R.P., DO: CS registration revoked pursuant to Board of Medicine
order.
K.N., PA: CS registration restricted pursuant to Board of Medicine
order.
L.L., MD: CS registration revoked pursuant to DEA registration lapse.
J.A., PA: CS registration revoked pursuant to Board of Medicine order.
L.H., PharmD: License and CS registration revoked for diversion.
J.M., Pharmacy Technician: Registration revoked for diversion.
C.M., Pharmacy Technician: Registration revoked for felony
burglary convictions.
L.M., RPh: License and registration restricted for five more years
for not following an order of the Board, for Pharmacy Recovery
Network noncompliance.
L.W., RPh: Fined $5,000 and completion of three additional CPE
hours for illegally accepting the return of prescription drugs for
a period of five years.
R.L., PharmD: $500 fine and an additional six CPE hours for
failing to follow the instructions of a person writing, making, or
ordering a prescription.
quoted from Idaho Board of Pharmacy September 2013 Newsletter
2014 Proposed Rules
The Board has held four negotiated rulemaking sessions in 2013,
mostly focused on compounding rules in the wake of the New Eng-
land Compounding Center tragedy and post-2013 changes to non-
resident drug outlet law. Other rulemaking topics include secured
delivery rooms and limiting Board-approved continuing pharmacy
education (CPE) programs. The Board is very thankful for the im-
mense amount of public input that has helped form these proposed
rules, which are posted on the Board’s Web site. Upon printing of
the proposed rules in the October Idaho Administrative Bulletin on
October 2, 2013, a 21-day comment period will commence. On the
21st day, October 23, 2013, the Board will meet at the Idaho State
Capitol to hear final verbal comments at an open public meeting.
Written comments may be submitted to the Board at any time during
the 21-day comment period. The Board will consider all comments
on October 24, 2013, post the resulting pending rules on its Web
site, print the pending rules in the January Idaho Administrative
Bulletin, and request approval by the 2014 Idaho Legislature.
quoted from Idaho Board of Pharmacy September 2013 Newsletter
The Idaho State Board of Pharmacy has reviewed and consid-
ered the provision of pre-printed, hard copy prescription drug
order blanks containing compounding formulas, by a pharmacy to
a prescriber, and has concluded it is legal. However, considering
the best interest and safety of the public, the Board has concluded
that the provision of hard copy prescription blanks containing
pharmacy-specific information, such as pharmacy name or address,
is prohibited. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the
following law:
504. UNLAWFUL ADVERTISING.
01. Unlawful Advertising or Inducements. A licensee or
registrant may not promote or induce, directly or indirectly,
the provision of professional services or products through
the dissemination of a public communication that contains
a false, misleading, or deceptive statement or claim.
The Board’s decision is based upon the determination that the
inclusion of pharmacy-specific information on such a prescription
blank creates too great of a risk of being “misleading” or “decep-
tive,” as the patient would likely be led to believe that his or her
prescription drug order may only be dispensed by that specific
pharmacy.
The Board also cautions pharmacies that engage in such provision
of blanks containing controlled substances (CS), that blanks for CS
are required to be on non-copyable paper as per Section 37-2725,
Idaho Code, and that they may be deemed by Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) to have been illegally prepared for the pre-
scriber’s signature by someone other than the prescriber’s agent.
quoted from Idaho Board of Pharmacy September 2013 Newsletter
A committee of the Board met with representatives of the
Iowa Epilepsy Treatment & Education Task Force on June
12, 2013. The discussion focused on the proper handling of
prescriptions for brand-name products, generic products,
and branded generic products. The advantage of having the
patient’s diagnosis on the prescription was also discussed. All
parties agreed on the following course of action: (1) clarify,
in Board rules, the difference between generics and branded
generics vis-à-vis Iowa’s law for drug product selection; (2)
clarify the proper method for dispensing products from morethan one company in a single prescription due to a drug short-
age or other extenuating circumstance (ie, mixing two different
generic products in the same prescription vial); and (3) educate
pharmacists on the need to notify prescribers whenever a
change is made in the dispensing of a patient’s epilepsy medi-
cations. The Board will publish proposed changes in rules as
soon as they are available and will continue to work with the
members of the Epilepsy Task Force to resolve dispensing is-
sues and ensure patient safety. A recent study in the Journal
of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine has
concluded that “changes in pill color significantly increase
the odds of nonpersistence; this may have important clinical
implications. Our study supports a reconsideration of current
regulatory policy that permits wide variation in the appearance
of bioequivalent drugs.”
Source: “Variations in Pill Appearance of Antiepileptic Drugs and
the Risk of Nonadherence,” JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173(3): 202-
208. Background: “Generic prescription drugs are bioequivalent
to brand-name versions but may not have consistent color or shape,
which can cause confusion and lead to interruptions in medication
use. This study sought to determine whether switching among
different-appearing antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is associated with
increased rates of medication nonpersistence, which can have serious
medical, financial and social consequences.
quoted from the Iowa Board of Pharmacy September 2013 Newsletter