Re: Forging New Opportunities for Pharmacy Technicians

[Guest guest]

In Texas it is against the Law, " State Board of Pharmacy " to accept a new order.

It has to be a licensed person to licensed person, either a MD or DVM. From

experience, when you have a Pharmaist who feels very comfortable with you and

your work ethics, alot of this is already being done. It is a way of assisting

RPH, reducing the stress off them, to help the customer, etc., AM I right about

this with the others who have years of experience.

Donna CPhT

Texas

" A. " <mikeaparker@...> wrote: Forging New Opportunities

for Pharmacy Technicians

I am in the process of forming an Association whose primary purpose is

the advancement of Pharmacy as a whole and Pharmacy Technicians

specifically. Does anyone here have any opinions on creating a new

job description (career category) of an Advanced Pharmacy Technician,

or Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician?

With the current rapidly expanding Landscape of Pharmacy today, we

need to be proactive in addressing the needs of an aging population

and an increase in the number of prescriptions being filled each year.

I propose that a new position is created, where highly qualified

Pharmacy Technicians who possess a B.S. in Biology, Chemistry, or

BioChemistry, and have CPhT certification with 5 years experience as a

Certified Pharmacy Technician, would be able to take a practical

and/or written exam. Upon passing this exam (or exams), the CPhT,

would become an A.C.Ph.T., or C.Ph.T.A. (Advanced Certified Pharmacy

Technician). This A.C.Ph.T. would be able to take on some of the

functions that the Pharmacist currently performs. Namely, Taking new

drug orders from the doctor's office and providing and receiving

copies (transfer of Rx) from one Pharmacy to Another. This will free

up a lot of the Pharmacist's time, which can be spent or their " more

essential " roles of Patient Counseling & Performing the final check on

Prescriptions before Dispensing.

I believe that if medical secretaries are able to call in new orders

from physician offices without any experience in Pharmacy or Medicine,

then a highly qualified, highly experienced Certified Pharmacy

Technician who possesses a BS degree in the sciences (which provides a

background in understanding pharmacology and nomenclature etc..) as

described above with the correlating required experience, should be

able to, and is more than qualified to take on these new roles!

I have no problem with strict requirements, requiring a practical

exam, when the said technician applies for this new certification or

specialization and a written exam.

Liability would have to lie with the newly formed A.C.Ph.T., because

most Pharmacists would not want Technicians to take on these new roles

and be personally responsible for the Technician's actions.

This will also give many of the B.S. prepared Technicians a chance to

reduce their frustration and use some of their background in

chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, biology, microbiology et.

al. to move up the career ladder and get a chance to use their brain

more along with their ability to reason and problem solve.

Now, I know that there are many Pharmacy Tech's out there who could

also perform the tasks of an A.C.Ph.T., without the BS degree, however

you select few are very rare and talented. It would be much more

difficult to get this legislation passed by your State Board of

Pharmacy if you make the requirements too loose.

I am open up to suggestions if you have any, such as requiring a

certain group of science courses, like the prerequisites for Medical

or Pharmacy School (2 semesters each of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry,

Biology & Physics) as an alternative to the BS degree, but it is

ultimately up to the state, should they approve such a measure.

The key fact is that each level of education hopes to instill a level

of competency. For example a B.S. prepared Pharmacy Technician in one

of the above majors, would definitely have exposure to and would have

to have successfully passed the above science courses in order to

graduate with the B.S. degree in their respected field.

Laws vary from state-to-state, as some states currently allow Pharmacy

Technicians to give and receive copies (transfers). Can anyone who

works in one of these states provide me with some feedback on how this

works and any liability issues that arose from this practice? Please

also mention any other laws in different states which are unique to

Pharmacy Technicians in that state. There are a lot of Laws, where

the Feds leave the decision up to the state!

Thank you for you time and input!

A. , BS, CPhT

Owner/Program Director

P.A.S.S., LLC

PassPTCB.com

571-332-0212

@...

www.PASS.com

www.PassPTCB.com

p.s. Jeanetta, please contact me when you have time, as I believe your

extensive experience and network could be very helpful in the

development of this new job-classification!

