Guys, this isn't quibbling or stupid. It's against corporate policy to transfer these scripts out. Walgreens will terminate you if you are caught. The chances are low but if somoene rats you out, you will be terminated. It's against the policy for many other chains as well. So, don't give the other rph a hard time, they are following corporate policies. Walgreens has a whole legal department that deals with matters like this and they have advised us not to do so. If you guys are not lawyers then your opinions on this issue don't matter. period. OP asked if this was allowed at walgreens and the answer is no. It is not up for debate.
Walgreens in AZ refusing to xfer CIV before first fill?
- Thread starter PharmD.girl
- Start date
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
That’s actually not what OP asked. They asked if anyone has any additional information about the policy. I think it is fair to say we have discussed that at some length, lol
And no one is debating if it is against corporate policy. Everyone agrees it is against corporate policy. The only thing up for debate is if that corporate policy is consistent with DEA policy.
Does it bother you that are debating something besides the job market?
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 4,296
- Reaction score
- 5,094
^ the battle cry of everyone defending something dumb^
That’s actually not what OP asked. They asked if anyone has any additional information about the policy. I think it is fair to say we have discussed that at some length, lol
And no one is debating if it is against corporate policy. Everyone agrees it is against corporate policy. The only thing up for debate is if that corporate policy is consistent with DEA policy.
Does it bother you that are debating something besides the job market?
It bothers me because you guys are giving OP all the wrong information, almost like you are law experts...information that contradicts what these companies are telling their pharmacists to do. It's okay to debate...but not okay to misrepresent facts. Telling someone that it's okay to transfer these scripts could get them fired. I see you and a couple others rationalizing the policy (transfer vs forward or whatever) to mean that it's okay to transfer these scripts when there is actual communication from Walgreen's (as well as Walmart's...CVS...eg) own legal department telling pharmacists not to do so. That's the part I have a problem with.
Huh? I mean they have to right? Unless you are suggesting that these companies are breaking laws and regulations. I mean that's why they have teams of lawyers on staff, but I guess you're the expect in law so you must know more than them.
Last edited:
many regulations are dumb...we still have to follow them. it's not okay to come on this thread and telling people..."yea you know...forward could be interpreted as transfer...so go ahead and transfer the script...i see no issues here." People have to follow their company policies...even if it's dumb...and judging from the other comments on this thread, you guys are in the minority here. This seems like a policy with other big chains as well, not just walgreens.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 4,296
- Reaction score
- 5,094
Some people live in states that say you are required by law to comply with transfer requests.
It is your responsibility as a professional to understand the law in your state, no matter how complex.
Responsibilities related to being a corporate drone come last.
Also, what would you do if you get a call from a Pharmacy across town saying that they have a patient in the parking lot having a grand mal, and your Pharmacy has the unfilled, on hold Rx for diazepam rectal gel with EMS is 30 minutes away?
Get hypothetically dunked on
to comply with a legal transfer request. An unfilled controlled prescription cannot be transferred. I mean that is what we are saying here. Have you not been paying attention this whole thread? lol. Also, you cannot break a federal regulation to conform to a state regulation.
Then you break the law. I would do the same thing if someone had an asthma attack in front of me and needed a ventolin or proair. I would toss them one. Just like, i would break into someone's car to save their child or pet on a hot summer's day. This is a risk vs benefit situation, but this isn't what we're arguing about. I mean your hypotheticals are weak.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 4,296
- Reaction score
- 5,094
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
Pharmacists should know the laws they operate under, don’t you agree? It is part of getting a license after all. So yes, I do think I know pharmacy law better than nonpharmacists. So should every pharmacist.
Your blind faith in corporate lawyers scares me. You realize corporations break laws regularly, right? Are you not familiar with the settlements surrounding transfer coupons and CMS?
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 4,296
- Reaction score
- 5,094
But what if you transfer in Darth Vaders prescription from the Executor pharmacy into the Death Star's pharmacy?
They have the financial means to deal with the ramifications that come with going against the law.
Do you have the financial means to deal with the repercussions of not following corporate rules?
When it comes to the law, only two things matter:
1. Which rules you can break
2. Which rules you don't have to follow
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
Please show me where I suggested not following corporate rules. I actually said multiple times explicitly to follow the company rules.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2012
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 316
Every rph should know this rule is a bunch of bologna, and maybe one day someone will get through to the people who made this additional rule and get rid of it
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
In that case, I would use the Force (to forward the prescription, of course).
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 4,296
- Reaction score
- 5,094
Debbie M.'s email is available via Google.
She single handedly changed the law for every state in the nation by being a complete idiot and interpreting something to mean that an every day common practice was illegal.
She then used her baffling position at Walmart to enforce her misinterpretation of the law.
You can email her and ask her why she caused this nation wide clusterfu**.
