OPhA, PPOk, OBNDD Meeting
SummaryUpdate April 21, 2010
- Issues Addressed
- OPhA, PPOk & the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics: Meeting Summary April 21, 2010
Issues Addressed
1. Questions and concerns from the pharmacy community regarding proper ID’s required to obtain Controlled Dangerous Substances.
• According to OBNDD statutes, individuals obtaining Scheduled medications (C-II thru C-V) must present an acceptable ID to the pharmacy at the time of filling. Acceptable forms of identification may include one of four types of ID; a valid state driver’s license, OK State issued ID card, Passport, or Government ID/Military ID.
o However, at this time OBNDD has made exceptions for the elderly, those individuals in LTC facilities, juveniles, and the indigent. OBND will accept Social Security numbers for this population until OBND goes live with the “Real Time” platform starting January 1st, 2012. The OBNDD emphasized that pharmacies must first make a good faith effort to obtain one of the four ID’s listed above and that social security numbers were acceptable only as a last resort.
o Additionally, “Red Cards” are ID cards that may be obtained for juveniles (<18y/o) ; check with OBND http://www.ok.gov/obndd/
o If a another individual, i.e., caregiver, is picking up the scheduled drug, then that individual will be required to provide one of the four OBNDD approved ID’s for documentation.
o To reiterate, the OBNDD will continue to work with us on these not easily definable issues. They again want to emphasize that if a pharmacy has historically been operating in good faith and in accordance with the law, no investigation or action will be taken against the pharmacy or pharmacist. However, if a pharmacy or pharmacist is found operating with absolute disregard of the law, then further action by OBNDD may result.
o Agents of the OBNDD are instructed to provide guidance, clarification and warnings for pharmacies regarding Dangerous Control Drugs. However, OBNDD request that you call Public Affairs Officer Mark Woodward with the name(s) of those OBNDD agents who may appear to be threatening or antagonistic. Mark’s phone (405) 521-2885 or contact by email mwoodward@obn.state.ok
2. Proper procedures and signature requirements for faxed prescription REFILLS from a physician’s office. In order to be in compliance DEA (Federal statute)
• According to the DEA (Federal statute), pharmacies must handle a faxed refill request for controlled (C-III to V) prescriptions (the original was either written without refills or the refills on the original Rx have been used) as a new prescription. Call (phoned) in prescription refills by the physician’s agent (name of agent who phoned Rx) is acceptable. However, under DEA statute, prescription refill approvals faxed to the pharmacy by the physician’s agent are not acceptable, unless the physician has signed the faxed prescription. In order to comply with the DEA (Federal) statute, OBNDD recommends you handle all faxed prescription refill approvals as new prescriptions;
◊ Phone the physician or the agent (agents’ name) of the physician to verify faxed Rx
◊ Assign a new prescription number and record as a new prescription
◊ Add refills if applicable
• NOTE: Third Party Auditors have brought this issue to the forefront. Another tactic by Third Party Payers to recoup money from your pharmacy by the way of DEA statute.
• Procedures for the Sale of Pseudoephedrine http://www.ok.gov/obndd/documents/pseudo%20military%20id.pdf
Lawsuit Challenges Okla. License Fee
-
Transfers
By Tim Talley
Associated Press
OKLAHOMA CITY – A lawsuit filed Monday challenges laws that require various
professional boards and commissions to transfer part of the license fees they collect to
the Oklahoma general fund to help pay for schools, prisons and most other state
government functions.
The suit was filed by Oklahoma City attorney Jerry Fent, who last year successfully
challenged the practice of collecting civil court fees when people file lawsuits in order to
support non-court-related activities like voluntary adoption registries.
“This is a similar deal,” Fent said after he filed his 21-page petition with the
Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Charlie Price, a spokesman for Attorney General Drew Edmondson’s office, said
attorneys were reviewing the petition Monday and were not yet prepared to comment
on it.
The lawsuit challenges statutes adopted by the Legislature over the years that
authorize the transfer of 10 percent of license fee revenue collected by 18 boards and
commissions to the general revenue fund. The lawsuit says the practice “is an
unconstitutional tax on the peoples’ license to work in Oklahoma.”
Such fees are collected by the Board of Dentistry, the Board of Pharmacy, the
Oklahoma Real Estate Commission and other agencies that issue occupational licenses
and oversee the standards and activities of licensed professionals.
The lawsuit says almost 141,000 occupational licenses were issued during the fiscal
year that ended on June 30, 2009, and that more than $2.1 million was transferred to the state’s general fund from the board and commissions. The general revenue fund budget for the fiscal year that ends June 30 is about $5.1 billion.
Fent said the first transfer statute was passed by lawmakers in 1933 and that morethan $50 million has been transferred to the general fund since then. The lawsuit claims the transfers violate a section of the Oklahoma Constitution that says “no tax levied and collected for one purpose shall ever be devoted to another purpose.” “That should only go to regulating the license,” Fent said. “The sad thing is this has been going on for 77 years. And nobody has done anything about it.” The lawsuit asks the state’s highest court to declare the transfer statutes unconstitutional and issue an order prohibiting the boards and commissions from transferring or spending the 10-percent allocation earmarked for the general revenue fund.
Oral arguments are scheduled for June 9. Defendants include the 18 boards and
commissions as well as state Treasurer Scott Meacham, custodian of the general
revenue fund.
In January, the Supreme Court struck down three civil court filing fees that Fent had
challenged, ruling them unconstitutional because they supported non-court-related
activities.
Justices ruled 6-2 that the fees helped pay for social welfare programs operated by
the government’s executive branch and that it was improper for the Legislature to
require court clerks to collect them.
Fent said at the time that he had no problem with the programs the fees helped
support but believed the Legislature should find another way to pay for them.