio, TX (No. 9‚ pg 183)

Save the Date for the NABP 107th Annual Meeting! (No. 10, pg 220)

Sponsorship and Educational Grant Op-portunities for NABP 107th Annual Meeting Now Available (No. 10, pg 202)

Around the AssociationNABP Staff Obtain CPR/AED Certification

(No. 3‚ pg 70)Survey Luncheon Winner (No. 10, pg 210)

Board Member Appointments

Allen, Jody (No. 10, pg 210)Beringer, Paul (No. 8, pg 172)Bertagnolli, Mike (No. 4‚ pg 93)Brewer, Deborah (No. 4‚ pg 92)Burkett, Janine (No. 10, pg 210)Cain, Edward (No. 10, pg 210)Castellblanch, Ramón (No. 5, pg 115)Conradi‚ Mark (No. 2‚ pg 41; No. 3, pg 67)Cousens, Mark (No. 10, pg 210) deBlaquiere, Richard (No. 5, pg 115)DelMonico‚ Susan (No. 1‚ pg 21)Deschamps, Rebecca (No. 4‚ pg 93)DeWire, Brian (No. 4‚ pg 93)Ekker, Kim (No. 6‚ pg 142)Foster‚ Beth (No. 9‚ pg 189)Foy, James (No. 6, pg 142)Garrelts, James (No. 3, pg 67)Gollner, Patricia (No. 4‚ pg 93)Greenwell, Scott (No. 4‚ pg 93)Gruening, Anne (No. 7, pg 157)Hackworth, Rosalyn (No. 5, pg 115)

Inafuku, Todd (No. 10, pg 210)Kizer, Jason (No. 2, pg 41)Locnikar‚ Kyra (No. 6‚ pg 142)Marks‚ E. Lazelle (No. 7‚ pg 157)Martini, Joli (No. 2, pg 41; No. 3, pg 67)McAntee, Stephanie (No. 3, pg 67)Merchant, Gary (No. 4‚ pg 93)Minton, Gene (No. 7, pg 157)Moné, Michael (No. 10, pg 210)Rhodes, Robert (No. 10, pg 210)Ryle, Karen, (No. 10, pg 210)Shinaberry, Ellen (No. 10, pg 210)Smith, Miriam Mobley (No. 6, pg 142)Stelly, Pratt (No. 10, pg 210)Tipton, Joyce (No. 6‚ pg 142)Veale, Deborah (No. 5, pg 115)Wallace, Ronald (No. 2‚ pg 41; No. 3, pg 67)Wentworth‚ Kirk (No. 9‚ pg 189)Wetherbee‚ Charles (No. 6‚ pg 142)Woodson, Lori (No. 10, pg 210)Zee‚ Tappan (No. 5‚ pg 115)

Board Member Reappointments

Appleby‚ James (No. 8, pg 172)Bonar‚ David (No. 8, pg 172)Bradley‚ Lee Ann (No. 9‚ pg 189)Bushardt‚ Joseph (No. 9‚ pg 189)Chesson‚ Jr, J. Parker (No. 7‚ pg 157)Christ‚ Geoffrey (No. 8, pg 172)Fry‚ W. Benjamin (No. 6‚ pg 142)Ham-Burr‚ Arlene (No. 3, pg 67)Hamilton‚ Sebastian (No. 8, pg 172)Holm‚ Richard (No. 7‚ pg 157)Liebe, Arvid (No. 3, pg 70)Mims, Beverly (No. 8, pg 173)Robinson, Sandra (No. 8, pg 172)Shaver‚ Howard (No. 8, pg 173)

Board Officer Changes

Anselmo‚ Robert (No. 1‚ pg 21)Bechtel‚ Edward (No. 3‚ pg 70)Bergrud‚ Karen (No. 7‚ pg 158)Berry‚ Zina (No. 8, pg 173)Bilek‚ Barbara (No. 3‚ pg 70)Borcher‚ Kevin (No. 4‚ pg 93)Bradham‚ James (No. 9‚ pg 190)Bradley‚ Lee Ann (No. 9‚ pg 190)Braman‚ Karen (No. 3‚ pg 70)Bushardt, Joseph (No. 9, pg 190)Calhoun, Donnie (No. 9, pg 190)Carlson, Frances (No. 9, pg 190)Chater, Rebecca (No. 7, pg 158)Dennis, Betty (No. 4‚ pg 93; No. 7‚ pg 158)

november-december 2010

215*SI = Special Issue

Index Volume 39

Gregg‚ Elizabeth (No. 3‚ pg 70)Hadley‚ Larry (No. 4‚ pg 93)Haiber‚ Steven (No. 8, pg 173)Hamilton‚ Sebastian (No. 8, pg 173)Holm, Richard (No. 7, pg 158)Jassey, Stacey (No. 7, pg 158)Manek‚ Sudhir (No. 1‚ pg 21)McLaughlin‚ Jr‚ Robert (No. 4‚ pg 93)Mendoza‚ Alice G. (No. 7‚ pg 158)Mikell, Mike (No. 9, pg 189)Mims, Beverly (No. 8, pg 173)Nelson‚ Robert (No. 9‚ pg 190)Osborn, William (No. 1‚ pg 21)Pasedis‚ Sophia (No. 9‚ pg 190)Pasquale‚ Heather (No. 3‚ pg 70)Riddle‚ James (No. 3‚ pg 70)Romano‚ Michael (No. 3‚ pg 70)Simon‚ Howard (No. 8, pg 173)Smiga‚ Richard (No. 3‚ pg 70)Spoon, James (No. 1‚ pg 21)Tatum‚ Malcolm (No. 9‚ pg 190)Thornbury‚ Joel (No. 4‚ pg 93)Trifone, Joanne (No. 9, pg 190)Villa, Daniel (No. 5, pg 115)Waggener, Jeanne D. (No. 7, pg 158)Walsh, Thomas (No. 4‚ pg 93)White, Dirk (No. 7, pg 158)Wiesner, Dennis F. (No. 7, pg 158)Wilson‚ Steve (No. 9‚ pg 190)Zarek, Richard (No. 4‚ pg 93)

