Board of Phaacy Project Essay Example

Board of Phaacy Project Essay Example Board of Phaacy Project Essay Board of Phaacy Project Essay Name Tutor Course Date Board of Phaacy Project Case 1 In the case of the Jackson Pharmacy vs. the patient, the pharmacy is in direct violation of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and the California state pharmacy law. According to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the pharmacist has an obligation of offering counseling to all patients or their caregivers so that potential problems that arise after the medical products have been dispensed can be prevented (Abood 273). In addition, the California state pharmacy law describe acts of omission that involve, in part or in whole, the failure to consult with the patient as unprofessional conduct for a pharmacist (Darvey 81). Therefore, according to these laws the role of the pharmacist is to provide appropriate counseling on matters that in the pharmacist’s professional judgment are significant. This involves the use of a translator in cases where the patient does not understand English. The appropriate sanction to the compliant is a compensation fine. Case 2 In the case of the California state board of pharmacy vs. the pharmacist, the pharmacist is in direct violation of the California state pharmacy rules and regulations for licensing of pharmacy technicians. According to the board’s procedures, the pharmacy applicants should pass a criminal background check, which is usually done at the FBI or the DOJ level (Bachenheimer 27). This is usually preceded by a license renewal after every two years, which also involves criminal background check. Therefore, in this case, the pharmacist seems to have neglected his obligation by law to follow the appropriate procedure of license renewal over the past ten years because if he had followed the right procedure he would have lost his license. The appropriate sanction to the complaint is a prison sentence. Case 3 In the case of the applicant vs. the California state board of pharmacy, the applicant is in direct violation of the California state pharmacy rules and regulations for the licensing of pharmacy technicians. These rules and regulations dictate that an applicant should pass a criminal background check on an FBI OR the DOJ level before he/she can be licensed as a physician (Geneva 308). In this case, the applicant did not pass the criminal background check as required by the state board of pharmacy. These rules and regulations also specify that no person shall possess any controlled substance unless it is prescribed by a physician, dentist, podiatrist, optometrist, veterinarian or a certified nurse-midwife pursuant. Therefore, the applicant is in direct violation of the state law. The appropriate sanction should be a jail sentence or a fine (Abood 18). Case 4 In the case of the pharmacy technician vs. the patient, the pharmacy technician is in direct violation of the Health, insurance, probability and accountability Act as well as the California state pharmacy law. According to the Health, insurance, probability and accountability Act, a coverage entity should not use or disclose protected health information with an exception to certain provisions in the act. In addition, the California state pharmacy law describes acts of omission that involve, in whole or in part, the failure to consult the prescription administered as unprofessional behavior (Darvey 81). The appropriate sanction is a compensation fine to the patient. Case 5 In the case of the pharmacist vs. the patient, the pharmacist is in direct violation of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, which specifies that the pharmacist has an obligation to maintain a written record that can be used as reference for other pharmacists (Abood 273). This record should consist of the medical history of the patient, which shows past treatments and medication prescribed (Troy 227). In addition, the pharmacist is in direct violation of the California state pharmacy law which describes the acts of omission that involve, in whole or in part, the inappropriate exercise of a pharmacists education, training or experience as unprofessional conduct. The appropriate sanction is a fine or a warning by the state board of pharmacy. Works cited Abood, Richard R. Pharmacy Practice and the Law. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2011. Print. Bachenheimer, Bonnie S. Manual for Pharmacy Technicians. Bethesda, MD: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 2011. Print. Darvey, Diane L. Legal Handbook for Pharmacy Technicians. Bethesda, MD: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 2008. Print. Quality Assurance of Pharmaceuticals: A Compendium of Guidelines and Related Materials. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007. Print. Troy, David B. Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams Wilkins, 2005. Print.