Wednesday, June 4, 2014

New Mexico Board of Pharmacy Regulation Changes Regarding Compounded Sterile Preparations

Regulation Change – Compounded

Sterile Preparations



During the April 24-25, 2014 Board meeting, changes

were approved regarding the regulation concerning compounded



sterile preparations. The previously-approved

regulations were found in 16.19.6 NMAC – Pharmacies.

The portion of this regulation concerning compounded

sterile preparations was repealed and moved to a new

regulation. The new regulation is 16.19.36 NMAC –




Compounded Sterile Preparations.


Also during the April Board meeting, a public hearing

was held to review the proposed new rule 16.19.36

NMAC – Compounded Sterile Preparations. The new



rule was developed and submitted by the Sterile Preparations

Committee (SPC), which serves as an advisory

group to the Board. The primary goal of the SPC was to

establish standards pursuant to those of United States

Pharmacopeia to ensure that New Mexico citizens receive

properly compounded, contaminant-free sterile

prmeparations. SPC members present at the hearing fielded

questions about the proposed rule from the public as

well as fro Board members and Board staff. The Board

unanimously passed the new rule with directions to the

SPC members to expand and clarify 16.19.36.13 NMAC

Requirements for Training and 16.19.36.15 NMAC




Quality Assurance of Compounded Sterile Preparations


at a subsequent Board meeting. Please visit the

Board website to review the current Compounded Sterile

Preparations regulation.

quoted from here

New Mexico Board of Pharmacy takes Action Against DVM Regarding CS

Gretchen Steininger, DVM – License #CS00214671.


Respondent voluntarily surrendered her CS registration.



Respondent must pay investigative costs of $100.

 
quoted from here
 
 
 

New Mexico Board of Pharmacy Takes Action Against New England Compounding Center Pharmacy--Agrees Never to Renew Pharmacy License

New England Compounding Center Pharmacy – License


PH-2575. Respondent was registered as a nonresident

pharmacy in New Mexico. Respondent distributed



non-patient-specific compounded sterile product

into New Mexico. Respondent filed for bankruptcy.

Prior to filing for bankruptcy, respondent ceased doing

business within New Mexico. Respondent surrendered

its pharmacy registration. Respondent agrees to never

renew pharmacy license.
quoted from here
 


New Mexico Board of Pharmacy June 2014 Newsletter

read here

Montana Board of Pharmacy Reminds PIC of Duties

Compliance Corner: ‘Pharmacist-In-Charge’ Reminders
 
 
 

Montana Administrative Rule 24.174.301(28) states in definition,

“‘Pharmacist-in-charge’ [PIC] means a pharmacist licensed in Montana who

accepts the responsibility for the operation of a pharmacy in conformance

with all laws and rules [state and federal] pertinent to the practice of pharmacy,

who assures that the pharmacy and all pharmacy personnel working

in the pharmacy have current and appropriate licensure and certification,

and who is personally in full and actual charge of such pharmacy. . .” In

other words, as the PIC of a facility, you become responsible for all actions

and activities in your facility.

Maybe you are the owner PIC or you have been asked to be the nonowner

PIC. What does this mean to the Board, to Bob and Bill as inspectors

for the Board, and more importantly, to you, the PIC? By now, most of

you have been inspected multiple times in your facility and hopefully you

are on the same page as the Board and its inspectors. However, the Board

continues to see certain issues that you are responsible for that have somehow

been missed in some locations. With this in mind, the Board felt that

it was time for a PIC reminder related to what the Board will continue to

review and look for on each site visit/inspection. Some things to consider:

♦ Is your facility license, all of its endorsements, and its Drug Enforcement



Administration (DEA) license current and posted?

Is the license and certification of each employee current and posted



in your facility (this includes pharmacists, interns, technicians, and

technicians-in-training)?

Does each technician you employ have his or her certificate for being



a certified pharmacy technician and his or her CE file up-to-date

and on site?

♦ Is the DEA initial controlled substance inventory or biennial inventory



current and on site?

♦ Is the technician utilization plan (if you use technicians) up-to-date,



on site, and accessible?

♦ Are your policies and procedures for the facility and its employees



current and in line with the practice standards of pharmacy?

♦ Are your collaborative practice agreements current, signed, and on



site?

♦ Are all of your record keeping requirements current and available for



inspection (prescriptions, profiles, invoices, inventories, etc)?

♦ Are you and your facility Health Insurance Portability and Accountability



Act-compliant?

