Beware of drug transfer dealers that are not California-licensed Wholesalers

The following warning appeared in the March 2012 California Board of Pharmacy Newsletter:

Frequently, pharmacies find themselves with near-expired
drugs, partially full containers of drugs, and drugs that are
rarely dispensed and unlikely to be dispensed in the near
future. The pharmacies may return such drugs to the wholesaler
they purchased them from or to a reverse distributor, and less
frequently to the manufacturer itself. Sometimes a pharmacy may
be partially reimbursed for the cost of the drugs or charged a fee
for destroying the drugs.
Some California pharmacies, seeking to reduce their
inventory of such drugs have become involved with out-of-state
companies who solicit membership in their online business,
which allows members to post their requests to buy, sell, bid on,
or trade unwanted drugs to other members. One such company
assures that becoming a member and using their services will
increase the pharmacies’ profits by 50 percent. However, all
the parties to such transactions may be violating

Rule Regarding Patient-Centered Labels for Prescription Drugs Now in Effect in California

The new rule in California provides:


1707.5. Patient-Centered Labels for Prescription Drug
Containers; Requirements
(a) Labels on drug containers dispensed to patients in California
shall conform to the following format:
(1) Each of the following items shall be clustered into one
area of the label that comprises at least 50 percent of the
label. Each item shall be printed in at least a 10-point
sans serif typeface or, if requested by the consumer, at
least a 12-pooint typeface, and listed in the following
order:
(A) Name of the patient
(B) Name of the drug and strength of the drug. For the
purposes of this section, “name of the drug” means
either the manufacturer’s trade name of the drug, or
the generic name and the name of the manufacturer.
(C) The directions for the use of the drug.
(D) The condition or purpose for which the drug was
prescribed if the condition or purpose is indicated
on the prescription.
(2) For added emphasis, the label shall also highlight in
bold typeface or color, or use blank space to set off the
items listed in subdivision (a)(1).
(3) The remaining required elements for the label specified
in section 4076 of the Business and Professions Code,
as well as any other items of information appearing on
the label or the container, shall be printed so as not to
interfere with the legibility or emphasis of the primary
elements specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
These additional elements may appear in any style, font,
and size typeface.

To read remainder of new rule, click here.

Alabama Board of Pharmacy to Discuss Compounding Rules at July Meeting

OPEN WORK SESSION AGENDA:

Wednesday, July 18^th at 7:30 AM

• Topics to include the following:
• Call center rules for Act 2012-213 (Walgreens)

Thursday, July 19^th at 8:00 AM

(will likely last all day)

• Complete call center rules for Act 2012-213 if needed
• Compounding Rules

Agenda can be found here.

What Happened to James Belden, DVM, in the Franck's case

Pursuant to the June 7, 2011, Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine the following occurred:

BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE

General Business Meeting

June 7, 2011

Page 1

MINUTES

Board of Veterinary Medicine

General Business Meeting

Holiday Inn Resort – The Castle

8629 International Drive

Orlando, FL 32819

June 7, 2011

James Belden, DVM: Case number 2009-021573

Dr. Belden was present at the meeting and was represented by counsel, Daniel Bachi. Dr. Belden was sworn in by the court reporter.

Ms. Lewis was recused due to her participation on the probable cause panel.

Ms. Henderson presented the case as a settlement stipulation. Ms. Henderson advised the board the administrative complaint alleges the Respondent administered Stanzolol and Butorphanol without adhering to statutory record keeping requirements. Ms. Henderson advised the board the department recommended a fifteen hundred dollar ($1,500.00) fine, one thousand nine hundred and sixty two dollars and eighty five cents ($1,962.85) in costs and six (6) months probation.

After discussion by the board the following motion was made.

MOTION: Dr. Maxwell made a motion to accept the settlement stipulation as presented.

SECOND: Dr. Helm seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

Utah Rules Relating to Compounding

The Pharmacy Practice Act Rule (Rule R156-17b) in Utah that are in effect as of June 1, 2012, relating to Pharmacies and Compounding can be found here.