Voices: March 2013

Speak up somewhere else

Regarding your poll question, “Should state Boards of Pharmacy include more non-pharmacists on their boards to provide regulatory oversight?” [Facebook, January 28]:

I see no reason to include more non-pharmacists on pharmacy boards. Only pharmacists are aware of the issues unique to pharmacy and of how to address them as professionals.

There are plenty of opportunities for non-pharmacists to voice their concerns to pharmacy boards without having them on our boards.

Terry Jones, DPh

Grove, Oklahoma

Vote yes for pharm techs

State Boards of Pharmacy should incorporate pharmacy technicians, many of whom also are professional enough to address issues and present cogent, proactive solutions.

Kyle Inez Cole, MSM, CPhT

Indianapolis, InD.

Only working pharms need apply

All BOP members who are registered pharmacists should be PRACTICING pharmacists, not non-practicing corporate pharmacists. Maybe then they would better protect the public’s health and safety, instead of protecting their employer’s best interests.

Steve Ariens, PD

New Albany, InD.

Keep it to a token number

Virginia added one or two non-pharmacists many years ago. It seems like a good idea to have the patient’s perspective - as long as the non-pharmacist board members aren’t selected based on some hidden agenda. And it should be a very small number.

I agree with the practicing part wholeheartedly for the vast majority of members.

Otto Wachsmann, PharmD

Stony Creek, Va.

Leave it to the bench

I like the 5-2 ratio of pharmacists/non-pharmacists.

I also agree with the preference for practicing pharmacists, but that is up to the pharmacists who vote on the members.

If every “bench” pharmacist agrees with this preference, then we have no problem.

Doyne Allison, BS Pharm

Boiling Springs, N.C.

Mutual exclusion policy

No. The other professions do not have any pharmacists on their boards.

Tariq Chaudari, RPh

Rochester, N.Y.

Stick to those who know the issues

No. Pharmacy boards deal with pharmacists and pharmacy profession.

Mona Ali, PharmD

Camden, N.J.

Last word, new subject

In reference to Al Babbington’s column in the Dec. 2012 issue, titled “The Future is Now,” I feel I must comment on Mr. Babbington’s example of a pharmacist in Tennessee providing MTM services to patients.

He writes in the article, “When questioned as to how he justified the time spent on providing such care, he showed my friend the bag of medications one patient brought in for a session. It contained more than 20 prescription vials; several of them from competing pharmacies.” The owner stated, ‘By providing a total drug review I was able to transfer medications filled at two other locations to mine.’”

This is not medication therapy management. The point of providing MTM services to patients is not to steal business from competing pharmacies. In this case the patient clearly needed MTM to address polypharmacy and probably other issues as well.

To reduce MTM to a way to “add more dollars to the bottom line” is not the intent of a quality MTM program.

Kim DeRhodes, RPh

Charlotte, N.C.