♦ Is your drug inventory properly stored and secured?

Is access to the facility properly defined?

♦ Is patient consultation taking place in an appropriate area in the



facility?

♦ Are you using any ancillary personnel to aid your facility and are they



properly identified?

♦ Do you have Internet access to use the Board’s web page (www.pharmacy

.mt.gov) and the Montana Prescription Drug Registry (MPDR) program

(www.mpdr.mt.gov)?



The Board recognizes this is a long list, but know that it is just the

beginning of the inspection process you are responsible for in your facility

In addition to all of the record keeping requirements, as the PIC you

also are responsible for all the actions of personnel working in the pharmacy.

So, how does a PIC stay on top of all of this, especially in a busy

facility? Some recommendations include that you need to be properly

trained as a PIC so that you can proactively train your staff, and then take

time to revisit any problem areas.

As all of you know, things are changing rapidly in the practice

of pharmacy and the facilities you work in. Communication is a key

component in getting all the staff on the same page to meet all of these

expectations. Whether you use policies and procedures, bring up files,

automatic reminders, read-and-signs, e-mails, staff meetings, or some

other avenue to get the information out to all your staff, it needs to happen.

Issues need to be addressed sooner rather than later, as they will not go

away on their own. The Board also suggests you actively use the Board

website at www.pharmacy.mt.gov to stay up-to-date on issues, rules and

regulations, Newsletters, and other important information from the Board.



No one said it would be easy, but it is expected!
quoted from here

Montana Board of Pharmacy June 2014 Newsletter

read here

Kansas Board of Pharmacy Reminds PIC of Responsibilty in Kansas

Pharmacist’s Responsibility


If you are the pharmacist-in-charge (PIC) of a pharmacy, it is

your responsibility to ensure that all personnel you allow to perform

pharmacy functions in the prescription area of the pharmacy

are properly licensed or registered with the Board. K.S.A. 65-1663

states, “A pharmacy technician shall work under the direct supervision



and control of a pharmacy. It shall be the responsibility of the

supervising pharmacist to determine that the pharmacy technician

is in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations of the

board, and the supervising pharmacist shall be responsible for the

acts and omissions of the pharmacy technician in the performance

of the pharmacy technician duties.” You can verify the status of

any credential the Board issues on the Board’s website.

In the event a compliance officer discovers anyone performing

pharmacy functions without the necessary credentials, then all

pharmacists present, including the PIC, will be identified in the

investigative report filed by the compliance officer. The Board

will not fine the pharmacy, but will fine whichever supervising

individuals are responsible for permitting the pharmacy technician

to work without a current permit.

quoted from here


Kansas Board of Pharmacy June 2014 Newsletter

read here

Results from Iowa Inspections of Non Resident Compounding Pharmacies

Iowa/NABP Pharmacy Inspection Project

Results



The Board recently completed a special project in which nearly

80% of nonresident (out-of-state) pharmacies licensed to do business

in Iowa were inspected. Between December 1, 2012 and December

31, 2013, a total of 538 nonresident pharmacies were surveyed with

the assistance of the field services division of the National Association

of Boards of Pharmacy® (NABP®).



The pharmacies that were inspected were located in 42 states.

The top 10 states were:

♦ Florida: 69 pharmacies

♦ Illinois: 45 pharmacies

Nebraska: 41 pharmacies

♦ California: 31 pharmacies

♦ Pennsylvania: 30 pharmacies

♦ Minnesota: 26 pharmacies

♦ Missouri: 22 pharmacies

♦ Tennessee: 21 pharmacies

♦ Texas: 20 pharmacies

♦ Ohio: 20 pharmacies



A total of 263 pharmacies (49%) were found to be engaged in some

form of compounding. One hundred thirteen pharmacies (21%) were

found to be doing both sterile and nonsterile compounding. Eighty five



pharmacies (16%) were doing only nonsterile compounding,

while 65 pharmacies (12%) were doing only sterile compounding.

Of those pharmacies that were engaging in sterile compounding,

the following was observed:

♦ High-risk preparations by prescription: 93 pharmacies

♦ High-risk preparations without a prescription: 40 pharmacies

♦ Medium-risk preparations by prescription: 121 pharmacies

♦ Medium-risk preparations without a prescription: 24 pharmacies

♦ Low-risk preparations by prescription: 134 pharmacies

♦ Low-risk preparations without a prescription: 23 pharmacies



In addition, 158 pharmacies (29%) were found to be performing

bulk compounding without a prescription in anticipation of receiving

prescriptions. There were 14 pharmacies that were also licensed as

a distributor, with internal movement of compounded product from

the pharmacy to the distributor.