Executive Director Changes

D’Antonio‚ Patricia M. (No. 4‚ pg 92)Durden, Lisa (No. 10, pg 210)Wilson, Nora (No. 10, pg 210)

Remembrance

In Memoriam (No. 8‚ pg 162)In Memoriam: Barbara Wells (No. 7‚ pg 155)Remembrance (No. 6‚ pg 141)

DMEPOS ProgramDMEPOS Accreditation Deadline Extend-

ed; Pharmacies Seek Reaccreditation as New Laws Offer Limited Exemptions to Some (No. 9‚ pg 187)

Newly Accredited DMEPOS Facilities (No. 2‚ pg 47; No. 3‚ pg 71; No. 5‚ pg 102; No. 6‚ pg 135; No. 8, pg 176; No. 9‚ pg 188)

Competency Assessment Program2009 Administration Results of NABP Ex-

aminations Released (No. 3‚ pg 55)2010-2011 MPJE Review Committee An-

nounced (No. 3‚ pg 50)

2010-2011 NAPLEX Review Committee Members Announced (No. 4‚ pg 91)

2011 Administration of PCOA Approaches (No. 10, pg 210)

2011 PCOA Administration Registration Now Open (No. 8‚ pg 170)

Analysis of Survey Results Leads to In-creased Emphasis on Practice Issues in MPJE Competency Statements in 2011 (No. 7‚ pg 153)

Fall FPGEE Administration to be Held in September (No. 7‚ pg 152)

First Internet-Based MPJE State-Specific Review Provides Convenience and Flex-ibility; 113 Representatives Participate (No. 2‚ pg 39)

FPGEE Administered Successfully as Com-puterized Format in 2009; Applicants Have Access to Scores Online (No. 2‚ pg 31)

FPGEE Item Writers Utilize Workshop to Review Exam Questions (No. 10‚ pg 207)

NABP Amends FPGEC English Language Proficiency Requirements (No. 5‚ pg 113)

NABP Announces 2010-2011 FPGEE Review Committee Members (No. 5‚ pg 113)

NABP Appoints Dennis McAllister to ACPE Board (No. 6‚ pg 138)

NABP Convenes Committee to Ensure Va-lidity of MPJE Standards (No. 9‚ pg 186)

NABP Examination Vendor to Implement New Palm Vein Identification Technol-ogy to Check-in Process (No. 4‚ pg 85)

NABP Seeking Individuals to Serve on Ex-aminations Committee (No. 9‚ pg 182)

NABP Seeks Item Writers for NAPLEX and FPGEE (No. 7‚ pg 152)

NABP Seeks Volunteers to Share Knowledge and Expertise for NABP Examination Review Committees (No. 4‚ pg 91)

NABP to Administer Pharmacy Curricu-lum Survey (No. 6‚ pg 137)

NAPLEX‚ MPJE‚ and ELTP Fees to Increase (No. 1‚ pg 14)

Seventeen Boards of Pharmacy Utilizing New NABP Secure Online NAPLEX/MPJE Score Retrieval Service for Candidates (No. 10, pg 211)

One New Member Appointed and Three Re-appointed to Serve on ACE (No. 6‚ pg 138)

Panelists Convene to Review and Set NAPLEX Standards; Blueprint Revision to be Released in Early 2010 (No. 1‚ pg 13)

Pharmacy Practice Survey Outcomes Align with Future Vision (No. 6‚ pg 137)

Revisions to MPJE Competencies Effective January 25, 2011 (No. 10, pg 210)

Third Annual PCOA Administered; Three-Year Trends Assist Colleges with the Re-view and Progression of Pharmacy Cur-riculum (No. 6‚ pg 136)

Internet Drug Outlet Identification ProgramInternet Drug Outlets on NABP Not Rec-

ommended List Continue to Grow (No. 3‚ pg 63)

NABP Continues to Uncover Rogue Internet Drug Outlets (No. 6‚ pg 139)

NABP Continues to Uncover Rogue Inter-net Drug Outlets Placing Public Health at Risk (No. 7‚ pg 146)

NABP Uncovers Thousands of Internet Drug Outlets in Conflict with Pharmacy Laws and Patient Safety Standards (No. 4‚ pg 83)

Legal Briefs106th Annual Meeting Report of Counsel:

