Dear friends,
Please call and e-mail the Board of Pharmacy, TODAY and to urge them to: ( Details to items 1-3 are below.)
1. OPPOSE the Draft Rule.
2. Question the validity of the Board's Rule-Making process.
3. Question the bias activity at the March 29th Public Hearing
Board of Pharmacy Phone: 360.236.4825
Board Members' E-mails: "Susan Teil Boyer" <susanboyer@goodsamhealth.org>, "Dan Connolly" <danc@bartelldrugs.com>
Staff E-mails: "Salmi, Lisa (DOH)" <Lisa.Salmi@doh.wa.gov>, "Beebe, Doreen (DOH)" <Doreen.Beebe@doh.wa.gov>, "Fernando, Andres (DOH)" <andres.fernando@doh.wa.gov>, "Fuller, Tim (DOH)" <Timothy.Fuller@doh.wa.gov>, "Mecca, Andrew J (DOH)" <Andrew.Mecca@doh.wa.gov>, "Joyce A. Roper" <joycer@atg.wa.gov>
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Pharmacy Update:
The
Board of Pharmacy plans to move the rule-making process forward and
officially adopt the anti-conscience Draft Rule. However, due
to the many questions raised at the March 29th Board
Hearing, regarding the validity of two important documents used in
the Board of Pharmacy's Rule-Making process, the Board has
re-examined these documents and will hold another meeting to decide
whether to officially adopt the anti-conscience Draft Rule or to
re-examine the issue. The purpose of these two documents, the
SBEIS and SA, respectively, is to analyze the economic impact the
Draft Rule would have on small businesses and to provide supporting
evidence for the implementation and need of the Rule.
Consistent and noticeable pro-conscience presence is important at meetings to keep the Board accountable for the continuous overwhelming public support for the right to conscience. The Board of Pharmacy will meet again:
This Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 9am
Department of Health Please attend, if possible!
310 Israel Rd. SE - Conf. Room 152/153
Tumwater, WA. 98501
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
In September 2006, the Board of Pharmacy Staff sent a survey to a random number of pharmacies in WA to collect data as evidence in support of this rule. The survey contained only three pages and thirteen questions. On the third page, all the questions, but one, was concerned Plan B. Although the Board of Pharmacy states that the rule was composed to address all medications, upon reviewing the survey one can clearly see that this was not true. Nowhere in the survey does it clearly state this. This highly suggests that the focus of the survey and thus the proposed rule is Plan B and not "all medications," as the Board of Pharmacy assures.
The Small Business Economic Impact Statement (SBEIS, attached) was composed for the proposed rule, WAC 246-869-010 - Pharmacies' Responsibilities. The responses from the attached survey were incorrectly used to compose this statement. The first page of the survey said, "The purpose of this survey is to help the Board of Pharmacy staff estimate the potential costs to you and your business as a pharmacy in the implementation of the proposed amendments to WAC 246-863-095 Pharmacist's professional responsibilities rule (attached)." No where in the survey did it mention WAC 246-869-010 Pharmacies' Responsibilities. Conflictingly, the SBEIS stated, " Please note that proposed amendments to WAC 246-863-095 are not analyzed within this Small Business Economic Impact Statement because the rule effects individual pharmacists, but does not create costs for businesses.
Board
of Pharmacy members with a conflict of interest?
New Board of Pharmacy members, Rosemarie Duffy was a member of the Board of Directors for the Planned Parenthood of the Inland Empire from 1998-2000 and
Vandana Slatter is currently a NARAL Pro-Choice Washington Board Member.
There will be a Public Hearing to officially confirm new Board Member, Rosemarie Duffy. This Hearing is open to the public and anyone can testify:
Health &
Long-Term Care
Friday, April 13, 2007 at
8:30am
Washington State Legislature
447 John A. Cherberg Building
Senate Hearing Room 4
Olympia, WA 98504-0466
Bias activity at the March 29th Public Hearing?
Although the Board had an overwhelming number of pro-conscience testimonies at their Public Hearing, in addition to the over 11,000 letters and e-mails sent to the Board, urging them to protect the right to conscience, the Board has never mentioned "conscience" or the "right to conscience" in any of their meetings, to date. Instead, the Board ignores these and only speaks of the concerns of those opposing the right to conscience, "patient's timely access to medications", on demand.
When the first show of support (through applause) was for a pro-conscience testimony, the Board immediately asked everyone to withhold applause. However, this never occurred at the two previous hearings where pro-conscience supporters were outnumbered and there was cheering after each anti-conscience testimony. This continued cheering never bothered the Board throughout the entire length of these two hearings.
The Board of Pharmacy secretary was the timekeeper for the testimonies. She was always very alert, accurate and sometimes too early in cutting off pro-conscience testimonies. Yet she was usually distracted and late when cutting off anti-conscience testimonies. This secretary was also found to be advising pro-conscience supporters to check the box indicating that they supported the anti-conscience Draft Rules, when they were signing in to the March 29th Hearing.
An anti-conscience college student started his testimony by saying that he first wanted to address the pro-conscience supporters he was sitting next to. Although he violated the ground rules of the Hearing by doing this, no one from the Board was disturbed by his request and allowed him to speak. Finally, one of the Board staff approached him and asked him to conclude.
During the Hearing, the Board's Executive Director decided that the sign-in sheets would be discarded and new sign-in sheets would be passed around. Many pro-conscience supporters left before this occurred. At the Board Meeting, the following day, a man told the Executive Director he heard that the first set of sign-in sheets were discarded and asked to sign in to OPPOSE the rule because he was not present when everyone re-signed in. The Director firmly said that she did not know what he was talking about and that confirmed him that nothing was discarded. When someone who was present at the Hearing supported this man's concern and request, the Director acknowledged that the sheets were discarded, but then corrected herself, saying that they didn't really discard them and still had them.
Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire introduced this proposed rule to the Board of Pharmacy. Below is an excerpt from the letter she composed regarding her recommendation of the proposed rule.
Please note that:
§ Past Board member Donna Dockter, was the only person at the table, who strongly opposed this proposed draft rule.
§ Professor Don Downing is nationally known for educating and training pharmacists and other healthcare providers on Plan B. In addition to teaching, he works to promote Plan B, nation-wide and is compensated for his work with Plan B.
§ Rod Schafer, CEO of the Association, represented the Washington State Pharmacy Association. The Association provides courses to pharmacists and other healthcare providers on Plan B. The Association charges a fee for the courses. In addition, the CEO has traveled and the Association continues to send staff to promote Plan B.
§ It is impedes the right to conscience for the pharmacist who owns and solely operates a pharmacy.
§ It prevents the starting of future small pharmacy businesses, due to the loss of conscience for the potential pharmacist/owner.
§ It will cause pharmacies to discriminate against hiring pharmacists with ethical, moral and religious beliefs.
§ Pharmacies are businesses. The Board of pharmacy is stepping on boundaries, trying to regulate the business aspect of pharmacies, requiring them to dispense/sell all medications/products they have in stock, on demand.
§ The market is currently well under control with pharmacies carrying drugs other pharmacies can't or don't want to carry, on-line pharmacies with overnight delivery, etc.
§ This rule is a threat to public health, safety, and many patients' ability to access medications in a timely manner. This rule will force a number of pharmacists to have to choose between their conscience and their livelihood (losing their job or license if they don't comply with the proposed rule) and would cause some to leave the profession or close the pharmacy they own, all together. This would increase the current national shortage of pharmacists and prevent the access of many patients to receive ALL medications that could have been provided by that newly closed pharmacy.