I have a question for you ODs out there. Have any of you gotten flack from pharmacies because you don't have a DEA number?
Or have patients that have private insurances that won't accept a non MD/DO rx?
We seem to be running into this problem a lot more lately...
Cassandra
"Some believe in destiny, and some believe in fate. But I believe that happiness is something we create."-Something More by Sugarland
No problems here, but we don't take insurance. The only requests we get for our DEA numbers are from pharmacies well out of our area.Originally Posted by Jubilee
Cassandra - We've run into this a few times lately, and it's complete crap. The Indiana Optometric Association is working on it and trying to get DEA number legislation passed. I can't remember what was wrong with the language a few months ago when it was at the State level, but they wanted to change some things to make it better. At least we're headed in the right direction.
When the pharmicists call (and it's not that often), I just tell them that the State won't let me have a DEA number and that I am licensed to Rx the meds I wrote for. Then I let them deal with it.
-Steve
as I understand it a DEA number is only required for Rx's for schedule controlled subtances (basically those drugs with a high potential for abuse). However, the problem many have with some pharmacies is that they cannot enter a script for anything into their software without the DEA number:hammer:
Tell the pharmacy that you are not required to have a DEA number. You have a TPA number, and that's all you need. Ask to speak to the chief pharmacist. The chief will almost always agree with you. Tell them to use their "over ride" number.
I have talked to the pharmacists to let them know we do not have a dea number. This used to solve the issue.
Then lately we are getting this rash where it they now have issue with it. I am not sure if it is one particular chain, or talking to my brother (a pharmacist) there are some insurances out there that for the pharmacy to file a claim through the system, they have to have it. It seems that many pharmacists find it easier to call the pcp and have a new order made for it, than to call and deal with the insurance company.
"Some believe in destiny, and some believe in fate. But I believe that happiness is something we create."-Something More by Sugarland
It's the insurance companies. I understand that I don't need a DEA number even to Rx Ultram, but it's hopfully a temporary thing.
-Steve
I'm surprised that you're even getting questions from the pharmacy. Many ph armacies will just look up the patients primary care doctor and use that DEA number for the prescription.
The DEA number for the pharmacy simplifies processing since the computer programs probably don't account for identifying a prescriber other than the DEA#.
Most prescribers who cannot prescribe controlled substances have customarily worked under sponsoring or supervisiong physicians (a la PA, FNP, etc). Therefore, there was no n eed to change the computer programs.
Even "dummy" DEA numbers as suggested by the state optometric associations has only been marginallys successful, since the pharmancy computer program cannot validate the prescriber with a national database as the DEA number can.
My recommendation is to get the state optometric association to pass any kind of legislation to permit DEA-enabled prescription drugs.
I am sure using someone else's DEA number or a "dummy" DEA number can get you in a whole lot o'trouble in any state.
I think this number allows one to prescribe narcotics and addictive drugs which as yet O.D.'s haven't conviced the legislatures they are qualified to prescribe.
O.D.'s should always remember that the "right" to Rx drugs can be recended as quickly and with much less trouble and expense than they were aquired. Abuses could result in individual or even blanket revolcation of gains made.
Chip
Actually, I had a DEA number when I did my residency in Oklahoma. I wrote narcotic Rx's 3 times in 1.5 years and never abused it.
-Steve
Not sure about your post. I was specifying that the DEA number was being switched by the Pharmacist!!!! and only for reimbursement or for computer use! Geez!
I would go back and re-read your post. He wasn't jumping down your throat, he was simply pointing out that using someone else's DEA number will most likely get these pharmacies into trouble if they're found doing it.
If I were a MD, and someone was using my number for reimbursements for Rx's I did NOT write, I would be quite upset. It's my reputation, as well as potentially my license. I believe that Chip was simply pointing out that it shouldn't be taken lightly.
Admiral Knight.
I thought I only saw the word "OD" in the Chip's post. Maybe, maybe I was off, but it sure smells like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Before We go further, maybe Chip would like to elaborate or clarify.
