Cargando…

Regulating Pharmacy Practice: Analysis of Pharmacy Laws in Ten States

BACKGROUND: The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) recently established a task force to help states develop regulations based on “standards of care” rather than “prescriptive rule-based regulation.” This signals a shift in orthodoxy as pharmacy has traditionally been a highly regulate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Adams, Alex J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34007649
http://dx.doi.org/10.24926/iip.v11i4.3344
_version_ 1783693890278129664
author Adams, Alex J.
author_facet Adams, Alex J.
author_sort Adams, Alex J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) recently established a task force to help states develop regulations based on “standards of care” rather than “prescriptive rule-based regulation.” This signals a shift in orthodoxy as pharmacy has traditionally been a highly regulated profession. A benchmark report on the pharmacy, nursing, and medical statutes and regulations in Idaho found that pharmacy had a higher overall word count, more overall restrictions, and had to be amended more frequently to keep pace with change. OBJECTIVE: To identify opportunities to make the transition to a “standard of care” regulatory model in pharmacy law, this manuscript attempts to quantify the regulatory burden for 10 Western U.S. states. METHOD: The relevant statutes and regulations were gathered from each of the 10 states, and key measures were extracted, including word count, restrictions, exemptions, and the composition. RESULTS: States exhibited wide variation in overall regulatory burden as measured by word count (average of 65,882 words, SD=35,057). The top categories of pharmacy law are: 1) professional practice standards (25,249 ± 16,077 words); 2) facility standards (15,230 ± 10,240 words); and 3) licensing (11,412 ± 6,191 words). More than 65% of all pharmacy regulations are in rule adopted by board of pharmacy rather than in statutes passed by the legislature. CONCLUSIONS: States exhibited major variation in total regulatory burden, with the largest contributors to cross-state variation being regulations related to professional practice standards and facility standards. This analysis suggests these two areas should be the primary targets of states looking to decrease regulatory burdens and that regulatory boards have a significant opportunity to remove regulatory burdens even in the absence of legislative action.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8127111
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81271112021-05-17 Regulating Pharmacy Practice: Analysis of Pharmacy Laws in Ten States Adams, Alex J. Innov Pharm Commentary BACKGROUND: The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) recently established a task force to help states develop regulations based on “standards of care” rather than “prescriptive rule-based regulation.” This signals a shift in orthodoxy as pharmacy has traditionally been a highly regulated profession. A benchmark report on the pharmacy, nursing, and medical statutes and regulations in Idaho found that pharmacy had a higher overall word count, more overall restrictions, and had to be amended more frequently to keep pace with change. OBJECTIVE: To identify opportunities to make the transition to a “standard of care” regulatory model in pharmacy law, this manuscript attempts to quantify the regulatory burden for 10 Western U.S. states. METHOD: The relevant statutes and regulations were gathered from each of the 10 states, and key measures were extracted, including word count, restrictions, exemptions, and the composition. RESULTS: States exhibited wide variation in overall regulatory burden as measured by word count (average of 65,882 words, SD=35,057). The top categories of pharmacy law are: 1) professional practice standards (25,249 ± 16,077 words); 2) facility standards (15,230 ± 10,240 words); and 3) licensing (11,412 ± 6,191 words). More than 65% of all pharmacy regulations are in rule adopted by board of pharmacy rather than in statutes passed by the legislature. CONCLUSIONS: States exhibited major variation in total regulatory burden, with the largest contributors to cross-state variation being regulations related to professional practice standards and facility standards. This analysis suggests these two areas should be the primary targets of states looking to decrease regulatory burdens and that regulatory boards have a significant opportunity to remove regulatory burdens even in the absence of legislative action. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing 2020-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8127111/ /pubmed/34007649 http://dx.doi.org/10.24926/iip.v11i4.3344 Text en © Individual authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Commentary
Adams, Alex J.
Regulating Pharmacy Practice: Analysis of Pharmacy Laws in Ten States
title Regulating Pharmacy Practice: Analysis of Pharmacy Laws in Ten States
title_full Regulating Pharmacy Practice: Analysis of Pharmacy Laws in Ten States
title_fullStr Regulating Pharmacy Practice: Analysis of Pharmacy Laws in Ten States
title_full_unstemmed Regulating Pharmacy Practice: Analysis of Pharmacy Laws in Ten States
title_short Regulating Pharmacy Practice: Analysis of Pharmacy Laws in Ten States
title_sort regulating pharmacy practice: analysis of pharmacy laws in ten states
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34007649
http://dx.doi.org/10.24926/iip.v11i4.3344
work_keys_str_mv AT adamsalexj regulatingpharmacypracticeanalysisofpharmacylawsintenstates