Walgreens
Q & A Prepared for the
New Hampshire Medical Society
Walgreens recently amended its policy on good
–
faith dispensing of controlled substances, specifically
opioids . By letter, sent in early April of this year
, Walgreens advised our prescribers nationally of this
revised policy. We followed this initial correspondence with a second letter in May
to address concerns we had heard from our prescribers.
Generally, we have found that if we have an open discussion,
our policy is met with acceptance and a desire by prescribers
to partner with us in implementing this important
policy.
We appreciate the opportunity you have provided us
to discuss our policy openly and respond to the
questions raised by your prescribers. Below, in a Q & A format, we have tried to address some of the
concerns raised:
Is Walgreens’ revised policy a statewide policy for New Hampshire only?
No. Walgreens ’ revised Good Faith Dispensing (GFD) policy is being implemented at every one of our
pharmacies nationwide and Puerto Rico.
Are Walgreens pharmacies required by the DEA to change their dispensing practices?
No
.
Walgreens took these steps voluntarily for a
number of reasons. First is the seriousness of, and
rapid increase in, the abuse of prescription controlled substances. The safety of our patients and the
general public requires that all health
care professionals increase vigilance to stem the abuse of these drugs and prevent death and injury. Second, federal authorities are looking carefully at every step of the prescription drug dispensing process, scrutinizing physicians, pharmacists, distributors,
manufacturers and even common carriers. Our distributors, regulators and others have encouraged us
to work with them to enhance our good – faith dispensing practices.
Are Walgreens pharmacists calling physicians on each and every prescription for a controlled
substance?
No. Under our policy, we encourage our pharmacists to exercise their professional judgment when they
feel further information is needed in order to satisfy their corresponding responsibility to ensure that
each prescription filled is for a legitimate medical purpose (21 C.F.R. 1306.04
). Our pharmacists may call physician offices to obtain further information about a patient. Part of that process may include
verifying diagnoses or treatment plans as part of the pharmacist’s judgment. Under our policy, these
are guidelines nfor our pharmacists, not requirements.
Why are pharmacists asking for diagnoses and treatment plans if pharmacists’ only responsibility
under DEA regulations is to ensure that a prescription is legitimate?
Pharmacists are not just required to ensure that a prescription for a controlled substance is legitimately
written. According to 21 C.F.R.1306.04, pharmacists are required to ensure that prescriptions for
controlled substances are issued for a legitimate medical purpose. The regulation states, in pertinent
part,the following:
“The responsibility for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances is upon the
prescribing practitioner, but a corresponding responsibility rests with the pharmacist who fills the
prescription. An order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of professional
treatment or in legitimate and authorized research is not a prescription within the meaning and intent
of section 309 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 829) and the person knowingly filling such a purported
prescription,as well as the person issuing it, shall be subject to the penalties provided for violations of the provisions
of law relating to controlled substances. ”
Any time that a Walgreens pharmacist asks for a diagnosis or a treatment plan, that pharmacist is
requesting the information to ensure that the prescription for a controlled substance has been
prescribed for a legitimate medical purpose.
Can pharmacists ask for patient information protected under HIPAA?
Pharmacies and pharmacists are covered under HIPAA as “health
care providers , ” which includes entities
who sell or “dispense a drug, device, equipment
or other item in accordance with a prescription.” (45
CFR 160.103 par (3))
Therefore, by law, pharmacists are granted access to protected health information
necessary for them to perform their responsibilities. Every prescription on file for our patients is
protected health information, which Walgreens has always held as confidential information and
protected under federal law (HIPAA).
Each and every medical condition or allergy of our patients is
similarly held as confidential and used only to ensure the proper dispensing of medications.
Is Walgreens ’ policy designed to “limit” the quantity of pain medication that can be dispensed to
patients?
No.
A prescription for a large quantity of narcotics may draw increased scrutiny, but a physician’s
prescriptions are not denied solely because of the quantity of tablets prescribed.