Why Are We Here? (No. 6‚ pg 126)Board Educated on Education (No. 8‚ pg

164)Board Shoots: Does not Score (No. 7‚ pg 148)Close Encounters of the Third Party (No. 4‚

pg 76)Doody to Warn (No. 10, pg 196)He Shoots‚ He Rescores (No. 3‚ pg 52)Share and Share Alike (No. 2‚ pg 28)The Vinci Code (No. 5‚ pg 100)Where There’s Smoke, There’s Sales (No. 9‚

pg 180)Who Knows What? (No. 1‚ pg 4)

Licensure Transfer ProgramEscalating Requests for Licensure Transfer

Continue Despite Declining Population Mobility in US (No. 3‚ pg 49)

NABP e-Advertiser Approval ProgramNewly Accredited NABP e-Advertiser Ap-

proval Program Entities (No. 9‚ pg 190)Pharmahelper.com, QC Supply First On-

line Pharmacy Services Approved as e-Advertisers (No. 6‚ pg 123)

NABP – General2010-2011 Committee, Task Force Ap-

pointments Announced (No. 9‚ pg 185)Administrative Fines Top List for 1Q Disci-

plinary Action Trends (No. 6‚ pg 134)Annual Report on Association Legal Affairs

(No. 6‚ pg 131)Are You AWARxE? (No. 7‚ pg 147; No. 8‚ pg 166)Are you AWARxE? NABP Reaches Out to

Consumers (No. 6‚ pg 125)

nabp newsletter

216

nabp newsletter

216 *SI = Special Issue

Index Volume 39

AWARXE Alerts Public to Dangers of In-ternet Drug Outlets, Counterfeit Drugs, and Prescription Drug Abuse (No. 6‚ pg 125)

AWARXE Alerts Seniors of Potential Risks when Purchasing Medications Online (No. 9‚ pg 179)

AWARXE in Action (No. 10‚ pg 203) Clarification (No. 9‚ pg 190) Community Pharmacy Accreditation Dem-

onstration Project to Target Patient Care and CQI Programs (No. 8‚ pg 169)

CPE Tracking System to Assist State Boards in Monitoring CE Requirements for Pharmacists and Technicians (No. 6‚ pg 139)

Date Set for Advanced Distribution of Pro-posed Resolutions (No. 1‚ pg 17)

Meeting of the Task Force on Prescription Monitoring Program Standards Results in Nine Recommendations (No. 6‚ pg 133)

NABP Clearinghouse Experiences Increase in Reporting Volume (No. 10, pg 209)

NABP Clearinghouse Provides Boards of Pharmacy with Trends in Practice Vio-lations (No. 3‚ pg 51)

NABP Commissions Task Force to Review CSA (No. 9‚ pg 177)

NABP Community Pharmacy Accredita-tion Program to Focus on Patient Care (No. 5‚ pg 99)

NABP Compliance Officer Training Sup-ports Indiana Board (No. 7‚ pg 155)

NABP Developing System to Link Prescription Monitoring Programs Across States and Fa-cilitate Data Exchange (No. 10‚ pg 207)

NABP Expands Government Affairs Ser-vices to Facilitate Increased Support and Assistance for Boards of Pharmacy (No. 8‚ pg 169)

NABP Explains Rogue Internet Drug Out-lets’ Role in Diversion and Abuse During Prescription Drug Abuse Summit (No. 2‚ pg 43)

NABP Resolutions and Actions Support HHS ‘Healthy People’ Project Goals (No. 5‚ pg 97)

NABP‚ State‚ and Federal Actions Help Fight Cybercrime Linked to Internet Drug Outlets (No. 2‚ pg 27)

NABPLAW Online Available for Order via Internet 24/7 (No. 7‚ pg 156)

Nominees Announced for Open Officer and Member Positions on 2010-2011 NABP Executive Committee (No. 1‚ pg 3)

Order More NABP Publications Online (No. 7‚ pg 156)

State Newsletter Program Celebrates 30 Years of News on Pharmacy Regula-tion (No. 3‚ pg 67)

Survey of Pharmacy Law’s 60th Edition Coming Soon! (No. 10, pg 202)

Surveyors Unite to Participate in NABP Accreditation Training (No. 7‚ pg 151)

Task Force Finds Interoperability of e-Prescribing Systems Key to Improving Outcomes (No. 4‚ pg 78)

Task Force Recommends Model Act Re-visions to Ensure Standards in Pre-scription Monitoring Program In-teroperability and Data Access (No. 6‚ pg 121)

Task Force Recommends Strengthening Technician Education and Training Program (No. 4‚ pg 73)

Task Force Reviews CSA, Identifies Ar-eas Needing Revisions (No. 10, pg 198)

Timely and Reliable Pharmacy News Just a Click Away! (No. 2‚ pg 39)

Updated Model Act Addresses Quality and Safety in Patient Care (No. 8‚ pg 171)

Volunteers Sought for Committee and Task Force Positions (No. 2‚ pg 47)

Web Site Redesign for NABP.net Coming Soon (No. 4‚ pg 86)

NABP Interactive Member Forum2010 Interactive Member Forum Agenda

(No. 7, pg 146; No. 8, pg 162)Board Members to Focus on Priority Issues

at New Interactive Member Forum (No. 7‚ pg 145)

Board Member Participants Contribute to Success of First Interactive Member Fo-rum (No. 10‚ pg 193)

Interactive Member Forum Highlighted as NABP Partners with Boards for Shared Future Initiative (SI‚ pg 1)

Presenters Share Their Expertise During First-Ever NABP Interactive Member Forum (No. 10, pg 200)