[Guest guest]

Hi,

This is also common practice in NJ. Certain technicians (with the permission of

the RPh on duty) take new verbal orders, give and recieves copies/transfers and

transcribe new Rx's from voice mail.

Your idea sounds plausible but I don't see it happening. Especially when so

much of the profession is controlled by the giant chains. They will not upgrade

pay levels for educated technicians if they don'thave to and they do have the

power to block advancements such as these.

--

To love what you do and feel that

it matters - how could anything

be more fun? -- Graham

.. . . for my heart rejoiced in

all my labour . . . Ecclesiastes

2:10

-------------- Original message --------------

From: Donna Mackey <donna34056@...>

In Texas it is against the Law, " State Board of Pharmacy " to accept a new order.

It has to be a licensed person to licensed person, either a MD or DVM. From

experience, when you have a Pharmaist who feels very comfortable with you and

your work ethics, alot of this is already being done. It is a way of assisting

RPH, reducing the stress off them, to help the customer, etc., AM I right about

this with the others who have years of experience.

Donna CPhT

Texas

" A. " <mikeaparker@...> wrote: Forging New Opportunities

for Pharmacy Technicians

I am in the process of forming an Association whose primary purpose is

the advancement of Pharmacy as a whole and Pharmacy Technicians

specifically. Does anyone here have any opinions on creating a new

job description (career category) of an Advanced Pharmacy Technician,

or Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician?

With the current rapidly expanding Landscape of Pharmacy today, we

need to be proactive in addressing the needs of an aging population

and an increase in the number of prescriptions being filled each year.

I propose that a new position is created, where highly qualified

Pharmacy Technicians who possess a B.S. in Biology, Chemistry, or

BioChemistry, and have CPhT certification with 5 years experience as a

Certified Pharmacy Technician, would be able to take a practical

and/or written exam. Upon passing this exam (or exams), the CPhT,

would become an A.C.Ph.T., or C.Ph.T.A. (Advanced Certified Pharmacy

Technician). This A.C.Ph.T. would be able to take on some of the

functions that the Pharmacist currently performs. Namely, Taking new

drug orders from the doctor's office and providing and receiving

copies (transfer of Rx) from one Pharmacy to Another. This will free

up a lot of the Pharmacist's time, which can be spent or their " more

essential " roles of Patient Counseling & Performing the final check on

Prescriptions before Dispensing.

I believe that if medical secretaries are able to call in new orders

from physician offices without any experience in Pharmacy or Medicine,

then a highly qualified, highly experienced Certified Pharmacy

Technician who possesses a BS degree in the sciences (which provides a

background in understanding pharmacology and nomenclature etc..) as

described above with the correlating required experience, should be

able to, and is more than qualified to take on these new roles!

I have no problem with strict requirements, requiring a practical

exam, when the said technician applies for this new certification or

specialization and a written exam.

Liability would have to lie with the newly formed A.C.Ph.T., because

most Pharmacists would not want Technicians to take on these new roles

and be personally responsible for the Technician's actions.

This will also give many of the B.S. prepared Technicians a chance to

reduce their frustration and use some of their background in

chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, biology, microbiology et.

al. to move up the career ladder and get a chance to use their brain

more along with their ability to reason and problem solve.

Now, I know that there are many Pharmacy Tech's out there who could

also perform the tasks of an A.C.Ph.T., without the BS degree, however

you select few are very rare and talented. It would be much more

difficult to get this legislation passed by your State Board of

Pharmacy if you make the requirements too loose.

I am open up to suggestions if you have any, such as requiring a

certain group of science courses, like the prerequisites for Medical

or Pharmacy School (2 semesters each of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry,

Biology & Physics) as an alternative to the BS degree, but it is

ultimately up to the state, should they approve such a measure.

The key fact is that each level of education hopes to instill a level

of competency. For example a B.S. prepared Pharmacy Technician in one

of the above majors, would definitely have exposure to and would have

to have successfully passed the above science courses in order to

graduate with the B.S. degree in their respected field.

