 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Pharmacy / May 2005Sched II scripts
I am a nurse practitioner in California.. Am wondering if any of you have experience with patients presenting post dated scripts for Sched II narcotics?? Or scripts that are marked "do not fill before XXX" Isn't this essentially a refill order of a Sched II...which is prohibited by federal law?? There is a huge discussion on one of the pain newsgroups..where pain management docs have been providing post dated scripts..seeing patients maybe q3 months....now more and more places say NO MORE post dated scripts and monthly visits required.. Is there any reason Sched II cannot be written for 60 or 90 days ?? thanks Hawki 63...southern calif >Hawki63 wrote: > Am wondering if any of you have experience with patients presenting post [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Hawki 63...southern calif Federal law does not have a maximum quantity that may be prescribed for CII substances. The only issue involved would be doctor-patient trust, having a patient possessing a large quantity of a CII substance, or the possibility of a patient losing their medicine or being robbed. A problem that will occur is with patients who have insurance, private or Medicaid, which in many cases will only let you get a 30 day supply at a time from a local pharmacy. Some allow multiple months, with various co-payment terms, but many will only let them get a month at a time, so they will have to pay out-of-pocket for anything else. That's not so bad when buying Percocet or Demerol generics, but when purchasing something like OxyContin, it's highly expensive. According to the DEA in their recent statements, postdating or notating for future dispensing, does constitute refilling, which is prohibited by federal law for CII substances. However, many are contesting this interpretation, including our state board of pharmacy (North Carolina). The DEA, though, is asking for input from prescribers, pharmacists, and members of the public regarding this, and will accept comments until and on the day of March 21, 2005. Take care! Phillip I don't know how California is about drug laws but you should check both your State and local laws concerning Schedule II drugs. They may have their own laws that are different from the Federal law. I follow gun legislation in California and California is well known to have various State and local laws that prohibit certain guns that are perfectly legal under the federal regulations. It takes about sixty pages in the government book I have just to list ALL the State and local gun laws that have been enacted in California. I believe in N. California they allow the use of medical cannabis which is prohibited by the federal law. Somebody is acting as a pharmacist if they are packaging and distributing weed to patients that need it and the federal laws are being ignored. yeah...we are a bit weird out here!! and yes...medical marijuana is supposed to be legal... but other than Marinol it is not being supplied... so our pharmacies surely do not carry MJ in their lockers!! >I don't know how California is about drug laws but you should check both > your State and local laws concerning Schedule II drugs. They may have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > federal > laws are being ignored. Since according to California law medical marijuana is legal, it must be a prescription only drug, correct? I thought prescription drugs were only supposed to be dispensed by licensed (Registered) Pharmacists upon receipt of a valid prescription written by a doctor. Is it considered a drug in California or what? How can the California Board of Pharmacy put up with this paradox? Don't they control drugs within your State? High Times could replace Pharmacy Times for CE credits. Why would they rather have dope growers supply the product instead of Pharmacists? I wonder how much of the California grown MJ is exported from California. Did you read about the dope growers wanting to get their marijuana certified "Organic"? > yeah...we are a bit weird out here!! > and yes...medical marijuana is supposed to be legal... > but other than Marinol it is not being supplied... > so our pharmacies surely do not carry MJ in their lockers!! good and valid question...and I cannot answer it.. I do NOT think that marijuana is any form other than Marinol is available LEGALLY in this state...I believe there was at one time a trial >..tho that may have been Federal..where the gov't actually grew and provided weed for certain people.. How does the Pharmacy Board tolerate this?? maybe cuz they don't want to end up in jail.. Remember..if Fed law says it is NOT legal...state law cannot say it is...state law can be MORE restrictive..but not less...if I understand the mumbo jumbo correctly.. > Since according to California law medical marijuana is legal, it must be a > prescription only drug, correct? I thought prescription drugs were only [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> but other than Marinol it is not being supplied... >> so our pharmacies surely do not carry MJ in their lockers!! It is legal to have in certain jurisdictional areas. Hell the people growing the pot plants for medical marijuana can even claim it as an insurance loss if their plants get stolen. Go figure. > good and valid question...and I cannot answer it.. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>> but other than Marinol it is not being supplied... >>> so our pharmacies surely do not carry MJ in their lockers!! interesting..had never heard that!! > It is legal to have in certain jurisdictional areas. Hell the people > growing the pot plants for medical marijuana can even claim it as an [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>>> but other than Marinol it is not being supplied... >>>> so our pharmacies surely do not carry MJ in their lockers!! > It is legal to have in certain jurisdictional areas. Hell the people > growing the pot plants for medical marijuana can even claim it as an > insurance loss if their plants get stolen. Go figure. LOL So say they smoked their insured stock and they had fire insurance - could they claim the loss? But then they might get busted for arson. Brad anonymous wrote: >[Medical marijuana] is legal >to have in certain jurisdictional areas. I'm not a lawyer, but I bet a FEDERAL law enforcement agent (FBI, DEA, BATF, etc.) would glady arrest people for possession. Of course, you would also have to find someone to prosecute them, which a DA might or might not. Of course, maybe some federal prosecutor might take an interest in you. Sometimes they like to make an "example" of someone. This reminds me of something someone once told me. You may find it interesting, maybe not. I don't vouch for the accuracy... I once was rear-ended by a drunk. I was subpoenaed for her DWI trial, which involved a morning mostly waiting around the court house, and an uneventful speedy trial by judge (she pled guilty.) The DA kept me company for most of the 2-3 hours. He told me an obscure but fascinating fact. I forget the details, so don't try this at home. Something like, most cities in my state, the county attorney does all prosecutions, but my in my city (the biggest in our state) we also have city attorney. So the city guys handle misdemeanors, and the county guys handle the felonies. He said there is a little quirk where you can beat the system: something like, if you do a misdemeanor in a place where the city guys don't have jurisdiction (federal property?) then only the county guys can hit you, but they typically won't bother, so you can probably beat the rap. YMMV! Petepenguin@webtv.net wrote: > anonymous wrote: > I'm not a lawyer, but I bet a FEDERAL law enforcement agent (FBI, DEA, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > county guys can hit you, but they typically won't bother, so you can > probably beat the rap. YMMV! Great friend1330@duskmail.com In my experience both working in a medical office, and also being the wife of a man who had a pain problem for a time, post-dating (although I believe should be frowned upon) and certainly stating "do not fill before" are acceptable ways to write a prescription. Now, I must admit, I live in Juneau, AK - we can be backwoods sometimes. With regards to "Do not fill before" scripts, you can turn them in whenever, but there is a note on the bottle and in the pharmacy computer stating the above. I don't know if it's legal, but it's a partnership between the doctor and the pharmacy. As far as post-dating scripts..it's mostly the same. Pharmacies WON'T fill before the date. As long as that is in trust, the issue is moot. Many people use and abuse this system...but many don't. It's a hard one to decide an opinion on. You want convenience and the avoidance of a stigma, but you must be careful. Use your own judgement. If the patient needs what you can give them, they will comply. actually the wording "do not fill before" and post dated scripts are essentially the same thing!!!....both ways prevent a patient from obtaining a med prior to the doctor or insurance company's time frame... there is currently a brouha at the Fed level that "do not fill before" method is essentially refills...prohibited by fed law in ALL states... will be interesting to see how far "they" take this.. and appreciate your unique problems living in Ak...where weather and distance can be a problem.. good luck > In my experience both working in a medical office, and also being the wife > of a man who had a pain problem for a time, post-dating (although I [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Use your own judgement. If the patient needs what you can give them, they > will comply. >"Do not fill before" scripts In theory these are okay. However, the DEA prosecutes docs who utilize these. We write about 150 Sch II scripts a month. We NEVER use this designation. A. L. Shaw, MD > >"Do not fill before" scripts apparently the DEA is trying to put the skids on do not fill before scripts...saying they essentially are "refills"...obviously not allowed for sched ii from what I "hear"...docs are not necessarily being prosecuted for writing do not fill before scriptis...but many are reluctanct to write them now.. > In theory these are okay. However, the DEA prosecutes docs who > utilize these. We write about 150 Sch II scripts a month. We NEVER > use this designation. > A. L. Shaw, MD |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.