Is it a conspiracy that Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, and all these pharmacies are saying no...don't do the transfer? lol. I mean our memo was a public memo...sent out to all employees...stating that they had talked to the DEA and after the communication...this was the legal team's stance. So, yea...I'm going with that. As for you....when was the last time you met with DEA officials to discuss this matter? I bet never. Oh, did you have your legal team meet with them instead? lol..no right? All you have is some commentary that doesn't even explicitly say what you are claiming. The wording is not even in there. You are passing off your own personal inference/interpretation into what the word "forward" means. That requires too much of a stretch of an imagination.
I mean it's actually the law. We've already argued this...no where does it say you can transfer the original fill...only the refills. Your whole interpretation hangs on the word "forward," which is not good enough for me and apparently a lot of people.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2014
- Messages
- 5,440
- Reaction score
- 2,923
A cvs told me today they don't transfer in any controls at all.
Mind blown
(I don't use these enough)
Mind blown
(I don't use these enough)
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 4,296
- Reaction score
- 5,094
Are you really that ignorant of what happened?
One person in compliance at Walmart got bored.
She decided to reinterpret the law on tramsfers.
Suddenly it became SOP for Walmart.
Walmart memo started being spread.
Walmart RPhs started denying transfers.
CVS and Walgreens pharmacists start panicking and asking their middle management.
Suddenly it becomes the law because the majority of boards are pathetic.
This all happened because some ***** at the DEA wrote "for the purpose of refilling" because they're a dumb**** DEA agent that isn't a legislator and didn't word the law carefully enough.
That is not how legislation is supposed to happen.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
It is startling to me the attitude some pharmacists have about know the law. How do they do their jobs without knowing the law? How did they pass MPJE? I am so confused by this.
Well, on the one hand, we have the DEA claiming it was never their intention to prevent transferring unfilled controls. On the other hand we have corporate policy saying the opposite. If only we could go to the federal register and read for ourselves what the DEA has communicated.
Do you really think your cooperation’s lawyers met with DEA agents to clarify this issue? Is that what any corporation is claiming?
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,723
- Reaction score
- 3,499
Illegal to transfer controls in NY, IIRC.A cvs told me today they don't transfer in any controls at all.
Mind blown
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2014
- Messages
- 5,440
- Reaction score
- 2,923
This was in my state though.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 4,296
- Reaction score
- 5,094
Really?
I know for a fact I've transferred controls out of there before.
Probably even an unfilled one. Lol
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Messages
- 352
- Reaction score
- 219
Somewhat off-topic, but New York has some strange prescription transfer pharmacy board rules. If I recall correctly, they only will issue a one fill transfer at a time.
I remember transferring a prescription that was originally written for 1 month and had 2 additional refills left, but as the insurance required 90 days, I had to contact the MD for a new prescription, as we couldn't change/adjust the dispensed quantity.
Of course they did. You're asking if I should believe Walgreens, CVS, RiteAid, Walmart...with legal teams dedicated to this matter...who sent out a public memo to all employees saying they did OR should I believe you...some random guy online pretending he's a lawyer...who's got nothing to back up what you're claiming. I mean there's nothing that you have quoted from the DEA"s own regulations that supports what you are claiming. We've already argued about this.
Oh come on, this isn't hard at all. When laws are perfectly clear than yes. In this case it is not clear, so you have to err with what the industry practice is and what your company is advising you to do. This is pretty common sense. You're the lone guy out there transferring unfilled controlled scripts right now. That's on you. My job isn't too look out for your butt...you're a grown adult. I am here so people that are reading your silly interpretation of the word "forward" don't get misled into thinking that it's okay to transfer an unfilled controlled script right now. Until the DEA clarifies this, you are in the minority here.
Last edited:
Wow, so you are telling me that Walmart told Walgreens and Walgreens told CVS and this is how it all spread? LMAO. Then why doesn't that ***** at the DEA come out and clarify what he was saying. Why hasn't the DEA come out and clarify what they want? No...way....you don't know right? I'd love to hear you defend yourself in a lawsuit if it ever comes to that. "Well judge, it's just a bunch of companies that conspired together to confuse me." Face it, you're in the minority here. I am not here to convince you or save your butt; you're a grown adult...you can make decisions for yourself...just know that you're probably the lone guy making these transfers right now. So..yea...continue to do those transfers...that'll show them.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
They have. Multiple times. I have shown you the clarifications. At multiple times they have said that they did not intend to limit the transfer of unfilled controlled substances. You are the one being dense, not me. But if you need me to give you the links again, I can.
Also I am hardly the "lone wolf" about this issue, you just seem to be ignoring the people who agree with me.
No you haven't. Each and every time...what you have quoted does not match what you are saying. So please stop with the bsing. Repost it again.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
Ok. here I go again. Please let me know where I am being misleading.