By the way, unless you either worked in the computer side of pharmacy, had this done to you, would you know what is being done. Fortunately, I worked on pharmacy benefit software programs and am aware of the practice in at least 2 large national pharmacy chains.
Incorrect again Mr. Anderson. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
Many states allow ODs to have DEA numbers. And many states (including NC) allows Rxing narcotics. It's rarely needed in eyecare, but does have it's place.
Sometimes being quiet and letting people think you are dense is better than speaking up and letting them know for sure.
See even when you try to help these people and warn them against legal problems, they get defensive.
You should be warning the pharmacists and not the optometrist. That's all I wanted to point out. You were just blaming the wrong person. Rarely, if at all, do the optometrists ever aware that someone else's DEA number is being used for the computer.
DEA #'s = very expensive to obtain!
ODs can obtain these, however, if desired.
It does NOT, of course, change prescribing rights.
Wrong. By law, I cannot have a DEA number in the state of Indiana. I had one while I was practicing in Oklahoma. It is allowable by state law there.
As far as cost is concerned, consider it a cost of doing business.
In both states, I can Rx any drug (oral or topical, even injectable in Oklahoma) that can benefit the health of the eye, ocular adnexa or visual system. However, I can Rx a schedule 3 narcotic in Oklahoma but not in Indiana, because I cannot get a DEA number here.
It absolutely changes my prescribing rights.
-Steve
I've heard this before, but I'm not clear on why that it is. How can a state law prevent you from applying for a federal type of licensure?
I think you are being imprecise Snowmonster. It's the State Board of Indiana that is affecting your prescribing ability, not your DEA # or lack of it.
I didn't know Indiana "prohibited" DEA #s, but I'll take you at your word.
In Ohio, I can't prescribe schedule II, either, but I can apply for a DEA # for tracking purposes, only, so that I'll get "credit" with the drug reps.
As NPDR has stated elsewhere, it's good for ODs to obtain DEAs so the pharmaceutical companies can track just how much love we're giving their industry. They don't track with TPA #, to my knowledge.
It's just that it's like $500 to apply for one, and I'm not sure I'm that motivated, cost of business or not.
But, bottom line on where I think you're wrong: DEA # does not equal Schedule II prescribing rights.
I know that just by posting here I will start another fight, but:
What does "credit" with drug reps mean?
DEA numbers are supposed to be given only to practitioners authorized to prescribe narcotics. This is a federal regulation. Nurse anesthetists, PAs, dentists, podiatrists, and ODs are allowed to prescribe narcotics in many states. Unfortunately, the DEA number has become a means for pharmaceutical companies to track which doctors are Rxing their drugs, so they can give their reps credit (or blame) for making sales...even if the drugs are not narcotic. Since some insurance companies won't pay pharmacists for their claim unless they give a DEA number, some have adopted the tactic of using a "dummy" number. This is not supposed to be some random doctors number, but a number specifically set aside as a "miscellaneous" provider.
I would think that all professionals like pharmacists, ODs, and I hope opticians, would understand the importance of remaining true to their license, DEA, or whatever numbers they are assigned. There is always misinformation from the peanut gallery on this forum in matters regarding OD ethics. It should be stopped.
fjpod,
According to a reported post, one member has accused another of....let me see if I can remember the exact quote.....about another member who.....
"posts only to belittle others,......
That having been said, would you kindly define "peanut gallery" in the above post then tell me if you think your post was designed to open substanitive dialog, or to fan the flames.
"Always laugh when you can. It is a cheap medicine"
Lord Byron
Take a photo tour of Cape Cod and the Islands!
www.capecodphotoalbum.com
The purpose of my post was to provide correct information about DEA numbers, and optometrey's use of narcotics.
Let me apologize for the use of the words "peanut gallery" and use the words "certain members" instead.
hcjilson - You seem to be a little agitated lately, almost somewhat of a vigilante with shutting down posts. You're almost coming off as an aggressor. What's up?
Did somebody really complain about what was said in this thread?
-Steve
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks