Minnesota Board of Pharmacy - Minnesota State Legislature

Minnesota Statutes §§214.10 and 214.103 require the Board to investigate every jurisdictional
complaint. In the judgement of the Board, the Legislature quite correctly concluded that citizens should
have the ability to file such complaints. Citizens also have the option of filing malpractice suits against
health care professionals. However, relying on malpractice suits alone to address incompetent,
unethical and unsafe professionals is not a good alternative. Having complaints investigated by experts
can potentially result in corrective action being taken before a situation becomes so bad that people are
severely injured. This sort of preventative strategy can help reduce the costs associated with medical
errors and malpractice litigation.
The Board reserves disciplinary action for the more egregious cases that come to its attention. For
minor infractions, the Board issues informal warnings and provides suggestions to the licensees or
registrants as to how they can come into compliance. The Board’s Surveyors then follow up at a later
date to ensure that the suggestions have been followed. Licensees and registrants are most commonly
disciplined for stealing controlled substances for their own use or to sell to others. The Board has also
disciplined pharmacists for serious breaches of patient data privacy laws, sexual misconduct, drinking
alcohol while on duty, inappropriately working with illicit Internet sites to dispense controlled
substances to individuals without legally valid prescriptions, repeated failure to come into compliance
with regulations and other serious infractions.
Prescription Monitoring Program
At least 35 states currently administer a prescription monitoring program. (Please see above for a
complete description of Minnesota’s PMP). Some states take an “active” approach to controlled
substance prescription monitoring and some, including Minnesota, take a more “passive” approach. In
the “active” states, staff of the agency housing the PMP actively engage in “data-mining” and try to
identify individuals who appear to be doctor-shopping. If an individual is so identified, the agency will
send a letter to each prescriber and pharmacist from whom the individual received service. Some of
those states also try to identify inappropriate prescribing by practitioners or dispensing by pharmacies,
reporting such individuals to the appropriate licensing board. One possible adverse consequence of
using a more “active” approach is the possibility of a “chilling effect” on appropriate prescribing. (That
is, some practitioners may be more reluctant to prescribe controlled substances even when appropriate -
for fear of having their prescribing practices questioned).
The Board’s PMP staff does not engage in data-mining for the purpose of identifying doctor-shoppers
or inappropriate prescribing and dispensing. Instead, the data collected by the Board is made available
to prescribers, pharmacists and certain Department of Human Services (Medicaid) staff who apply for
access. Law enforcement officials can obtain data upon presenting the Board with a search warrant and
medical examiners have authority to request reports as well. In the judgment of the Board, Minnesota’s
approach appropriately balances the need to identify doctor-shoppers and to prevent the “chilling
effect” mentioned above.
Other Considerations
Minnesota Statutes §214.055 requires the Board to collect fees sufficient to cover expenditures. The
fees that are collected are deposited in the State Government Special Revenue Fund (SGSRF). The
Board may expend only those funds that are appropriated by the legislature, regardless of the amount of
fees that are collected. Like most of the health licensing boards, the board usually collects more fees
30