Here is the clearest DEA statement I could find:
'However, in the 2010 Federal Register notice that addressed changes in regulations for electronic prescriptions, one commenter requested guidance on the transfer of original Schedule III-V prescriptions that had not been filled. DEA’s response to this commenter was that “existing requirements for transfers . . . remain unchanged,” and that it “currently permits the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one time basis.”'
If the regulations remain "unchanged" and they "currently permit the transfer of original prescription information" how is that not exactly what I am claiming? Remember this is responding to a question about transferring an unfilled controlled substance so don't get confused about the term "information" in this context. Please let me know how this is not 100% clear to you.
EDIT: And that is just ONE of the clarifications they have issued about this topic. If they DON'T allow it, why aren't they just stating that they don't allow it?
If the regulations remains unchanged then you should consult what the regulations are. The regulations per the DEA book of regulations and per its own website:
SECTION IX-XIV
"Transfer of Schedules III-V Prescription Information
A DEA registered pharmacy may transfer original prescription information for schedules III, IV, and V controlled substances to another DEA registered pharmacy for the purpose of refill dispensing between pharmacies, on a one time basis only. However, pharmacies electronically sharing a real-time, online database may transfer up to the maximum refills permitted by law and the prescriber’s authorization."
I have posted this to you multiple times. The DEA's own regulations...they are saying that controlled substances CAN ONLY BE TRANSFERRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFILL DISPENSING....IT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL FILL THAT IS TRANSFERABLE.
I want to know what part of this don't you understand.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
I think you might have added a little to the regulation there without meaning to. I don't recall it saying "It is not the original fill that is transferable".
So when asked if it is permitted and they said they "currently permit the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one time basis" it is your interpretation that that means you can not transfer it?
AGAIN, you are bsing. It clearly says that you can transfer original prescription INFORMATION for the purpose of REFILL DISPENSING. They are telling you that you can transfer the details of the original script so that you know what to do with the refills. NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT YOU CAN TRANSFER THE ORIGINAL FILL. The DEA SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFILL DISPENSING. They didn't have to add that in there, but they did.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
I admit the regulation is unclear as it does not address the original fill. That part is odd/misleading/confusing/whatever.
But when asked to clarify they said it is permitted. When asked if it is ok to transfer electronic controls they replied that they may be forwarded. At no point in history has the DEA ever said you may not transfer an original. Please find me one example where the DEA has said that the original cannot be transferred. Or find a legal case where someone was sited for doing do. You can't.
You are the one BS'ing and you just don't realize it. Literally your only defense is "corporations say so". Well that's fine, go be a corporate stooge, but don't pretend that I am the one making stuff up. You are the one making up laws and rules that don't exist.
But when asked to clarify they said it is permitted. When asked if it is ok to transfer electronic controls they replied that they may be forwarded. At no point in history has the DEA ever said you may not transfer an original. Please find me one example where the DEA has said that the original cannot be transferred. Or find a legal case where someone was sited for doing do. You can't.
You are the one BS'ing and you just don't realize it. Literally your only defense is "corporations say so". Well that's fine, go be a corporate stooge, but don't pretend that I am the one making stuff up. You are the one making up laws and rules that don't exist.
I AM READING IT WORD FOR WORD FROM THEIR WEBSITE AND THE HANDBOOK. LMAO
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
SO AM I. LMAO
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
The question in the federal register is asking if they can transfer an unfilled control script. The response is "we haven't changed our policy; it is permitted...". I don't know how much clearer it could be.
If it wasn't allowed wouldn't they say "the policy remains unchanged...currently does NOT permit the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one time basis.”'
Why would they say they permit it if they meant they don't permit it? How does that make any sense????
If it wasn't allowed wouldn't they say "the policy remains unchanged...currently does NOT permit the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one time basis.”'
Why would they say they permit it if they meant they don't permit it? How does that make any sense????
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Messages
- 352
- Reaction score
- 219
The real question is if we transfer a new RX for a controlled substance, say Butrans patches, if we can break open a box...
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,397
- Reaction score
- 805
Walmart corporate policy wont let us transfer out a control on hold or on file either, so please don't give Walmart pharmacists a hard time either!
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 4,296
- Reaction score
- 5,094
Please re-read my post.
I'm not sure if you misunderstood it or if you're being obtuse and intentionally misrepresenting what i said.
I'll clarify it for you.
The head of compliance at Walmart, a pharmacist in Texas, put her interpretation into place as Standard Operating Procedure at Walmart.
She did this because she has no oversight at Walmart.
Once she did this, panick set in amongst pharmacists much like yourself when Walmart pharmacists started refusing to transfer prescriptions.
