I interpret this section of the code to mean that any drug (Schedule
II - V) can be dispensed via electronic transmittal of prescriptions
with no confirmation required. Can this be right?
L.1996, c. 154, § 4, eff. Jan. 6, 1997.
45:14-14.5. Transmission of prescription to pharmacist by telephone or
electronic means; prescriber's registration
or license number required
Nothing contained in P.L.1996, c. 154 (C. 45:14-14.1 et al.) shall
preclude a licensed prescriber from transmitting
to a pharmacist by telephone or electronic means a prescription, as
otherwise authorized by law, if that prescriber
provides the prescriber's Drug Enforcement Administration registration
number or prescriber's license number, as
appropriate, to the pharmacist at the time the prescriber transmits
the prescription.
Brad - 15 Jul 2003 15:18 GMT
> I interpret this section of the code to mean that any drug (Schedule
> II - V) can be dispensed via electronic transmittal of prescriptions
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> appropriate, to the pharmacist at the time the prescriber transmits
> the prescription.
Or you could interpret it to mean that the prescription can be *transmitted*
to the pharmacist but not necessarily *filled* without proper control
substance requirements fulfilled.
Even some written prescriptions require more info in order to fill than what
was provided with the original prescription.
May be picking apart words but just my 2 cents.
Brad
MGLloyd - 15 Jul 2003 16:14 GMT
> I interpret this section of the code to mean that any drug (Schedule
> II - V) can be dispensed via electronic transmittal of prescriptions
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> appropriate, to the pharmacist at the time the prescriber transmits
> the prescription.
I am a healthcare risk management consultant in Seattle, with a particular
interest in medical informatics. Although I am not familiar with the
specifics of Nevada state law in this regard, my guess, based on the several
other states with similar statutory language, is this pertains to phoning or
faxing a script to the pharmacy, and does not negate any confirmation that
may be required or done as part of good practice. I note that this statute
was amended in 1996, and I suspect the 'electronic means' was added at that
time to permit faxing scripts.
The Nevada Board of Pharmacy would be the arbiter of what their intent is by
this, and if you practice in Nevada, I would address this question to them.
Regards,
Michael Lloyd
Dr. Wayne Simon - 15 Jul 2003 22:26 GMT
nevada law cannot override stricter federal requirements.
Alec T - 16 Jul 2003 02:53 GMT
Thanks for the replies. I am trying to research the state laws for
all 50 states regarding facsimilie transmission as well as electronic
beaming (e-prescribing). If you have any recommendations, I would
love to hear them.
thanks for the info.
Alec