These pharmacies ranged in size from 65 square feet to 163,000

square feet. The size of their compounding areas ranged from two

square feet to 1,000 square feet.

The number of pharmacists per facility ranged from one to 258,

while the number of pharmacy technicians ranged from one to 668.

Some facilities dispensed up to 90,000 prescriptions per day. The

number of prescriptions dispensed to Iowa patients ranged from

one to 1,285 per day.

Interestingly, 47 of these same pharmacies (8.7%) were also

inspected by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the

same time period. Twenty-six of those pharmacies (4.8%) received

a warning letter from FDA.

One hundred nine pharmacies (20%) were found to be operating

under a waiver granted by their home state board of pharmacy. The

types of pharmacies inspected included the following:

♦ Traditional retail/Community

Health Maintenance Organization/Pharmacy Benefit Management



only

♦ Institutional (hospital or long-term care)

♦ Mail order

Central fill/Central processing

♦ Internet pharmacy

♦ Telepharmacy



The results of these inspections have been reviewed by the Board.

In some cases, nonresident pharmacies have been issued letters of

education or administrative warnings. In other cases, nonresident

pharmacies have been issued a Statement of Charges and Notice

of Hearing, which initiates the formal disciplinary process. More

information will be released as it becomes available.

As of April 22, 2014, Iowa has 685 nonresident pharmacies actively

licensed to do business in Iowa.
quoted from here


Iowa Board of Pharmacy June 2014 Newsletter

read here

Idaho Board of Pharmacy Reminder that All Compounding in State Must be Patient Specific and Not Office Use

Compounding


As stated in the March 2014 Board Newsletter, pharmacies

must dispense compounded drug product pursuant to a patients pecific


prescription drug order. Compounded drug product that

is distributed in the absence of a patient-specific prescription drug

order is rendered as manufactured. In other words, both federal

and state law prohibit pharmacies from distributing compounded

drug products for “office use.” Federal law allows for a new

category of drug outlet to meet “office use” needs: the outsourcing

facility. You may access a list of Food and Drug Administration
 
registered

outsourcing facilities at the following link: www
 


.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/


PharmacyCompounding/ucm378645.htm. The Board has been



enforcing such law on a priority basis and will immediately begin

enforcement of such law for all sterile compounded drug product.

All sterile compounded drug product must be dispensed by a

pharmacy pursuant to a patient-specific prescription drug order

and not distributed by a pharmacy for “office use.” Prescribers and

hospitals are required to obtain “office use” sterile compounded

drug product from federally registered outsourcing facilities.

quoted from here

Idaho Board of Pharmacy June 2014 Newsletter

here

FDA Public Notifications on Products that Contain Hidden Drug Ingredients

FDA Enforcement Report - Week of June 4, 2014

Enforcement Report - Week of June 4, 2014

Horse Racing Can't Be Saved, Even If California Chrome Wins the Triple Crown

Ten years ago, a chestnut colt by the name of Smarty Jones was on the brink of capturing the first Triple Crown in 26 years. More than 120,000 fans had descended on Belmont Park to watch the undefeated three-year-old compete in the Belmont Stakes, a record to this day for a live sports event in the state of New York. And 120,000 people have rarely been as quiet as they were when the lightly regarded Birdstone eclipsed Smarty Jones just before the finish line, winning by one length
continue to read here

Prefilled Syringes Market 2013-2023

press release
June 4, 2014, 11:56 a.m. EDT

Prefilled Syringes Market, 2013 - 2023

Kentucky Board of Pharmacy June 2014 Newsletter

read here

FDA continues enforcement crackdown on unlawful compounding--FDA isn’t going away. Look out Grandma.

Arnall Golden Gregory LLP   

Author page »Author page »
The Food and Drug (FDA) Administration continues its enforcement action against compounding operations that violate the law. In at least four Warning Letters issued in 2014, FDA reiterated its enforcement policy on compounding drugs, and noted, in all cases, the pharmacies were “not receiving valid prescriptions for individually-identified patients for a portion of the drug products you were producing.” There were also quality and production deficiencies that presented patient safety risks.
In each Warning Letter FDA cited the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) recently enacted by Congress, which continues to require valid prescriptions for individually-identified patients while eliminating advertising restrictions on compounding. Because the pharmacies failed to comply with DQSA, FDA alleged the drug products were unapproved new drugs and misbranded.
AGG Observations
  1. FDA is not slowing down on its enforcement of traditional compounding operations, especially when compounders fail to require valid prescriptions for individually-identified patients. FDA’s lack of sympathy is ironically illustrated by going the Agency’s decision to go after Grandpa’s Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. (emphasis added).
continue to read here