Pharmacy – GeneralASOP Seeks Changes to Ensure Patient

Access to Safe Online Pharmacies (No. 7‚ pg 147)

Australia Implements National Regis-tration for Pharmacists and Other Medical Professions; Consolidates State Boards (No. 4‚ pg 81)

DEA Collects More Than 242,000 Pounds of Medications During First-Ever Nationwide Drug Take-Back Day (No. 10, pg 198)

DEA Interim Final Rule on e-Prescrip-tion for CS Takes Effect (No. 6‚ pg 135)

Domain Name Registrar Agrees to Crack Down on Web Sites Selling Prescrip-tion Medications Unlawfully (No. 10, pg 203)

Examining the Harmonization of PharmD Program Standards for Foreign-Educat-ed Students (SI‚ pg 6)

FDA Unveils Plan to Advance New Treat-ment Development (No. 10. pg 208)

Implementation of DEA CS e-Prescrib-ing Rule Prompts Boards to Offer Li-censees Guidance (No. 10, pg 195)

IPEC Plan Maps Out Strategy to Combat Counterfeit Medications (No. 10, pg 199)

JCPP ‘Future Vision’ Sets Course for Ad-vancement of Pharmacy Practice (No. 2‚ pg 25)

More Pharmacists Positioned to Protect Public Health by Expanding Immu-nization Services During Flu Season (No. 8‚ pg 167)

Pharmacist Communication Shown to Increase Medication Adherence and Reduce Errors (No. 5‚ pg 104)

Pharmacists’ H1N1 Vaccination Roles Expand Patient Care (No. 1‚ pg 1)

Pharmacy Manpower Project Reveals 2009 Workforce Trends (No. 5‚ pg 103)

Regulating Methamphetamine Precur-sors: Which Laws and Programs Are Most Effective? (No. 3‚ pg 56)

Risks Increase for Patients Seeking Med-ications Online: Be Wary of Pharm Spam‚ Phishing Attacks‚ and Identity Theft Scams (No. 1‚ pg 8)

Senate Votes Against Proposed Federal Drug Importation Law (No. 2‚ pg 32)

State Boards of Pharmacy Take Action to Stop Licensees Involved in Unlawful Internet Drug Outlet Schemes (No. 10, pg 205)

States Continue to Develop Medical Mari-juana Policies as Federal Stance Remains Firm (No. 5‚ pg 108)

States Respond Regarding the Practice of Utilizing Timing Systems in Pharmacy Dispensing Processes (No. 1‚ pg 7)

Texas Board Approves PTCB as Single Provider of Technician Certification Exam (No. 8‚ pg 163)

november-december 2010

217*SI = Special Issue

Index Volume 39

PhotosAbrams, Donald I. (No. 2‚ pg 36)Adams‚ Joseph L. “Joe” (SI‚ pg 11; SI‚ pg

17)Aggarwal‚ Sunil K. (No. 2‚ pg 36)Alfred, Kelly (No. 10, pg 198)Anderson, Jr, Howard C. (SI, pg 12; SI‚ pg

16)Andurkar, Shridhar V. (No. 10‚ pg 207)Appelsmith, Jacob (No. 2‚ pg 37)Aquino‚ Kennevie (No. 8‚ pg 173)Atha‚ Lisa (No. 8‚ pg 170)Atkinson‚ Dale J. (No. 1‚ pg 5; No. 2, pg

29; No. 3‚ pg 53; No. 4‚ pg 77; No. 5‚ pg 101; No. 6‚ pg 127; No. 7, pg 149; No. 8, pg 165; No. 9, pg 181; No. 10, pg 197)

Barthwell, Andrea (No. 2‚ pg 45)Baumgartner‚ Jennifer (SI‚ pg 14)Beaugureau‚ Brian (No. 9‚ pg 179)Bellingham, Daniel (No. 10, pg 198)Benjamin‚ Vern (SI‚ pg 13)Bernstein‚ Ilisa B.G. (SI‚ pg 17; No. 10, pg

207)Bess‚ David Todd (No. 5‚ pg 114)Bokinskie‚ Katherine (SI‚ pg 19)Bolin, Joshua M. (No. 2‚ pg 38; No. 10,

pg 201)Bouchard, Carole (No. 2‚ pg 45)Boyle‚ Maria (SI‚ pg 16)Braylock, Sr, Gregory (No. 1‚ pg 19; SI‚ pg 10)Brewer‚ Deborah (SI‚ pg 20)Brickley, Ross (No. 10, pg 198)Briscoe-Dwyer, Leigh (No. 10, pg 201)Broussard‚ Malcolm J. (SI‚ pg 3; SI, pg 20;

No. 10, pg 200)Burgess, Philip P. (No. 10, pg 201)Burhans, Linda (SI, pg 16)Burleson‚ Michael A. (No. 2‚ pg 38; SI‚ pg

10; SI, pg 16; No. 7, pg 160; No. 10, pg 200)Calhoun, Stephanie (No. 8‚ pg 170)Campbell IV, Jay (SI, pg 17; No. 10, pg 198)Campbell, Shari W. (SI, pg 17)Carey, Connie J. (SI, pg 14)Carter‚ Gregory T. (No. 2‚ pg 36)Casar‚ Donald (No. 1‚ pg 14)Caverly, Mark (No. 10, pg 198)Chapman‚ Phyllis (No. 8‚ pg 170)Conradi‚ Mark T. (SI‚ pg 10; No. 7, pg 160)Cruz-Tapia, Rocio (No. 8‚ pg 170)D’Antonio, Patricia “Trish” (No. 10, pg 201)DelMonico‚ Susan (No. 4‚ pg 80)DeVita‚ James T. (SI‚ pg 10; No. 7, pg 160;