The other pharmacists begin spamming their management by the thousands asking, "IS THIS ILLEGAL?"
The problem with your analysis is that you seem to think all lawyers are equivalent.
Now the corporate lawyers, who specialize in corporate law and not Pharmacy law or pharmacy practice, came in and copied Walmart's interpretation to avoid liability.
Here's how it works, because you don't seem to have the brain power to understand:
If a corporate lawyer sees a situation that may potentially be illegal or put the company as risk, they ask,
"Do we have to do this?"
If the answer is "no", then guess what the company's new policy is?
They did that because that's literally all they do.
They don't care about the practice of pharmacy.
They don't care that pharmacists had always been transferring unfilled controlled Rxs.
You need to understand that a legal concept exists that addresses the kind of situation we're discussing:
Let's say a country exists with many laws.
Let's say doing X is potentially illegal due to poor wording in their laws.
If 7,000,000 people perform X every morning and it has never been enforced, is it really against the law?
Last edited:
Bro, this is way too much extrapolation and imagining on your part. To blame walmart and corporations for all this is absurd. All the DEA has to do is come out and clarify what they mean in their regulations so that the liability is well defined then everyone will be good. You are saying that corporate lawyers practice to avoid liability...and pharmacists should also as well...especially since we do not have the resources to deal with the consequences of not doing so. Saying that this kills pharmacy is a cheap excuse...how many transfer requests do you get for unfilled/stored controllled script each month anyways?
It sure is. It's there to hold you accountable when it becomes convenient for people to do so. Is it illegal to speed or to litter on the street? It sure is. Does the fact that it's rarely enforced mean that you will not get a ticket or fined for it? No. Your analogies are really poor and weak. Also, you are arguing if the law is good or bad...which is not the point of this whole thread. The law is stupid, I agree with you...but that doesn't give you an out to not follow it because frankly...when sht hits the fan...its your butt on the line. Again, I am not here to convince you of anything. I was merely appalled at the level of logic manipulation people do to convince themselves that it's legal and fine. I mean...I was reading the regulations WORD FOR WORD on the DEAs own website and this dude is still not convinced. That's on you...just don't mislead others.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
Word for word:
"However, in the 2010 Federal Register notice that addressed changes in regulations for electronic prescriptions, one commenter requested guidance on the transfer of original Schedule III-V prescriptions that had not been filled. DEA’s response to this commenter was that “existing requirements for transfers . . . remain unchanged,” and that it “currently permits the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one time basis.”'
"However, in the 2010 Federal Register notice that addressed changes in regulations for electronic prescriptions, one commenter requested guidance on the transfer of original Schedule III-V prescriptions that had not been filled. DEA’s response to this commenter was that “existing requirements for transfers . . . remain unchanged,” and that it “currently permits the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one time basis.”'
I mean is this a real question? Do you even read? That's because you have to permit the transfer of the original prescription details/information in order for it to be possible to transfer the refills. How can you process the refills without any script info? You some kind of wizard?
They permit the transfer of prescription INFORMATION for the purpose of REFILLS...not the original fill.
Take the loss and move on. Stop trying to mislead people and getting them in trouble. You are so desperate to be right that you are putting your colleagues at risk.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
But they are responding to a question about unfilled originals. Why would they say they '“currently permit the transfer of original prescription information for a prescription in Schedules III, IV, and V on a one time basis.” if what they mean is, no they do not allow the transfer of unfilled controls? Please explain how that makes sense.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
Dude, they are not responding to a question about refills. Are you even reading the part about unfilled originals?
Maybe you should ask them instead of making personal inferences. How about that?
They responded by saying that regulations are unchanged. Unless you like to selectively pick out lines that you like and disregard lines that you don't. If regulations are unchanged then you have to consult their current regulations...which states transfers are only for the purpose of refill dispensing...nothing else.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,316
- Reaction score
- 11,935
Sorry, only corporate lawyers can meet with them to figure this stuff out. Us pretend internet lawyers have to settle for reading their website
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 4,296
- Reaction score
- 5,094
No.
I explained to you literally what happened.
Your refusal to acknowledge the reality of the situation does not affect the truth.
Nobody said anything about anything killing Pharmacy.
Not sure what post you're reading.
Learn to read.
You need to learn to read
This is coming from a guy that didnt know it's illegal to do transfers of controls in NY and has done it many times. Yup, it's okay to do it everyone if he did it and hasn't been caught. Not being caught is not an excuse to keep doing something illegal.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 4,296
- Reaction score
- 5,094
No.
You need to learn to read.
You were talking about the issue, and Owle posted a quote from the DEA's response to the issue.
He brought up an entirely different document, and you didn't read, so you thought he was referencing the same document you were.
You post about A.
He post about B, the response to A.
You no read.
You think he post about A.
Learn to read.