Laws vary from state-to-state, as some states currently allow Pharmacy

Technicians to give and receive copies (transfers). Can anyone who

works in one of these states provide me with some feedback on how this

works and any liability issues that arose from this practice? Please

also mention any other laws in different states which are unique to

Pharmacy Technicians in that state. There are a lot of Laws, where

the Feds leave the decision up to the state!

Thank you for you time and input!

A. , BS, CPhT

Owner/Program Director

P.A.S.S., LLC

PassPTCB.com

571-332-0212

@...

www.PASS.com

www.PassPTCB.com

p.s. Jeanetta, please contact me when you have time, as I believe your

extensive experience and network could be very helpful in the

development of this new job-classification!

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I have a LOT ot say on this issue. I left a very long detaild message on

your recorder. I ahave severalprojects in the works that are on education, of

which might overlap your direction 'somewhat'.

I personally do not believe that having a science degree makes a tech any

better at doing a pharmacists job. I do be that only ONE degree offers enought

pharmacology for this and that is the Pharm D. So I am not at this time in

favor of techs taking orders over the phone, although several states do allow

this, at the pharmacists decision. I do believe that there needs to be a 'step

career' ladder, and that includes higher education than the basic programs that

follow ASHP do now. I also believe that BEFORE we can get there we need to have

a minimum national educational standard for techs 'just' to be qualified

technicians at entry level. There must be required continued education. And I

agree with an AS or higher to move up into areas of managment or supervision or

?? I do not necessarily think that a tech should take on the jobs or tasks of a

pharmacist. There istoo much at stake and I can almost guarantee you that it

would not pay the tech well enough for that

responsibility .

So in essence I say you have a great dream and I do not want to crush it. I

would like you to see the reality of the bigger picture: we need ALL techs to

have a standard basic education first before we can pursue other education for

higher placment. Many RPh's out there are against basic ed as it is!

I do nto know what else to say except I do wish to discuss this behind the

posts in private email/telephone in more depth.

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Pharm Tech Educator-ProgramDirector

Founder/Owner of this site

" A. " <mikeaparker@...> wrote: Forging New

Opportunities for Pharmacy Technicians

I am in the process of forming an Association whose primary purpose is

the advancement of Pharmacy as a whole and Pharmacy Technicians

specifically. Does anyone here have any opinions on creating a new

job description (career category) of an Advanced Pharmacy Technician,

or Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician?

With the current rapidly expanding Landscape of Pharmacy today, we

need to be proactive in addressing the needs of an aging population

and an increase in the number of prescriptions being filled each year.

I propose that a new position is created, where highly qualified

Pharmacy Technicians who possess a B.S. in Biology, Chemistry, or

BioChemistry, and have CPhT certification with 5 years experience as a

Certified Pharmacy Technician, would be able to take a practical

and/or written exam. Upon passing this exam (or exams), the CPhT,

would become an A.C.Ph.T., or C.Ph.T.A. (Advanced Certified Pharmacy

Technician). This A.C.Ph.T. would be able to take on some of the

functions that the Pharmacist currently performs. Namely, Taking new

drug orders from the doctor's office and providing and receiving

copies (transfer of Rx) from one Pharmacy to Another. This will free

up a lot of the Pharmacist's time, which can be spent or their " more

essential " roles of Patient Counseling & Performing the final check on

Prescriptions before Dispensing.

I believe that if medical secretaries are able to call in new orders

from physician offices without any experience in Pharmacy or Medicine,

then a highly qualified, highly experienced Certified Pharmacy

Technician who possesses a BS degree in the sciences (which provides a

background in understanding pharmacology and nomenclature etc..) as

described above with the correlating required experience, should be

able to, and is more than qualified to take on these new roles!

I have no problem with strict requirements, requiring a practical

exam, when the said technician applies for this new certification or

specialization and a written exam.

Liability would have to lie with the newly formed A.C.Ph.T., because

most Pharmacists would not want Technicians to take on these new roles

and be personally responsible for the Technician's actions.

This will also give many of the B.S. prepared Technicians a chance to

reduce their frustration and use some of their background in

chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, biology, microbiology et.

al. to move up the career ladder and get a chance to use their brain

more along with their ability to reason and problem solve.

Now, I know that there are many Pharmacy Tech's out there who could

also perform the tasks of an A.C.Ph.T., without the BS degree, however

you select few are very rare and talented. It would be much more

difficult to get this legislation passed by your State Board of

Pharmacy if you make the requirements too loose.

I am open up to suggestions if you have any, such as requiring a

certain group of science courses, like the prerequisites for Medical

or Pharmacy School (2 semesters each of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry,

Biology & Physics) as an alternative to the BS degree, but it is

ultimately up to the state, should they approve such a measure.

The key fact is that each level of education hopes to instill a level

of competency. For example a B.S. prepared Pharmacy Technician in one

of the above majors, would definitely have exposure to and would have

to have successfully passed the above science courses in order to

graduate with the B.S. degree in their respected field.

Laws vary from state-to-state, as some states currently allow Pharmacy

Technicians to give and receive copies (transfers). Can anyone who

works in one of these states provide me with some feedback on how this

works and any liability issues that arose from this practice? Please

also mention any other laws in different states which are unique to

Pharmacy Technicians in that state. There are a lot of Laws, where

the Feds leave the decision up to the state!

Thank you for you time and input!

A. , BS, CPhT

Owner/Program Director

P.A.S.S., LLC

PassPTCB.com

571-332-0212

@...

www.PASS.com

www.PassPTCB.com

p.s. Jeanetta, please contact me when you have time, as I believe your

extensive experience and network could be very helpful in the

development of this new job-classification!

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you for your input on this idea.

I do not recall if you have AS or BS , I do know that you have attended

science courses. I am glad to see that you like this idea.

My question to you is this:do you believe that having courses in biolody or

chemistry would make one any more capable at transfering records or accepting

orders over the phone or other pharmacists jobs or tasks. Do you think that

there are safety issues in transfering orders? If so what are they? What are

the safety issues in accepting a phone in Rx?

Please explain in detail! I am seeking your opinion GREATLY as I respect your

background and work.

Taking orders from voice mail where a pharmacist can check it again as in

havign a copy is not an issue with me. Pharmacists who do not check the copy

should be shot.... But a tech taking an original order over the phone (as

suggests )? It is not the same as taking an order for burger and

fries. So I do not accept this. I do not think that any of my chemistry or bio

classes could have prepared me for the pharmacology that I must know in order

to ascertain if this is a good , UAD or safe order. That is only taught in

pharm school. To some extent I teach this and so do other programs that follow

ASHP guidelines, but it is not considered the techs function, other than to

question, catch the errors and to report to the RPh for futher direction. Techs

should not at any level be making any judgment calls. Even I with my degree.

But I am interested in your thoughts on the two tasks that discusses:

1. Transfering orders from one Rx to another Rx,

2. Taking live verbal orders over the phone

Thanks,

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

F/O

cphtgenius@... wrote: Hi,

This is also common practice in NJ. Certain technicians (with the permission

of the RPh on duty) take new verbal orders, give and recieves copies/transfers

and transcribe new Rx's from voice mail.

Your idea sounds plausible but I don't see it happening. Especially when so

much of the profession is controlled by the giant chains. They will not

upgrade pay levels for educated technicians if they don'thave to and they do

have the power to block advancements such as these.

--

To love what you do and feel that

it matters - how could anything

be more fun? -- Graham

. . . for my heart rejoiced in

all my labour . . . Ecclesiastes

2:10

-------------- Original message --------------

From: Donna Mackey <donna34056@...>

In Texas it is against the Law, " State Board of Pharmacy " to accept a new

order. It has to be a licensed person to licensed person, either a MD or DVM.

From experience, when you have a Pharmaist who feels very comfortable with you

and your work ethics, alot of this is already being done. It is a way of

assisting RPH, reducing the stress off them, to help the customer, etc., AM I

right about this with the others who have years of experience.

Donna CPhT

Texas

" A. " <mikeaparker@...> wrote: Forging New

Opportunities for Pharmacy Technicians

I am in the process of forming an Association whose primary purpose is

the advancement of Pharmacy as a whole and Pharmacy Technicians

specifically. Does anyone here have any opinions on creating a new

job description (career category) of an Advanced Pharmacy Technician,

or Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician?

With the current rapidly expanding Landscape of Pharmacy today, we

need to be proactive in addressing the needs of an aging population

and an increase in the number of prescriptions being filled each year.

I propose that a new position is created, where highly qualified

Pharmacy Technicians who possess a B.S. in Biology, Chemistry, or

BioChemistry, and have CPhT certification with 5 years experience as a

Certified Pharmacy Technician, would be able to take a practical

and/or written exam. Upon passing this exam (or exams), the CPhT,

would become an A.C.Ph.T., or C.Ph.T.A. (Advanced Certified Pharmacy

Technician). This A.C.Ph.T. would be able to take on some of the

functions that the Pharmacist currently performs. Namely, Taking new

drug orders from the doctor's office and providing and receiving

copies (transfer of Rx) from one Pharmacy to Another. This will free

up a lot of the Pharmacist's time, which can be spent or their " more

essential " roles of Patient Counseling & Performing the final check on

Prescriptions before Dispensing.

I believe that if medical secretaries are able to call in new orders

from physician offices without any experience in Pharmacy or Medicine,

then a highly qualified, highly experienced Certified Pharmacy

Technician who possesses a BS degree in the sciences (which provides a

background in understanding pharmacology and nomenclature etc..) as

described above with the correlating required experience, should be

able to, and is more than qualified to take on these new roles!

I have no problem with strict requirements, requiring a practical

exam, when the said technician applies for this new certification or

specialization and a written exam.

Liability would have to lie with the newly formed A.C.Ph.T., because

most Pharmacists would not want Technicians to take on these new roles

and be personally responsible for the Technician's actions.

This will also give many of the B.S. prepared Technicians a chance to

reduce their frustration and use some of their background in

chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, biology, microbiology et.

al. to move up the career ladder and get a chance to use their brain

more along with their ability to reason and problem solve.

Now, I know that there are many Pharmacy Tech's out there who could

also perform the tasks of an A.C.Ph.T., without the BS degree, however

you select few are very rare and talented. It would be much more

difficult to get this legislation passed by your State Board of

Pharmacy if you make the requirements too loose.

I am open up to suggestions if you have any, such as requiring a

certain group of science courses, like the prerequisites for Medical

or Pharmacy School (2 semesters each of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry,

Biology & Physics) as an alternative to the BS degree, but it is

ultimately up to the state, should they approve such a measure.

The key fact is that each level of education hopes to instill a level

of competency. For example a B.S. prepared Pharmacy Technician in one

of the above majors, would definitely have exposure to and would have

to have successfully passed the above science courses in order to

graduate with the B.S. degree in their respected field.

Laws vary from state-to-state, as some states currently allow Pharmacy

Technicians to give and receive copies (transfers). Can anyone who

works in one of these states provide me with some feedback on how this

works and any liability issues that arose from this practice? Please

also mention any other laws in different states which are unique to

Pharmacy Technicians in that state. There are a lot of Laws, where

the Feds leave the decision up to the state!

Thank you for you time and input!

A. , BS, CPhT

Owner/Program Director

P.A.S.S., LLC

PassPTCB.com

571-332-0212

@...

www.PASS.com

www.PassPTCB.com

p.s. Jeanetta, please contact me when you have time, as I believe your

extensive experience and network could be very helpful in the

development of this new job-classification!

[Guest guest]

hello, michael and Jeanetta

I didn't know why , you are thinking that we could take Pharmacist 's job to

take prescriptions call in , on the phone , from the doctor's office.

Some secretary or clerk from doctor's office call in ,the prescriptions for

patients, didn't even know how to say the drug 's name correctly, we don't want

to be responsible for their mistake. We didn't get pay enough to be liability

even we have to pay for ourself professional liability insurance. We are tech to

assist pharmacist only, questions and judgements are Pharmacist's job and

responsibility.

we are not earning more even if we get more degree, only for Pharmacist.

mpv cpht

Jeanetta Mastron <rxjm2002@...> wrote:

Dear ,

I have a LOT ot say on this issue. I left a very long detaild message on

your recorder. I ahave severalprojects in the works that are on education, of

which might overlap your direction 'somewhat'.

I personally do not believe that having a science degree makes a tech any

better at doing a pharmacists job. I do be that only ONE degree offers enought

pharmacology for this and that is the Pharm D. So I am not at this time in

favor of techs taking orders over the phone, although several states do allow

this, at the pharmacists decision. I do believe that there needs to be a 'step

career' ladder, and that includes higher education than the basic programs that

follow ASHP do now. I also believe that BEFORE we can get there we need to have

a minimum national educational standard for techs 'just' to be qualified

technicians at entry level. There must be required continued education. And I

agree with an AS or higher to move up into areas of managment or supervision or

?? I do not necessarily think that a tech should take on the jobs or tasks of a

pharmacist. There istoo much at stake and I can almost guarantee you that it

would not pay the tech well enough for that

responsibility .

So in essence I say you have a great dream and I do not want to crush it. I

would like you to see the reality of the bigger picture: we need ALL techs to

have a standard basic education first before we can pursue other education for

higher placment. Many RPh's out there are against basic ed as it is!

I do nto know what else to say except I do wish to discuss this behind the

posts in private email/telephone in more depth.

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Pharm Tech Educator-ProgramDirector

Founder/Owner of this site

" A. " <mikeaparker@...> wrote: Forging New

Opportunities for Pharmacy Technicians

I am in the process of forming an Association whose primary purpose is

the advancement of Pharmacy as a whole and Pharmacy Technicians

specifically. Does anyone here have any opinions on creating a new

job description (career category) of an Advanced Pharmacy Technician,

or Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician?

With the current rapidly expanding Landscape of Pharmacy today, we

need to be proactive in addressing the needs of an aging population

and an increase in the number of prescriptions being filled each year.

I propose that a new position is created, where highly qualified

Pharmacy Technicians who possess a B.S. in Biology, Chemistry, or

BioChemistry, and have CPhT certification with 5 years experience as a

Certified Pharmacy Technician, would be able to take a practical

and/or written exam. Upon passing this exam (or exams), the CPhT,

would become an A.C.Ph.T., or C.Ph.T.A. (Advanced Certified Pharmacy

Technician). This A.C.Ph.T. would be able to take on some of the

functions that the Pharmacist currently performs. Namely, Taking new

drug orders from the doctor's office and providing and receiving

copies (transfer of Rx) from one Pharmacy to Another. This will free

up a lot of the Pharmacist's time, which can be spent or their " more

essential " roles of Patient Counseling & Performing the final check on

Prescriptions before Dispensing.

I believe that if medical secretaries are able to call in new orders

from physician offices without any experience in Pharmacy or Medicine,

then a highly qualified, highly experienced Certified Pharmacy

Technician who possesses a BS degree in the sciences (which provides a

background in understanding pharmacology and nomenclature etc..) as

described above with the correlating required experience, should be

able to, and is more than qualified to take on these new roles!

I have no problem with strict requirements, requiring a practical

exam, when the said technician applies for this new certification or

specialization and a written exam.

Liability would have to lie with the newly formed A.C.Ph.T., because

most Pharmacists would not want Technicians to take on these new roles

and be personally responsible for the Technician's actions.

This will also give many of the B.S. prepared Technicians a chance to

reduce their frustration and use some of their background in

chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, biology, microbiology et.

al. to move up the career ladder and get a chance to use their brain

more along with their ability to reason and problem solve.