No. 10, pg 201)

Dickerhofe‚ Jeannine (No. 1‚ pg 14)Dickinson‚ Barry D. (No. 2‚ pg 34)Dodson‚ Gay (No. 1‚ pg 19)Dong‚ Betty (No. 5‚ pg 114)Dorvee‚ Jr‚ John (No. 1‚ pg 19)Dover‚ Kristi R. (SI‚ pg 12; No. 10, pg 198)Droz‚ Danna (No. 1‚ pg 19; No. 4‚ pg 80;

No. 10, pg 198)Dryden‚ David (No. 4‚ pg 80)Dulwick‚ Allan (No. 1‚ pg 19)Duteau‚ Michael (No. 5‚ pg 114)Fan‚ Jennifer (No. 1‚ pg 19)Fey‚ Donald (SI‚ pg 13)Fitzpatrick‚ William (No. 1‚ pg 19)Flower‚ Joe (SI‚ pg 20)Forsaith‚ Chuck (SI‚ pg 17)Foust‚ John A. (SI‚ pg 18; No. 10, pg 201)Fry‚ W. Benjamin (No. 4‚ pg 80)Galenbeck‚ Scott (No. 2‚ pg 37)Gallagher‚ Cathy (No. 1‚ pg 19)Gammill, Frank (No. 10, pg 201)Gardner‚ Judy (No. 5‚ pg 114)Gerber‚ Dennis J. (No. 8‚ pg 170)Gim‚ Suzanna (No. 10‚ pg 207)Goodmaster‚ Edith G. (SI‚ pg 18; No. 10,

pg 200)Gould‚ Beverly (No. 8‚ pg 170)Gregg‚ Elizabeth (No. 1‚ pg 19)Hadley‚ Larry (No. 1‚ pg 14)Hanson, Kay (No. 10, pg 207)Hart‚ Steve (SI‚ pg 20)Harvey‚ William (SI‚ pg 17)Herold‚ Virginia “Giny” (SI‚ pg 15; No.

10, pg 207)Holstad‚ Sheldon (No. 4‚ pg 90)Houchens‚ Tom (No. 5‚ pg 114)Jacknowitz‚ Arthur I. (No. 5‚ pg 114)Janeczko, Susan (No. 10, pg 198)Jessen‚ Lloyd K. (No. 2‚ pg 37; SI‚ pg 11; SI,

pg 13; No. 10, pg 200; No. 10, pg 198)Johnson, Julie K. (SI, pg 15)Karsten‚ Frederick (No. 1‚ pg 19)Kedron, Suzan (No. 10, pg 198)Kesner‚ Ben (No. 6‚ pg 143)Klein‚ Lawrence W. “Larry” (SI‚ pg 12)Kolluru‚ Srikanth (No. 10‚ pg 207)Kopacek‚ Karen (No. 4‚ pg 90)Kozera‚ David (No. 1‚ pg 14)Kremzner‚ Mary (SI‚ pg 14)Leedahl‚ David (SI‚ pg 19)Leedahl‚ Nathan (SI‚ pg 19)Lew‚ Cathryn J. (SI‚ pg 11; SI‚ pg 16; SI‚ pg

19; No. 10, pg 201)

Lewis‚ Michael (SI‚ pg 17)Light‚ Kim E. (No. 2‚ pg 38)Long‚ Thomas J. (No. 9‚ pg 186)Lynch‚ Kendall M. (No. 5‚ pg 114)Mackie‚ Kenneth (No. 2‚ pg 34)Madigan‚ Melissa (No. 9‚ pg 179)Madras‚ Janene (No. 10‚ pg 207)Main‚ Lydia (No. 1‚ pg 14)Manek, Sudhir C. (No. 10, pg 201)Markuson‚ Richard K. “Mick” (No. 1‚ pg 19)Mattila‚ Amy (No. 4‚ pg 80)McAllister‚ Dennis K. (No. 4‚ pg 80)McGinley‚ Edward (No. 1‚ pg 19; SI‚ pg 10)Mead‚ Alice (No. 2‚ pg 34)Mendoza‚ Alice (No. 1‚ pg 14)Mokhiber‚ Lawrence “Larry” (No. 1‚ pg 19;

No. 10, pg 198)Morse‚ Steve (No. 6‚ pg 143)Murer-Corrigan‚ Melissa (SI‚ pg 14)Neuber‚ Suzanne (No. 1‚ pg 14; No. 10, pg

198)Nicholson, Kevin (No. 10, pg 198)Norment‚ Richard (No. 2‚ pg 35)Paiva‚ Elvy (No. 1‚ pg 14)Palombo‚ Rich (No. 4‚ pg 80; SI‚ pg 20)Pasquale‚ Heather (No. 4‚ pg 80)Phillips‚ Linda (No. 8‚ pg 170)Pinson‚ Larry L. (SI‚ pg 13)Policastri‚ Anne (No. 4‚ pg 80; SI‚ pg 20)Poole‚ Barry (SI‚ pg 14)Popovich, Matthew (No. 10, pg 201)Potter‚ Bryan H. (SI‚ pg 20)Prather‚ William (No. 1‚ pg 19)Predina‚ Joann (No. 1‚ pg 14; SI‚ pg 13)Quistgard‚ John Edward “Jack” (No. 6‚ pg