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Jun 4, 2014

Must Read Policy and Medicine Blog: FDA CDER Guidance Agenda for Remainder of 2014

As we continue to cover the FDA and Congress begins considering an overhaul to the FDA's regulatory framework, it might be helpful for our readers to review the previously published guidance agenda from the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Several of these guidance's have already been released with many more expected throughout the year.  Continue to Read here

“I’ve been told that it’s the wild, wild West,” Travis Tygart, the chief executive of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, said of horse racing. “It’s 1,000 times worse than anything we’ve seen because people in the sport can go out and bet on themselves. Our experience has shown that it’s impossible for anyone to both promote a sport and attempt to police the drug issue at the same time. There’s a massive conflict of interest.”

quoted from NY Times Article Found here

Horse Racing Still Stumbling in Antidrug Push

BALTIMORE — When California Chrome finally made his way back to the stables at Pimlico Race Course after winning the Preakness Stakes more than two weeks ago, fans cheered and rushed toward him, their camera phones held high and clicking.
One man in the scrum kept repeating: “Look at him, he knows he’s going to win the Triple Crown. He knows it. Just look.” A woman marveled at the horse’s shiny chestnut coat and big brown eyes and said: “Ooh, he’s so cute. What a good boy! He’s such a beautiful animal, isn’t he?”
His co-owner Steve Coburn kissed him on his soft, quivering muzzle, then said in a near whisper: “Do you know just how special you are? All of these people have shown up to watch you run.”
Many more people will show up this weekend. About 100,000 people at Belmont and legions more from their homes — possibly more than 10 million — will watch as California Chrome tries to become the 12th Triple Crown winner.
 

Drug Manufacturers Consent to Oversight by Federal Agency Following Increased Scrutiny

Drug Manufacturers Consent to Oversight by Federal Agency Following Increased Scrutiny

Louisiana Tries to Bring Back Electric Chair and Make Lethal Injection Drugs Secret, Luckily Fails at Both

A bill that would have brought one of the toughest lethal injection secrecy regimes in the country to Louisiana was pulled by its sponsor just hours before the 2014 legislative session came to an end yesterday.
The bill, HB 328, has a peculiar genealogy. It started out as a backdoor reauthorization of the electric chair in the Bayou State. After a few weeks, the legislature decided Gruesome Gertie wasn't worth resurrecting and abruptly changed course

continue to read here

Insurance Rules force Pharmacy to Change

Insurance rules force local business to change

Brian Allen: Compounding Medications Compounding Concerns

Throughout the country, there are hundreds of historical depictions of villages, towns, and Main Streets representing pre-colonial times to the early 1900’s. In many of these replica towns, there is a local apothecary complete with jars of various powders, weights, scales and a vintage mortar and pestle. It is not difficult to imagine a wizened scientist with a furrowed brow hunched over the counter crushing and mixing various powders to craft medicines to treat the ailments of the local townsfolk. Modern day pharmacy care evolved from these shops where various ingredients were compounded to make a medicine that was just right for what ailed you. In the workers’ compensation system today, we are seeing an accelerating resurgence of compounded medications. But, are they really just right for what ails the injured worker?
In the modern era of pharmacy care, the use of compounded medications began in response to situations in which a patient was allergic to a medication or had a physical issue that prevented the use of non-compounded medications. In this sense, compound medications were something of a last resort, relied upon when traditional methods of delivering medication failed or were not practical. Over the last few years however, the use of compounded medications as first line therapy to treat injured workers is a growing concern.
Therapeutic Value vs. Financial Gain
In 2011, the RAND Institute prepared a paper1 for the California Commission on Health, Safety and Workers’ Compensation (CHSWC) that examined the use of compounded medications, medical foods, and co-packs in the California workers’ compensation system. The RAND paper noted that “some parties face significant financial incentives to promote the use of these products in questionable situations.” The result of these findings in California led to legislative changes that capped reimbursement for compound medications and instituted a process to verify medical necessity prior to prescribing a compound. The raised awareness in California led other states and payers to begin examining what was happening in their injured worker population.
What they found was that a number of compounding pharmacies were using repackaged medications in their compounded medications and the reimbursement rate for those repackaged medications was often 300% or higher than a similar non-repackaged ingredient. In response, a handful of states adopted rules that required the National Drug Code (NDC) of each ingredient in a compounded medication to be listed separately with reimbursement for repackaged ingredients calculated on the average wholesale price of the NDC of the original product. Most states, however, were not experiencing significant problems with compounded medications.
continue to read here

Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency has issued a notice to the racing industry regarding compounded medication.

