Recently momentum has been building behind pharmacist prescriptive authority for certain products such as oral contraceptives or naloxone. To some, prescriptive authority by pharmacists represents a departure from the traditional role of pharmacists in dispensing medications. Nearly all states, however, currently enable pharmacist prescriptive authority in some form or fashion. The variety of different state approaches makes it difficult for pharmacists to ascertain the pros and cons of different models. We leverage data available from the National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations (NASPA), a trade association that tracks pharmacy legislation and regulations across all states, to characterize models of pharmacist prescriptive authority along a continuum from most restrictive to least restrictive. We identify 2 primary categories of current pharmacist prescriptive authority: (1) collaborative prescribing and (2) autonomous prescribing. Collaborative prescribing models provide a broad framework for the treatment of acute or chronic disease. Current autonomous prescribing models have focused on a limited range of medications for which a specific diagnosis is not needed. Approaches to pharmacist prescriptive authority are not mutually exclusive. We anticipate that more states will pursue the less-restrictive approaches in the years ahead.
To fully engage in the Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process, pharmacists must be able to (1) participate in a Collaborative Practice Agreement, (2) order and interpret laboratory tests, (3) prescribe certain medications, (4) adapt medications, (5) administer medications, and (6) effectively delegate tasks to support staff. Each of these activities is dependent on state scope of practice laws, but these laws are not binary. Various state-level restrictions allow us to view these activities on a continuum from more restrictive to less restrictive. This continuum will allow pharmacy and public health stakeholders to identify priorities for action in their states.
Objective: Explore the intersection of the Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process (PPCP) and state laws in order to identify laws that may impede the delivery of optimal patient care.
Summary: A review of the PPCP identified six areas in which state laws can limit full pharmacist engagement: 1) ordering and interpreting laboratory tests; 2) participating in a collaborative practice agreement; 3) independently prescribing certain medications; 4) independently adapting medications; 5) administering medications; and 6) effective delegation. A framework is put forth to organize how these scope of practice matters are interrelated.
Conclusion: For pharmacists to fully engage in the PPCP, state laws must enable full participation. By unleashing pharmacists to fully engage in the process, patient care delivery and outcomes can be improved, and total health care costs can be reduced.
Article Type: Commentary
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.