Similarly, Walgreens does not want to inconvenience our patients by making them go to multiple
pharmacies. If one Walgreens pharmacist refuses a specific prescription for an opioid
for a patient, that prescription will be refused at all Walgreen pharmacies, as it has been entered
in our system as “refused
.”
Each patient should be given this information to avoid travelling to multiple Walgreens pharmacies in order to fill a prescription.
While Walgreens ’ policy is not designed to limit our patients’ access to needed pain medication, we as
health care providers must understand that the prescribing and dispensing of opioids
is changing and must continue to change in order to stop diversion and unnecessary “accidental” deaths by overdose.
Filed under: General Problems
Ks
I don’t know if you are in Florida or not. I would love to see any information you have found that gives a pharmacist a right to refuse to fill any prescription. I agree that a pharmacist can examine a prescription, determine if is for a legitimate medical purpose (2 or more of the 6 given reasons), and either fill it or report both the prescriber and the patient to law enforcement. I have not been able to find any place that gives a pharmacist the right to refuse a prescription. This alleged right to refuse must come from some fictional stories passed around by pharmacists. If I were a pharmacist I would be trying to find accurate legal advice about this issue because if it ;is the way I read it a pharmacist refusing to fill a legitimate prescription with or without verification could be a violation of the Florida administrative code. I plan on recording my next refusal then filing my complaint with the DPR and Pharmacy board. If they refuse to act I will bring a motion for a writ of mandamus which will require the board to act upon the violation. This should cause the pharmacist to be disciplined. If all of us follow the same procedure either the law will need to be changed or many pharmacists will become criminals. Failure to report every one of these alleged non legitimate prescriptions is a 1rst degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a large fine.
boilerrph87,
I agree with your post, but have a few issues regarding pharmacist rights. You are one of the very few that seem to have a grasp on the situation. Any pharmacist that claims a right to refuse to fill prescriptions is clearly not aware of the law or is just pissed off and assumes the no one can tell me what to do attitude we had as children. I have not even posted the most obvious point requiring a pharmacist to fill a prescription. This is only my interpretation of the rule, but it is very apparent that the Florida administrative code intended to require a pharmacist to fill any controlled prescription under 64B16-27.831. The board realized in reaching its decisions that the real ultimate determinate of what a pharmacist must consider in filling a controlled prescription was whether it was for a legitimate medical purpose. The code gives 6 reasons to consider when a pharmacist decides whether he/she should either fill the prescription or report the prescriber to the health department. The board did not consider a pharmacist refusal to fill such a prescription as an option. If 2 or more of those criteria are met the pharmacist must verify the prescription with the prescriber. If none of the 6 criteria apply the pharmacist SHALL fill the prescription. The board has never given a reason to refuse to fill a prescription in either case. It is my opinion that any patient that has encountered a pharmacist refusing to fill a controlled prescription should be reporting the incident the board and department of professional regulation. I think there would be no way for a pharmacist to avoid a disciplinary action by refusing to fill a prescription under the code. The court decisions on this issue are only defining the responsibility of a pharmacist to warn the patient to avoid liability for negligence. I do not know why the Plan B moral obligation cases have ever gotten into court since the code states any prescription, but somehow they were heard and may have misled some pharmacist into thinking they had a right to refuse. Even so the court decisions I have researched frame a trend by the courts to establish a pharmacist requirment to fill not deny. I believe that the first major lawsuit strictly regarding a pharmacist refusing to fill a controlled prescription will firmly support that a pharmacist must fill. If this was an industry where the public welfare was not involved I could see where someone would feel that they should not be required to perform certain aspects of their preofession. However, pharmacists, doctors, attorneys, HVAC mechanics, and etc. MUST adhere to the requirements of their respective boards, the DPR, and the law. I still have a personal problem with being told what to do by an ineffective and inefficient government, but the choice to disregard the rules is not up to me. It is my opinion that there is no valid legal defense under Florida law, Federal law, Florida code, or court precedents that support a decision to refuse to fill. I would love to hear if anyone has researched and found such a reason. I don’t want to hear from a pharmacist that is upset because he/she just thinks they have a right to refuse because they spent a hugh amount on education or they may be presecuted by the DEA. This seems to be the typical whining from these pharmacist that simply don’t want to fill. For you that feel this way please tell the truth that you cannot maintain the corporate fill rate requirements while verifing several presciptions daily with the prescribers. Stop lying about the reasons you are not filling these prescriptions and realize that if you obey the code completely and fill every prescription, verify the ones with 2 or more criteria met, and report suspect prescribers you have an almost undeniable defense.
Plan B has nothing to do with pain management. That came about due to religous beliefs and some pharmacists refused to fill Plan B because of that. Pharmacists cannot use religious beliefs to refuse to fill a script. But they are not required to fill any scripts they feel are not legitimate or may harm the patient.
Dennis…I TOTALLY agree with you and I am pro pain managment so I’ll just ask for sake of asking…while the courts says one thing..the pharmacist must fill all legitimate prescriptions….if we get cited or complaints filed agianst our license regarding the controlled substance issues, we appear before the state board for an administrative hearing, with attorney respresentation if we choose, and not a legal court… the board does not seem to abide by court rulings, only what the state legislature has passed. So if the state does not have a law or statute? that says pharmacys must fill all legitimate prescriptions (Which I’m sure even if there was one, the suits would find a way to avoid keeping enough controls in stock to fill like they do now in the 2 chains), then what is a pharmacists argument before the board to save his/her license if the state like FL appears to have outright discriminatory practices against chronic pain patients? And keeping in mind ‘Corresponding responsibility” appears to be the boards belief to be a practice of ‘mind reading the doctors by the pharmacist”
Red_no_4,
I think you may want to read the complete test of this decision which is why I included the citations. It began as a moral obligation of a pharmacist to fill Plan B, but it was expanded by the court to include pharmacist dispensing any medications. The decison stated in part, any pharmacist MUST fill any prescription and in my opinion greatly overeached .the authority of the court. If you have had any legal training other than the required courses in pharmacy law you know that a decision in a state court can and are commonly used in other state courts when there are no other decisions in another state which parallel the facts of a current case being heard. Also, it is very common for attorneys and other factions to present an Amicus Curiae brief (freind of the court) which does include decisions reached in any jurisdiction to assist the court in reaching a decision where it would affect the interest of those submitting the brief. Your statment that what happens in Washington stays in Washington is not correct.
In fast the Plan B issue has been geograpically expanded accross state lines and Federal court everywhere and decision in state courts are being used to frame laws in other states. It is clear that this decision ended up being about all medications and will be used in other states by clever attorneys to decide the pharmacist rights issue. Ultimately, this decision will not be the determinate of the issue. It will at some point the individual state legislatures will introduce legislation to further define pharmacist rights to either refuse or require. However, after the laws are passed the state Supremes courts will consider the constitutionality of the law. My opinion is that any person employed in the business of public health and welfare should be required to perfom every element of the rules, regulations, and oaths which they agree to when they begin practicing. Real estate brokers and agents and anyone under the umbrella of the DPR knows this very well any many do not agree with these regulation, but they must obey them. In my past experiences with the DPR while owning an HVAC business I was required to perform functions that I knew were not in the best interest of the public, but it did not matter what I thought I conformed. Pharmacist are held to this requirement as well. Since the issue has not been decided by Florida yet it is to early to juge which way this will go, but these decisions in other states are begining to show the direction it is going. These posts by pharmaciststeve tell me that the majority of public opinion is clearly trending toward requiring pharmacists to dispense any legitimate prescription. In fact the FS 1306 and title 21 are indicative of that trend as I view them. The only issue that is looming is whether a pharmacist MUST dispense any medication and it will happen. The DPR requires conformity in the operation of any business they regulate and their subjects MUST carry out functions an we cannot argue and refuse to do so,
Again, duly noted. And again, I think you are missing the point.
It is true that, when a case comes to court, any party, whether they have a horse in the race, per se, can file an Amicus brief. These documents can and do cite other court cases from other states. But the court hearing a case does not have to use them, cite them, or even consider them. As I said before, the Tenth Amendment gives discretion to the states for all laws not passed at the Federal level. This case was bumped back down because the US Court of Appeals basically decided that the district court did not do its job.
Because of this, there is no way the component of the Washington law — whether or not any ‘legitimate’ prescription must be filled — will be decided any time soon. I doubt you could find a lawyer to even take the case and be willing to pursue it through the Federal courts. And even if there was such a person, SCOTUS is not obligated to take the case if they feel it belongs at the lower level. States rights will win on this one.
What I find interesting in the Washington laws was the idea of delivering a medication in a ‘timely manner.’ Did you catch my frustration in that most pharmacies are being limited in their ordering of controlled medications? Several chain pharmacies lost their DEA licenses when the DEA decided that those pharmacies had ordered an amount of controlled substances that ‘should have raised red flags.’ Distributors have been subject to DEA intervention in selling controlled medications to pharmacies. Can a state pass a law that a business cannot possibly follow because of outside, federal influences? In this case, what would triumph — state law or federal policy? Furthermore, can a state require a private company to stock a medication
Along these lines, and as documented in the cited Washington case, does my not-filling your prescription present a hardship to the patient? If there are 20 pharmacies in a town and I choose not to fill your legitimate prescriptions, why can’t you go someplace else? And if no one else is filling your prescriptions, what does that say
As for statute 64B16-27.831, it is in written to what will happen to a pharmacist for filling a non-legitimate prescription, to wit, with my emphasis:
**(1) An order purporting to be a prescription that is NOT issued for a legitimate medical purpose is NOT a prescription and the pharmacist knowingly filling such a purported prescription shall be subject to penalties for violations of the law.
(2) The following criteria shall cause a pharmacist to question whether a prescription was issued for a legitimate medical purpose:
(a) Frequent loss of controlled substance medications,
(b) Only controlled substance medications are prescribed for a patient,
(c) One person presents controlled substance prescriptions with different patient names,
(d) Same or similar controlled substance medication is prescribed by two or more prescribers at same time,
(e) Patient always pays cash and always insists on brand name product. **
No where in this statute does it say that I must fill a legitimate prescription; it rather details what will happen if I fill an illegitimate one, what criteria to consider for legitimacy. and what I need to do if I feel the prescription is legitimate. The language clearly says ‘may’ not ‘have to.’
Your are entirely correct, the DEA statue tells you what will happen when you get a dose into the wrong hand.. HOWEVER.. the Americans with Disability Act tells you what will happen when you refuse to fill a legit/on time/medically necessary Rx for someone covered under ADA.. It is considered a discrimination/civil rights violation ..So as long a pharmacist NEVER puts a dose in the wrong hands and ALWAYS puts a dose in the right hands.. they are compliant with BOTH LAWS. Once a ADA discrimination happens it is like trying to un-ring a bell. It doesn’t matter if the pt got the Rx filled somewhere else… And the determination if the Rx is legit and a discrimination happened will be made by an investigator – after the fact… and to the best of my knowledge it cannot be appealed. Of course, the more complaints filed against a Pharmacist or Pharmacy the more likely… the discrimination will be confirmed and fines imposed. The DEA has made public statements that clearly states that they are not interfering with Wholesalers or Pharmacies.. which we all know is a boat load of BS.. but it keep the ACLU from suing them for interfering Because the mission statement of the ACLU is to sue the government when they screw with those in our society.
Red_no_4 said: “I can pull up there records and show that they are actually tapering off the meds because some other therapy worked.”
If there are therapies that are working for chronic pain patients, enough so that this is the reason they are tapering off their pain medications, it sure would be nice if ya’ll could make a list of these successful therapies and share it with other pain patients.
I thought a pharmacist was responsible for dispensing a drug, not determining if a drug is right for treating a certain medical condition. Heck, even doctors don’t always agree on using different treatments.
Are pharmacists supposed to have the same knowledge as doctors? And when a pharmacist calls a doctor to question and second-guess her treatment decisions, if they disagree, who wins? Whatever the DEA says?
And which websites on the internet does a pharmacist believe are reliable information sources? Because if a pharmacist gets his news mostly from Fox, that could be a problem. Fox “news” will tell you that all black people are drug addicts, so every person of color that arrives at your pharmacy counter is suspect (along with all pain patients). I mean, c’mon, ya’ll know that happens every day. In fact, some “experts” claim that people of color have been saved from this opioid “epidemic” because of discrimination by doctors and pharmacists… Pharmacists didn’t used to have such a problem with filling scripts from white people. Poor folks (of all colors) are a very large patient population that have no access whatsoever to pain relief.
As an example, if the pharmacist calls an oral surgeon, that doctor will almost always say that treating TMJ with surgery is the right decision (when all else has failed, of course). And surgery requires pain medications.
But if you talk to the National Institutes of Health, this agency (eventually) said that invasive surgery is not a reliable or beneficial treatment for TMJ. And yet surgeons keep cutting, and desperate patients keep getting pain meds, and a very small percentage of them may then suffer from addiction… Yeah, people, what about the surgeons?
Do patients become addicted to the meds, or do they become addicted to the relief they bring? Because if other treatments worked as well as opioids, then this whole “epidemic” would not have occurred. Is it the fault of pain patients that the medical industry can’t adequately treat chronic pain with anything but drugs?
One of the responses from the medical industry to this epidemic is to create more drugs — abuse-deterrent drugs, stripping and reformulating medications for the small percentage of people who may become addicted. Yet it’s been proven throughout history that those patients will then move to another, more harmful drug, making everything worse.
The history of every drug… something both doctors and pharmacists should know. But who’s history are you gonna believe — that reported by the DEA and the government? By Fox? From your own anecdotal experiences? When I walk up to a pharmacist, am I dealing with someone who believes that chronic pain shouldn’t be treated with drugs? That women shouldn’t have access to Plan B?
Marci —
As a pharmacist, it is not mandatory for me to fill anything. Ever. There are documented cases of pharmacists killing patients because they didn’t check on pain meds. In one recent case in Florida, a pharmacist filled a fentanyl patch for a man who kept throwing up his norco after relatively minor surgery. The man was opioid naive, and died from respiratory depression.
In this and in other cases, ‘just fill it’ is not going to hack it. It is the professional duty of the pharmacist to make sure the medication is not going to kill someone.
Starwood500
If you are upset with WAGS, go someplace else. But if other independent pharmacies refuse your script, it might be time to look at the script itself.
Unfortunately, since the DEA can’t stop doctors from writing RXs, they come to the pharmacies, because that’s where the pills are. I’ve commented before about getting questioned by my district manager as to why I am filling certain medications. In each case, especially for my long-term patients, I can tell a story about surgeries, failed injections, trials with walking epidurals. I can pull up there records and show that they are actually tapering off the meds because some other therapy worked. And I am doing my best to keep those patients sane and healthy.
For new patients who I don’t know, I try to give the benefit of the doubt. But because of limits and my current patient list, I might not have the medication in stock. I get flagged for ordering extra.
What’s worse than being between a rock and a hard place? Being a retail pharmacist in the US right now.
Red_no_4,
I have been posting the actual laws regarding “refusal to fill” and the few court decisions I could find. The only case that is not exclusively involving
a pharmacist and moral objections (Plan B) is the case decided in the 9th Circuit court in Washington. You can find a summary of the decision by going to dailykos.com/story/2009/07/10/752076/-Appeals-Court-Fundie-Pharmists-MUST-fill-prescriptions. I will quote a portion of the decision here for you to verify, “Note that while Plan B is clearly the headline grabber in this story because of the pro-life agenda attacking this, the ruling clearly states that all prescriptions MUST be filled”. The citation for this case is No. 07-36039 D.C. No. 07-05374-RBL and this will confirm the above quote. There are also many reasons to consider under Florida law, that a pharmacist is required to fill a legitimate verified prescription that contains all the required information in FS 1306.04 for a physician that specializes in a medical field that controlled medicications are part of the “course of legitimate professional medical treatment”. This case is a landmark case and will be used as precedent in future cases and should result in other precedents supporting the position that a pharmacist must fill a proper prescription. All of us know that the main reason a pharmacist in chain stores does not fill most of these is not “corresponding responsibility”. It is due to the rediculous chain store fills/hour rations and pharmacists cannot properly verify a large number of C2 prescriptions with the doctor while waiting on hold and documenting the response. If I was a pharmacist I would be faxing the offices while I continued to fill and waiting on a return fax which having a hard copy, would help protect me from any “corresponding responsibility” while not slowing me up. It will be only a few years until the current trend in decision will result in lesgislative requirements to fill every prescription.