141)Robinson‚ Daniel (SI‚ pg 16)Roll‚ David B. (No. 4‚ pg 90)Russell‚ Elizabeth Scott “Scotti” (No. 2‚ pg

38; No. 10, pg 201)Ryle, Karen M. (No. 1‚ pg 14; No. 2‚ pg 37;

No. 2‚ pg 45; SI‚ pg 16; No. 8‚ pg 173; No. 10, pg 198)

Rynn‚ Kevin (No. 5‚ pg 114)Sabet‚ Kevin (No. 2‚ pg 34)Sahleen-Buckingham‚ Paula (No. 2‚ pg 37)Schell‚ Kenneth H. (SI‚ pg 15)Schnabel‚ Gary A. (No. 2‚ pg 34; SI‚ pg 3;

SI, pg 12; SI, pg 20; No. 10, pg 200)Schnatz, Rick (SI, pg 15)Schneider‚ Eric F. (No. 4‚ pg 90)Smith‚ Timothy J. (No. 9‚ pg 186)Snead, Rebecca (No. 10, pg 198)

nabp newsletter

218

nabp newsletter

218 *SI = Special Issue

Index Volume 39

Spence‚ Ann (No. 8‚ pg 170)St. Angelo‚ Sara (No. 5‚ pg 114)Stack‚ Erin (No. 8‚ pg 173)Sterling‚ Eric E. (No. 2‚ pg 45)Tay, Nancy (No. 10, pg 201)Thomas, Charles (No. 10, pg 198)Wadelin‚ Jeffrey W. (SI‚ pg 16)Waggener, Jeanne (No. 10, pg 198)Wand‚ Hal (No. 2‚ pg 35; No. 5‚ pg 114; SI‚

pg 11; SI‚ pg 17; SI‚ pg 18)Wand‚ Marilyn (SI‚ pg 18)Warren, Brenda (No. 10, pg 198)Westphal‚ John (SI‚ pg 16)Whitchurch‚ Frank (No. 1‚ pg 14)Winsley‚ William T. (No. 2‚ pg 36; SI‚ pg

17; SI‚ pg 20; No. 10, pg 200; No. 10, pg 201)

Woodberry‚ Penny (No. 8‚ pg 170)Woodson‚ Caren (No. 2‚ pg 34)

Professional Affairs UpdateASHP and ISMP Launch National Alert

System to Prevent Deadly Medication Errors (No. 3‚ pg 68)

California PMP Data Shows Frequency of Doctor Shopping (No. 5‚ pg 115)

Canadian Internet Pharmacist Loses Li-cense for Dispensing to US Consumers (No. 5‚ pg 115)

Cleviprex Lots Recalled Due to Potential Stainless Steel Particulates (No. 3‚ pg 68)

Compliance with HITECH Act Enforced Beginning February 22‚ 2010 (No. 3‚ pg 68)

Counterfeit Drug Investigation Leads to Two Arrests (No. 6‚ pg 140)

DEA Advises Adherence to State Regu-lations on CS II Prescription Changes (No. 7‚ pg 157)

DEG Poisonings Prompt Reminder to Con-sult Guidance Document (No. 2‚ pg 44)

Demand for Pharmacy Technicians Ex-pected to Increase (No. 4‚ pg 93)

EUA for Investigational IV Antiviral Pe-ramivir to Treat 2009 H1N1 Influenza (No. 2‚ pg 44)

FDA and ISMP Alerts Regarding Tamiflu for Oral Suspension (No. 1‚ pg 18)

FDA Authorization for Outdated Tamiflu Products in Effect Until April 2010 (No. 1‚ pg 18)

FDA Comment Period for Certain Opioid Drug REMS Open Until October 2010 (No. 1‚ pg 18)

FDA Committee Votes Not to Schedule DXM (No. 10, pg 213)

FDA Continues to Review Public and Stakeholder Comments Regarding REMS for Opioid Drugs (No. 3‚ pg 68)

FDA Guidance for Compounding Multi-ple Prescriptions of Tamiflu Oral Sus-pension (No. 2‚ pg 44)

FDA Issues Alert on Stolen Tylenol Ar-thritis Pain and Tylenol PM Caplets (No. 1‚ pg 18)

FDA Issues Warning on Counterfeit Alli (No. 4‚ pg 92)

FDA Launches Safe Use Initiative (No. 2‚ pg 44)

FDA Online Videos Provide Timely Drug Information to Pharmacists (No. 10, pg 213)

FDA SNI Guidelines to Help Secure Drug Supply Chain (No. 6‚ pg 140)

FDA to Provide Safety Analyses Informa-tion (No. 8‚ pg 174)

FDA-TRACK Provides Public Access to Agency’s Performance Data (No. 6‚ pg 140)

FDA Transparency Initiative Launched with ‘FDA Basics’ Web Site Resource (No. 4‚ pg 92)

FDA Warning: Stop Marketing Unap-proved Codeine Sulfate Tablets (No. 1‚ pg 19)

