Managing Risks in Life Science Mergers and Acquisitions with Strategic Insurance

We'll briefly discuss when a pharmacist might choose not to dispense medication, even with a valid doctor's order.
In a recent case, a doctor sued the Iowa Board of Pharmacy and the Iowa Board of Medicine when a pharmacy refused to fill a prescription for Ivermectin, a livestock drug sometimes used to treat parasites in people and allegedly COVID-19. This incident highlights a dilemma in the pharmacy world, especially post-pandemic. While pharmacists ensure the safety and appropriateness of medication, the debate around drugs like Ivermectin has spotlighted their autonomy and clinical judgment. Many states require pharmacists to act independently, determining the appropriateness of therapy in conjunction with doctors. This independent role can impact reimbursement, licensing, and job descriptions.
Switching gears, we also discuss pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control due to personal beliefs. A USA Today story exposed a scenario where a pharmacist refused to fill a birth control prescription, citing faith as the reason. Such actions raise questions about the extent to which pharmacists can exercise independent medical judgment.
Governmental authorities, like the Department of Health and Human Services, argue against pharmacists withholding medications based on personal beliefs, stating it creates barriers to essential healthcare. However, courts often decide these cases on a state-by-state basis.
As pharmacists, you're trusted to make decisions prioritizing patient care. These instances stress the traditional framework, urging a discussion on balancing professional discretion with medical guidelines. The ongoing cases and complex conversations invite deeper exploration into the ethics, laws, and evolving roles of pharmacists.

Support the show