Duly noted. But, as with laws and sausages, the devil is in the details.
This case was about Plan B, as the ‘head-line’ grabber. The fact that some states have passed specific laws allowing pharmacists to consciously object to filling prescriptions for this particular medication is an important point and reflects the nature of laws in this country in general — what is good for the goose is not necessarily by law good for the gander. In pharmacy school it is inherently taught that each state has its own specific pharmacy laws and that if you choose to become certified in different states, you better keep your apples with your apples, so to speak. For instance in Florida, where I practice, there is a negative formulary of medications that you are not allowed, by Florida law, to substitute for, even if the drugs are deemed Orange Book AA/AB rated (i.e. brands can be substituted for generics). During the course of my pharmacy education the Synthroid/Levothyroxine debate raged and, depending on the day, the two medications were interchangeable by law. Interesting times to say the least. What I am trying to say, in a long-about way, is that what happens in Washington stays in Washington. Just because one state enacts a law doesn’t mean the other states will as well, nor will they be forced to. Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights gives discretion in all non-federal matters to the states, Given that each state has such different pharmacy laws (for a headache, look up the definition of ‘compounding’ for each state), there is no way for this one state to determine national policy.
Secondly, the decision in the case you quote asserts that the corporations have the right to assert the ‘free right of its owners.’ The recent Hobby Lobby decision regarding the coverage of ‘mandated’ birth control only supports my assertion that, as an agent of my corporation, I am not required to fill any and all prescriptions. Right now in my area I deal on a daily basis with companies that refuse to stock medications that are deemed to be volatile — i.e. subject to DEA scrutiny. I have two chain pharmacies — one based in a regional grocery store and one based nationally — that refuse to fill for a certain list of specific doctors, legitimate prescriptions be damned. Why do they do this? To avoid the DEA. How can they do this, if a prescription is ‘legitimate’? Because it comes down to a battle of lawyers, plain and simple. Can a pain patient wait for a court decision? Not likely.
As a side note, I would like you to re-evaluate the whole supposition of the ‘corresponding responsibility’ that you mention. This notion is an intrinsic part of pharmacy law. Isn’t it ridiculous that a pharmacist can lose their license because ‘they should have known’ when the prescribing doctors are let off the hook? Why is it MY responsibility to know the doctor’s intent? Why do I, on a daily basis, risk abuse and worse when I try to verify the veracity of prescription? Because I have ‘corresponding responsibility’ that is based on my education and expertise. I am supposed to know the drugs, the person, the background. And when I am not given the information???
I have had doctors tell patients not to go to my store and its ilk because we are exercising our right to corresponding responsibility. Why? Because they want to avoid the hassle of documentation. They will never be inspected by the DEA. They have made me wait DAYS to verify a prescription. I have called and faxed ad nauseum to help a patient. I personally have had a DEA badge flashed before me and have had to answer questions (in a pharmacy I was floating in) to someone who can strip my license at will. Deprive my living AT WILL. Is it no surprise that I am protecting myself?