CPMA Compounded Medication Notice

 
Published: June 3, 2014 4:01 pm ET
No Comments | Jump to Comments
The Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency has issued a notice to the racing industry regarding compounded medication.
The memo appears below in English. The embedded PDF shows English and French.

Subject: Compounded Medication
The compounding of drugs is an accepted veterinary practice and when properly prescribed, created and administered, they can be an appropriate and effective treatment for your horse.
Compounded drugs are commonly used when a licensed product is not available or when a different strength or form (e.g. compounded paste instead of tablet) are required.
Compounding involves the combining or mixing together of two or more ingredients (of which at least one is a drug or pharmacologically active component) to create a final product in an appropriate form for dosing.
When treating race horses with compounded medications it may be wise to add extra time to the published elimination guidelines. Owners, trainers any person in charge or having care of a race horsare strongly advised to consult their own veterinarian for advice and guidance in the use of all drugs.
Positive certificates of analysis resulting from administrations of compounded medication remain the responsibility of the trainer.
Should you have any questions or comments with respect to this notice, please contact Dr. Adam Chambers BVMS, at Adam.Chambers@agr.gc.ca.

2014 CJ Dairy Farm 5/21/14

2014 CJ Dairy Farm 5/21/14

2014 Aesthetics Systems Usa Inc 5/22/14

2014 Aesthetics Systems Usa Inc 5/22/14

Jock Paget to have his say in doping case

The hearing for Kiwi rider Jock Paget has begun in central London.
Paget is getting the chance to have his say in person, six months after he was notified that the "B" sample taken from horse Clifton Promise after their triumph at the Burghley Horse Trials in September had tested positive for banned sedative reserpine.
Equestrian Sports New Zealand (ESNZ) announced in April that Paget had requested that the FEI (FédérationÉquestre Internationale), Tribunal disqualify him and Clifton Promise from the 2013 event.
The international governing body accepted the request, taking the title from Paget and gifting it to Andrew Nicholson.
The eventer - who has not been competing for 9 months - avoided waiting media today.
The hearing is expected to last for two days but the results may not be known for a month.
Paget is hoping to be cleared so he can compete in the World Games that start in August.
It has earlier been reported that Paget does not contest the presence of the banned substance but claims no fault and no negligence in the case and has submitted a comprehensive dossier of evidence explaining and supporting this claim which he will present at the hearing.
continue to read here

Texas Budget Committe Meeting Book June 2014--Compounded Drugs Included

  1. [PDF]
  1. Budget Committee Meeting Book - June 2014 - TRS


16 hours ago - Compounded prescription drugs became a significant cost driver since late last fiscal year ... The compounded prescription drug issue was initially identified with ...

Wasington Post: Keeping watch over the FDA for Congress to improve public health


Published: June 2 | Updated: Tuesday, June 3, 5:00 AM
As the United States began importing greater numbers of prescription drugs and medical devices, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found itself ill-prepared to conduct inspections of thousands of foreign manufacturing plants and provide the kind of strict oversight needed to fully protect public health.
In her role as a watchdog for Congress, Marcia Crosse of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) placed the spotlight on the serious regulatory problems at the FDA caused by globalization, prompting an increase in funding, the opening of FDA offices in countries like China and India, greater numbers of foreign manufacturing plant inspections and improved data collection to create a better understanding of overseas companies.
continue to read here-

FDA catches Wockhardt U.S. plant using same spurious testing procedures as Indian plants

The FDA has lashed out at India's Wockhardt, saying a plant in the U.S. was using the same questionable drug-testing procedures that led the agency to ban two of Wockhardt's Indian plants last year. The observation is one of a dozen cited in a Form 483 the FDA has issued to Wockhardt's Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals plant, a facility that has been helping prop up Wockhardt in the face of bans on the Indian plants.
Wockhardt acknowledged last week that it received the Form 483 for the plant about 40 miles northwest of Chicago but gave no details about the problems the FDA found. The FDA has now posted the document, showing it ran an inspection that went on for 17 days in January, February and March. The Form 483 criticizes the facility for unsanitary conditions and poor employee sanitation, but much of the report focuses on the "the continued uncontrolled use of 'trial' injections during chromatographic testing to release drug products and monitor stability of drug products after this practice was cited in warning letters issued to two other Wockhardt facilities."
The Indian plants were banned in part because the FDA said Wockhardt was testing "trial samples" of some drugs, then linking results from those to official samples that had not met test requirements. While the company told the FDA that the trial injections at the Morton Grove plant were for "informational use only," the FDA said it is unclear how the company used the data because it was not officially recorded and there was no audit trail. And, like at the Indian plants, Morton Grove allows unfettered access to computers by analysts, meaning that data could be tampered with by virtually anyone there.


Read more: FDA catches Wockhardt U.S. plant using same spurious testing procedures as Indian plants - FiercePharma Manufacturing http://www.fiercepharmamanufacturing.com/story/fda-catches-wockhardt-us-plant-using-same-spurious-testing-procedures-india/2014-06-02#ixzz33aXrdjga
Subscribe at FiercePharma Manufacturing

THE FDA AND TurboEIR – HOW IT’S MANAGED AND MISMANAGED FORM FDA 483s

TurboEIR is a FDA software program designed to standardize Form FDA 483s and Establishment Inspection Reports (EIR).  It was completely “rolled out” in October 2002. For each “Objectionable Condition” (FDA 483 Observation), TurboEIR requests the inspection team to choose a “canned” citation and then describe the details of the situation.  In addition, each “canned” citation contains a paraphrase of the underlying authority. Quite often the underlying authority is a regulation from Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, but may also be a statutory reference.
TurboEIR is strongly encouraged by FDA management for the purpose of writing accurate, consistent, and complete reports and documents as well as increase the efficiency of report writing.

continue to read here

CVM Updates FDA Approves First Oral Drug for Fleas and Ticks in Dogs with Three Month Duration

CVM Updates FDA Approves First Oral Drug for Fleas and Ticks in Dogs with Three Month Duration

From the FDA Law Blog--The Ascension of FDA’s September 19, 2011 Marketed Unapproved Drugs Compliance Policy Guide

June 02, 2014

Monday, June 2, 2014

FDA Inspects Premier Pharmacy Labs, Inc. who registered as an Outsourcing Facility and so far no 483 has been issued

Premier Pharmacy Labs Inc., Weeki Wachee, FL 4/16/2014 5/9/2014 N/A Open Yes

FDA Inspects Healix Ifusion Therapy Inc who registered as an Outsourcing Facility and so far no 483

Healix Infusion Therapy, Inc., Sugar Land, TX
2/12/2014 5/16/2014 N/A N/A Yes

Texas won't detail threats behind drug reversal

DALLAS — Texas law enforcement officials are refusing to say what threats were behind a key letter that led the state attorney general to reverse his long-held position that the identity of Texas' execution drug provider should be made public.
The Texas Department of Public Safety's one-page letter was cited Thursday by the Texas Attorney General's Office, which ruled state prison officials could keep its provider a secret. On Friday, the Department of Public Safety called any details about threats "law enforcement sensitive information," refusing to say if any pharmacies were in danger or what the agency was doing to investigate.
Anti-death penalty advocates have accused Texas and other states of trumping up threats to avoid disclosing their providers. So far, state and local law enforcement agencies have said little publicly about why they feel pharmacies are in danger.
The state prison system has long argued that safety concerns required it to keep suppliers' information private. Three times, Attorney General Greg Abbott's office refused the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's requests, saying the agency hadn't done enough to prove a threat.
In one of those opinions, issued two years ago, the office said that "while we acknowledge the department's concerns, we find you have not established disclosure of the responsive information would create a substantial threat of physical harm to any individual."
But in Thursday's opinion reversing that position, Abbott's office cited Department of Public Safety director Steven McCraw's letter as proof that law enforcement believed a threat existed.
TDCJ requested the March 7 letter from McCraw, DPS spokesman Tom Vinger said. The letter says there were threats made against the Woodlands Compounding Pharmacy, a Houston-area facility that was identified in a previous open-records request as the state supplier.
continue to read here

Protect Racehorses from Performance-Enhancing Drugs

Protect Racehorses from Performance-Enhancing Drugs

Thin Horse Uproar Adds Fuel To Endurance Welfare Fires | The Chronicle of the Horse

Thin Horse Uproar Adds Fuel To Endurance Welfare Fires | The Chronicle of the Horse