FDA Warns to Avoid Use of Plavix with Prilosec/Prilosec OTC (No. 2‚ pg 44)

Florida Man Sentenced for Diverting Drugs (No. 5‚ pg 115)

Fraudulent Tamiflu Sold on Internet (No. 8‚ pg 174)

Hearing Addresses Need for Single Fed-eral Drug Disposal Guideline (No. 9‚ pg 189)

HRSA to Post List of Agencies Not Com-pliant with HIPDB Requirements (No. 7‚ pg 157)

Internet Outlet Operator Convicted, Faces Prison Time (No. 9‚ pg 189)

IOM Report Suggests Need for CE Rede-sign and Establishment of National CE Institute (No. 3‚ pg 68)

Iowa Tracks Group Using Fraudulent CS Prescriptions (No. 10, pg 213)

Lead Defendant in Health Care Fraud and Rogue Internet Pharmacy Scheme Sen-tenced (No. 4‚ pg 92)

Maalox Product Name Can Lead to Mix-ups and Serious Side Effects‚ FDA Warns (No. 5‚ pg 116)

Manufacturer Expands Voluntary Tylenol Recall (No. 4‚ pg 92)

Massachusetts Pharmacist Pleads Guilty to Defrauding Medicaid and Medicare (No. 10, pg 213)

New Jersey Governor Signs Medical Mari-juana Bill (No. 4‚ pg 92)

Obama to Push for Drug Re-Importation (No. 4‚ pg 93)

Pharmacist Pleaded Guilty to Fraud and Other Charges, Sentenced to Prison (No. 9‚ pg 189)

Pharmacy Operators Illegally Distributed Hydrocodone, Sentenced to Federal Prison (No. 8‚ pg 174)

PTCB Certification Required by Depart-ment of Veterans Affairs (No. 8‚ pg 174)

Rise in Prescription Pain Pill Abuse Doc-umented in Latest SAMHSA Data (No. 9‚ pg 189)

Rogue Drug Site Operators Indicted for Con-spiracy to Distribute CS (No. 7‚ pg 158)

Seven Pharmacy Organizations Respond to AMA Scope of Pharmacy Practice Document (No. 7‚ pg 157)

Stolen Carbatrol, Adderall XR Surfacing in Supply Chain (No. 10, pg 213)

Study Shows e-Prescribing Reduces Pre-scriber Errors (No. 6‚ pg 140)

Survey Reveals Trends in Illicit Teen Pre-scription Drug Use (No. 7‚ pg 158)

Three Indicted for Diversion of Prescrip-tion Drugs (No. 6‚ pg 140)

USP Recommends Patient-Centered Standards for Prescription Labels (No. 7‚ pg 158)

USP Standards for Heparin Products May Require Dosage Adjustments (No. 1‚ pg 18)

WCO Members Unite to Ban Counterfeit Drugs (No. 8‚ pg 174)

State Board NewsAlabama Board Amends Tech Rule (No.

5‚ pg 117)Alarming Trend in Ohio’s ‘Accidental’

Drug Poisonings (No. 2‚ pg 46)Alaska Board to Implement Prescription

Drug Monitoring Program (No. 4‚ pg 94)Arkansas Board Makes Plans to Develop

DSM Program (No. 5‚ pg 118)Arkansas Board Updates Pharmacist CE

Requirements (No. 5‚ pg 118)Arkansas Campaign Addresses Teen Pre-

scription Drug Abuse (No. 7‚ pg 159)

november-december 2010

219*SI = Special Issue

Index Volume 39

Arkansas Task Force Reports on Diver-sion Prevention and Detection (No. 10, pg 212)

Bill Adding Oregon Pharmacy Tech Board Position Vetoed (No. 6‚ pg 142)

Delaware Amends Pharmacy Technician Regulations (No. 3‚ pg 69)

Delaware Board Addresses Questions Con-cerning Moral and Ethical Objections (No. 6‚ pg 141)

Delaware Board Amends Compounding and Other Regulations (No. 8‚ pg 175)

Idaho Board Lists hCG as a Schedule III Substance (No. 8‚ pg 175)

Idaho Extends Implementation Date for Electronic Pedigree (No. 3‚ pg 70)

Illinois Safe Pharmaceutical Disposal Act (No. 3‚ pg 70)

Kansas Board Clarifies ‘Valid Rx’ to Thwart Rogue Internet Drug Outlets (No. 6‚ pg 141)

Kansas Board Updates Regulations for Drug Rooms, CE, and Faxed CS Pre-scriptions (No. 8‚ pg 175)

KY Board Requires Licensed Pharmacists to Complete CE Regarding HIV/AIDS (No. 6‚ pg 142)

Louisiana Board Adds Drugs of Concern to PMP Reporting Requirements (No. 9‚ pg 191)

Louisiana Board Installs New Licensing Software to Enhance Record Keeping (No. 4‚ pg 95)

Louisiana Board Reports Its PMP Results (No. 1‚ pg 20)

Maryland Board Reports Revisions to Pharmacy Regulations (No. 10, pg 212)

Maryland Removes Sunset Date from DTM Program (No. 10, pg 212)

Minnesota Board Clarifies Participation in Pharmaceutical Take-Back Programs (No. 4‚ pg 94)

Minnesota Enacts Changes Affecting the Practice of Pharmacy (No. 1‚ pg 21)