Lastly, there is not doubt in my mind that the DEA is controlling the distribution of controlled substances. I have commented before that I have been denied the access to medications for legitimate patients because I have ‘ordered sufficient quantities.’ In these cases I have no choice but to inform the patient that I cannot help them, which is sad. I’ve also had patients come to me because I have a drug in stock that the pharmacy in their network refuses to order for them. I am forced to charge them an excessive amount (even with the discount coupons I throw at the prescriptions in a desperate effort to take something off the cost) because a pharmacist refuses to order the medication for them. I have to inform patients that I only have half of their medication in stock, and that they will lose the rest because I cannot guarantee a delivery within the 72 hours mandated by Florida law. I am, on a daily basis, stuck between a rock and a hard place. Why are you persecuting me for the choices I am forced to make?
They have called me on each and every one.
It is true that quantity is not their only reason to refuse.
I have one patient that is weaning, gets 15 oxycodone (10mg)
every 5-6 days
Refused her
Said she reeked of alcohol and had slurred speech, but lied to the patient AND family, saying we had held up the Rx
I have video of these upset
Non intoxicated folks.
It’s the lying that bothers me
And
Lack of accountability.
They will not get a penny from me for their discrimination.
I totally agree with you Starwood 500. Walgrees statement is a lie! I was diagnosed with Reflex Sympathy Dystrophy in 1999, which caused, amongst other symptoms, chronic pain. I have gone to Walgreens Exclusively only once a month, as prescribed, to fill my pain meds, with scrips of anti-seizure and mussel relaxers for my illness. I only filled my meds once a month, and never tried to receive refills early, or requested extra meds. I FOLLOWED THE RULES!! SO WHEN DID I BECOME AN ABUSER??? On September 29 I was told by the pharmacy manager that my prescription was ready for pick up, but when went to get my meds that afternoon, a different pharmacist told me, with out explanation, that I was no longer eligible, and could not be served at any Walgreens!! They did not care that without my pain meds, I could go into withdrawal which could lead to my death. They could have at least fill my meds that day, which would have given me time to find another local pharmacy–who, because they did not know me, refused service. I was told in the past that if a patient walks around trying to have their pain meds filled, no pharmacist would do so.!! She was cold and stoic and would not answer any of my questions. Therefore I called the pharmacy manager and asked why I eligible for my meds, but ineligible the same afternoon!! That manager who always treated me cheerfully and always said “see you next month” was now cold and also refused to tell me what happened. I asked her if my doctor prescribed an alternative medication would I become eligible, she said coldly “no”. I asked her if she would contact my doctor to receive any information that was needed. Her reply was “I can’t speak with your doctor!” Even though each month she called my doctor to approve the prescription, and never expressed any concern. How does Walgreens “work with prescribers” when they won’t call them?? So her statement was a complete lie! Their statement reads that they are working with our doctors, asking for diagnosis and other information, but my doctor said he is still waiting for them to contact him! Therefore I was denied without any medical reason even though my diagnosis is clearly stated on each of my scripts, which was in accordance with their statement of their criteria. They won’t tell me when I, all of a sudden after SIXTEEN YEARS, became an “abuser” or “misuser” of my meds. They never contacted my doctor with any concern about my prescriptions. I even wrote a letter to the CEO and his reply was the same “we’re trying to weed out abusers and misusers and I’m sorry that the pharmacist was rude!!” I feel angry, frustrated, hurt and betrayed. I was faithful to them, but they just kick me out without cause. My monthly scrips that cost $35 at Walgreens, now cost me over $100 for copays and express mailing, which stressed my social security. THEIR STATEMENT IS A COMPLETE LIE SINCE MY PRESCRIPTION WAS NEVER ANALYZED, AND THEY NEVER EXPRESSED ANY CONCERN BEFORE THAT AFTERNOON!
Once a Walgreens pharmacist is given the info by a doctor (patients history and medical plan) that a patient does require the prescribed RX, at what point does the decision stop being arbitrary to the pharmacist and start being mandatory that the patient does indeed need to have their script filled? In many cases, a patient is following a care plan where they are on continual meds and stopping them can be detrimental. If after speaking with patients dr it has been determined the patient is a compliant patient, has a legitimate illness, etc, and is still turned away, then there is a serious issue as to WHY???