Pharmacist scope of practice expansion: The virtue of forbearance

Pharmacist Prescribing Models for HIV Pre-exposure and Post-exposure Prophylaxis

State strategies for pharmacist prescribing exist on a continuum from most restrictive to least restrictive. Using human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis as a case study, there are 3 viable pharmacist prescribing models: (1) population-based collaborative practice agreements; (2) government protocols; and (3) standard of care prescribing. The advantages and disadvantages of these 3 models are reviewed.

Implementation of the California advanced practice pharmacist and the continued disappointment of tiered licensure

The Advanced Practice Pharmacist (APh) designation in California was created via legislation 10 years ago. California pharmacists who meet certain criteria can be designated as an APh and unlock additional practice authority. Just 1065 pharmacists, or 2% of licensed California pharmacists, have obtained the APh designation through 2022. APhs did not report benefiting from the designation as it relates to expanded scope of practice. This experience of low uptake and minimal benefit mirrors the tiered licenses created by three other states. More recent legislation broadened the independent prescriptive authority of APhs, but this increased value proposition aligns with the practice authority adopted by other states who have imposed fewer barriers to entry. Given the track record observed to date, we doubt that tiered licensure will ever prove successful in the pharmacy profession. Instead, state policymakers and pharmacy advocates should consider adopting a "standard of care" regulatory approach to improve patient access to safe and beneficial pharmacist services.

Revisiting the continuum of pharmacist prescriptive authority

Pharmacists in all states have prescriptive authority in some form. We identify two broad categories of pharmacist prescribing: dependent and independent. There are gradients within these broad categories that allow us to chart pharmacist prescribing on a continuum from most restrictive to least restrictive. Independent prescribing has seen the most innovation in recent years at the state level, with at least three states adopting a "standard of care" prescribing framework that allows pharmacists to exercise broad prescriptive authority including for conditions that require a diagnosis. Each of the approaches to pharmacist prescriptive authority have perceived advantages and disadvantages as it relates to improving patient care.

Opportunities for pharmacist prescriptive authority of buprenorphine following passage of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act

In December 2022, Congress passed the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment Act, which removed the federal legal barrier to pharmacist buprenorphine prescribing. As a result, each state can now decide whether or not to allow pharmacists to prescribe buprenorphine as an additional access point to reduce fatal opioid overdoses. At least 10 states allow pharmacists to prescribe controlled substances under collaborative practice agreements. Two states (California and Idaho) have also created pathways for independent prescribing of buprenorphine by pharmacists. Additional states should seek to enable pharmacists to prescribe buprenorphine to increase access to a proven beneficial treatment and help reduce fatal opioid overdoses.

Regulating Pharmacist Clinical Services: Is Legal Silence Golden or Deafening?

In the United States, the scope of practice of pharmacists is determined primarily at the state level. Not all state laws expressly permit or prohibit pharmacists from providing certain services; in between is a grey area of legal silence. Does legal silence permit pharmacists to perform a service that is not specifically permitted, but not expressly prohibited? Point-of-care testing provides a useful case study in legal silence: there are 1536 pharmacies currently holding a CLIA-waiver to administer tests in states reporting that pharmacists are not expressly permitted to administer tests. Legal silence may even provide a better framework for pharmacy based testing as it is naturally inclusive of any point-of-care test and no laws need updated when a new test comes to the market. Other health professions navigate this legal silence by governing according to a "standard of care." Rather than specifying a list of services a health professional can or cannot provide in law, it provides a flexible framework for the health professional to provide any service that other similarly situated health professionals would provide in the same or similar situation. A standard of care regulatory framework should thus be the target of the pharmacy profession in order to advance patient care.

Extending COVID-19 Pharmacy Technician Duties: Impact on Safety and Pharmacist Jobs

Background: The 2019 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) led to an expanded scope of practice for pharmacy technicians. As the pandemic wanes, state governments are faced with the decision of whether or not to make permanent the authority of pharmacy technicians to perform extended duties. Objective: Determine the impacts on patient safety and job market demands preadoption and postadoption of Idaho's expanded technician duties in 2017 as a natural experiment for expanded technician duties. Methods: Data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) is used to explore patient safety outcomes in Idaho preadoption and postadoption and as compared with its border states. Data from Pharmacy Demand Reports is used to compare job postings in Idaho and its border state, and National Association of Boards of Pharmacy census data are used to compare growth in the number of pharmacists and technicians in Idaho and its border states over time. Results: For Idaho pharmacists, the average number of disciplinary actions reported against both pharmacists and technicians dropped after implementation of expanded technician duties. Idaho also had a lower rate of discipline for pharmacists and technicians than its border states. Idaho had the third highest job postings for pharmacists and the second highest for technicians among its border states. Idaho also had the largest growth in the number of licensed pharmacists and technicians of the observed states in the study period. Conclusion: Available statewide data from Idaho as compared with its border states suggests that expanded technician duties did not adversely impact patient safety outcomes or the pharmacist job market. Additional states may wish to expand pharmacy technician duties in the years ahead.

Pharmacy technician-administered immunizations: A five-year review

In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance authorizing trained pharmacy technicians in all states to administer immunizations. Given that this action is temporary, it will be necessary for states to adopt their own legislation or regulations to sustain these efforts beyond the coronavirus pandemic. At least 11 different immunization administration training programs have emerged for pharmacy technicians. An increasing number of publications have emerged on pharmacy technician immunization administration, demonstrating the ability to train technicians and have them safely administer immunizations in practice. Supervising pharmacists reported initial hesitancy but strong acceptance of delegating this task after experience in practice. States should look to expand and make permanent the authority of pharmacy technicians to ensure these benefits can continue to be realized after the HHS guidance expires.