Minnesota Enacts Laws Regarding Phar-maceutical Waste (No. 9‚ pg 191)

Minnesota Implements Amended Prescrip-tion Monitoring Program (No. 1‚ pg 20)

Missouri Board Addresses Noncompliance Issues Related to Technicians (No. 3‚ pg 69)

Missouri Enacts Medical Devices, CS Leg-islation (No. 10, pg 212)

Montana Board Reports Benefits of Telephar-macy for Rural Communities (No. 4‚ pg 94)

Nevada Board Addresses False DEA Num-bers‚ Unauthorized Profile Access (No. 1‚ pg 20)

Nevada Board Requires ASHP Accredita-tion for Technician Training Programs (No. 7‚ pg 159)

New Jersey Board Adopts New Audit Trail Requirements (No. 4‚ pg 95)

New Jersey Board Implements New La-beling Requirement for Generic Drugs (No. 1‚ pg 21)

New Mexico Board Amends Regulation on Support Personnel and Pharmacy Technicians (No. 8‚ pg 175)

New Pharmacy Tech Position Added to Oregon Board (No. 5‚ pg 117)

NM Board Amends Rule Regarding the Storage of Prescription Records (No. 6‚ pg 142)

Ohio Board Continues to Raise Aware-ness on Illegitimate Pain Clinics in the State (No. 7‚ pg 159)

Oregon Board Addresses Identity and Credentials of Pharmacy Staff (No. 10, pg 212)

Oregon Board Adopts and Amends Ad-ministrative Rules (No. 5‚ pg 117)

Oregon Board Completes First Audit of CE for Certified Pharmacy Techni-cians (No. 7‚ pg 159)

Pennsylvania Law to Allow Collabora-tive Drug Therapy Management in Community Pharmacies (No. 8‚ pg 175)

South Carolina Board Addresses Mal-practice and Medication Errors (No. 5‚ pg 117)

South Carolina Board Approves Updates to OTC Compounding (No. 2‚ pg 46)

South Carolina Pharmacists Now Ad-minister Flu Vaccines Without Pre-scription (No. 10, pg 212)

South Dakota Establishes PDMP (No. 9‚ pg 191)

Tennessee Meth Task Force to Record Pa-tient Data of PSE Sales (No. 6‚ pg 141)

Tennessee Outlines Controlled Sub-stance Monitoring Database (No. 3‚ pg 69)

Washington Board Adds Carisoprodol to Schedule IV CS (No. 1‚ pg 21)

Washington Board Reports Strategic Plan for 2009-2011 (No. 4‚ pg 95)

Washington Board to Require Approved Tamper Resistant Prescription Paper (No. 5‚ pg 118)

Washington Requires Electronic Track-ing of PSE, Ephedrine, and Phenyl-propanolamine (No. 9‚ pg 191)

SymposiumPharmacists‚ Physicians‚ Scientists‚ and

Policy Makers Share Viewpoints on Legalization of Medical Marijuana (No. 2‚ pg 34)

Public-Private Partnerships Offer Many Opportunities for Resource-Chal-lenged Boards of Pharmacy (No. 2‚ pg 35)

Sponsorships Support Successful Sym-posium (No. 2‚ pg 38)

VAWD ProgramMaryland Adopts Law Requiring Ac-

creditation for Nonresident Whole-sale Drug Distributors; 22 States Rec-ognize VAWD (No. 7‚ pg 150)

Newly Accredited VAWD Facilities (No. 1‚ pg 23; No. 3‚ pg 54; No. 4‚ pg 95; No. 6‚ pg 143; No. 8‚ pg 172)

Twenty-Two States Now Recognize VAWD Accreditation to Ensure Safe Distribution of Prescription Drugs (No. 1‚ pg 23)

Vet-VIPPS ProgramNABP Applauds New VIPPS-Accredita-

tion Requirement for Internet Phar-macies Advertising through Micro-soft, Yahoo! (No. 6‚ pg 124)

Newly Accredited Vet-VIPPS Facility (No. 5‚ pg 118)

Newly Accredited VIPPS and Vet-VIPPS Facilities (No. 6‚ pg 124; No. 8‚ pg 170)

Vet-VIPPS Contributes to Security of Evolving Veterinary Drug Supply Chain (No. 8‚ pg 161)

VIPPS ProgramNABP Commends Google’s VIPPS-

Accreditation Requirement for In-ternet Pharmacy Advertisers (No. 4‚ pg 83)

Newly Accredited VIPPS and Vet-VIPPS Facilities (No. 6‚ pg 124; No. 8‚ pg 170)

Newly Accredited VIPPS Facilities (No. 3‚ pg 59)

National Association of Boards of Pharmacy1600 Feehanville DriveMount Prospect, IL 60056

nabp newsletter

Save the Date for the NABP 107th Annual Meeting!

The NABP Annual Meeting offers attend-ees the opportunity to assist in shaping the future direction of NABP by participating in important business sessions during which officers and members of the NABP Execu-tive Committee are elected. In addition, the meeting provides Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education-approved continuing pharmacy education programs and network-ing opportunities. More information will be available in future issues of the NABP Newsletter and in the Meetings section of the NABP Web site at www.nabp.net/meetings.

NABP 107th Annual MeetingMay 21-24, 2011San Antonio Marriott RivercenterSan Antonio, TX