02.05.2014 Views

July • August 2003 - Ontario College of Pharmacists

July • August 2003 - Ontario College of Pharmacists

July • August 2003 - Ontario College of Pharmacists

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

COMPLAINTS<br />

Reasons<br />

The Complaints Committee reviewed<br />

the transaction records and determined<br />

that the member had violated<br />

his pharmacy’s standing protocol with<br />

the insurer by repeatedly submitting<br />

the patient’s prescription (despite the<br />

system’s failure to accept the transaction).<br />

The Committee appreciated the<br />

member’s willingness and intent to<br />

promptly fill the patient’s prescriptions;<br />

there were; however, there were<br />

more appropriate courses <strong>of</strong> action<br />

available to the pharmacist. The pharmacist<br />

could have:<br />

• Dispensed the medication as a<br />

cash purchase to the patient,<br />

knowing that the patient could<br />

be reimbursed once he proved<br />

that he was insured; or<br />

• Paused to phone the insurer to<br />

verify whether there was indeed<br />

a “glitch” in the system records<br />

that failed to note that the<br />

patient was covered<br />

The Committee did not consider<br />

this to be a situation where the pharmacist<br />

was exercising his<br />

“pr<strong>of</strong>essional judgment” to override<br />

the system because the member has<br />

no discretionary permission to alter<br />

third party records or billings.<br />

It was highly inappropriate for the<br />

member to alter a record to force a<br />

transaction that would override an<br />

adjudication system.<br />

And, while the member’s motive<br />

may have been to accommodate his<br />

patient, his actions led to intentional<br />

and repeated re-submissions despite<br />

the computer system indicating<br />

“claimant not covered”.<br />

Decision<br />

Although the Committee concluded<br />

that the member had acted inappropriately,<br />

it struggled to determine a<br />

suitable disposition. Indeed, is<br />

referral to the Discipline Committee<br />

the only appropriate remediation for<br />

the member’s behaviour?<br />

After much discussion, the<br />

Committee decided that referral to<br />

the Discipline Committee would be<br />

inappropriate and that the member’s<br />

breach <strong>of</strong> the Standards <strong>of</strong> Practice<br />

would be appropriately addressed<br />

with the issuance <strong>of</strong> a written<br />

caution, which read:<br />

“As a practising pharmacist, you<br />

must maintain the standards <strong>of</strong><br />

your pr<strong>of</strong>ession and remain in<br />

compliance with the relevant<br />

legislation. While the Committee<br />

appreciates that you may have<br />

been attempting to accommodate<br />

your patient, you are cautioned<br />

that you are expected to fulfill<br />

your obligations to your patient<br />

without violating protocol and the<br />

standards <strong>of</strong> your pr<strong>of</strong>ession, and<br />

are reminded here particularly <strong>of</strong><br />

Standard 6 which reads:<br />

‘The pharmacist applies knowledge,<br />

principles and skills <strong>of</strong><br />

management as they pertain to the<br />

site <strong>of</strong> pharmacy practice, with the<br />

goal <strong>of</strong> optimizing patient care and<br />

inter-pr<strong>of</strong>essional relations.’ ”<br />

The Committee was <strong>of</strong> the<br />

opinion that another such incident<br />

was unlikely to occur in this<br />

member’s practice given: this was a<br />

single incident involving a minor<br />

amount <strong>of</strong> money for a patient who<br />

became insured within 4 days <strong>of</strong> the<br />

transaction; the member had no<br />

intent to mislead, and he provided a<br />

forthright response to the<br />

Committee.<br />

Nonetheless, although this<br />

complaint did not reveal any evidence<br />

<strong>of</strong> fraud by the member or the pharmacy,<br />

the <strong>College</strong>’s investigation did<br />

confirm that the third-party insurer<br />

should not have been billed and that<br />

the member had violated his pharmacy’s<br />

agreement with the insurer.<br />

The Committee therefore determined<br />

that a written caution<br />

adequately addresses the public<br />

interest raised in this complaint. The<br />

caution will remain on the member’s<br />

record in the non-public portion <strong>of</strong><br />

the Register.<br />

WHAT IS A WRITTEN<br />

CAUTION?<br />

A written caution is <strong>of</strong>ten issued by<br />

the Complaints Committee as an<br />

appropriate remedial measure for<br />

serious matters where a referral to<br />

the Discipline Committee would not<br />

be appropriate. Although the member<br />

identified in a complaint is not<br />

required to appear before the<br />

Complaints Committee for his/her<br />

“caution”, the caution is included<br />

in the Committee’s written decision,<br />

thereby sent to the complainant as<br />

well as the member. It is also permanently<br />

placed on the member’s<br />

non-public portion <strong>of</strong> the Register.<br />

Although it is not considered punitive,<br />

the caution may be considered<br />

should the member appear before<br />

the Committee for a new complaint.<br />

Pharmacy Connection <strong>July</strong> • <strong>August</strong> <strong>2003</strong> 29

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!