Now, I know that there are many Pharmacy Tech's out there who could

also perform the tasks of an A.C.Ph.T., without the BS degree, however

you select few are very rare and talented. It would be much more

difficult to get this legislation passed by your State Board of

Pharmacy if you make the requirements too loose.

I am open up to suggestions if you have any, such as requiring a

certain group of science courses, like the prerequisites for Medical

or Pharmacy School (2 semesters each of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry,

Biology & Physics) as an alternative to the BS degree, but it is

ultimately up to the state, should they approve such a measure.

The key fact is that each level of education hopes to instill a level

of competency. For example a B.S. prepared Pharmacy Technician in one

of the above majors, would definitely have exposure to and would have

to have successfully passed the above science courses in order to

graduate with the B.S. degree in their respected field.

Laws vary from state-to-state, as some states currently allow Pharmacy

Technicians to give and receive copies (transfers). Can anyone who

works in one of these states provide me with some feedback on how this

works and any liability issues that arose from this practice? Please

also mention any other laws in different states which are unique to

Pharmacy Technicians in that state. There are a lot of Laws, where

the Feds leave the decision up to the state!

Thank you for you time and input!

A. , BS, CPhT

Owner/Program Director

P.A.S.S., LLC

PassPTCB.com

571-332-0212

@...

www.PASS.com

www.PassPTCB.com

p.s. Jeanetta, please contact me when you have time, as I believe your

extensive experience and network could be very helpful in the

development of this new job-classification!

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeanetta,

I have always felt that there was a need for an advanced pharmacy technician

position - maybe a pharmacist's assistant - much like a physician's assistant.

A place somewhere between the technician and the pharmacist much like the place

the PA holds between the nurse and the MD.

I didn't quite obtain my BS. I stopped going to school about 10 credits shy of

my dual BS in Chemistry and Biology. It's been some time and I've been trying

to remember all the courses I did complete. Of course, there were Bio, Gen

Chem, Org. Chem, A & P, Calc, Physics (all I & II). I think they completed my

first two years (minus the other pre-reqs like Communications, Art & Such).

Then I took Cell Culture Technology, Embryology, Genetics, Biochemistry,

Quantitative Analysis, Pharmacognosy, a class where we made medical slides (I

can't remember the name), Invertebrate Anatomy. Without pulling out my

transcript, that's what I remember at the moment.

At the risk of opening up a can worms with my prior post, I neglected to say

that I don't think ANY of those classes help/or will ever help with an advanced

pharmacy technician position yet to be created. It's a stretch saying even

this, but maybe (just maybe) some of the chemistry classes teach a student to

pay close attention to detail (thinking of Quantitative Analysis here.) But

other than that no.

I need to break this down piece by piece.

Transfering/Accepting Copies of Rx's: I believe technicians are capable of this

job aspect. All technicians - definitely not. In order to properly transfer a

prescription (in NJ) you need the following information: Patient name, address,

telephone number, today's date, name, address & telephone #, DEA # of the

pharmacy where the transfer is coming from., original Rx #, original date the Rx

was written, the date of the first fill and the last fill, name of drug,

directions for use, original # of refills, # refills left, original quantity

prescribed, md's name, address, telephone # & DEA # and the name and initials of

the transferring RPh. Potential mistakes to be made. There are many. Does the

technician know that CIII - CV can only be transferred one time? That CII have

no refills and may never be transferred? That the quantity of medication

covered by the insurance company and dispensed on the last fill may or may not

be different than the original quantity prescribed by the physician? That rx's

are valid for only 1 year from the date that the rx was written not 1 year from

the date that the rx was first filled? That the ORIGINAL date the rx was

written is the date that needs to be entered in the data entry screen when

filling the rx not the date the rx was transferred?

When accepting a copy for a generic drug ask what brand it was substituted for?

(example many drugs come in different forms and LA is NOT the same as SA or SR

or IR sorry but I'm drawing a blank right now for an actual drug name-feel free

to insert an example of your own here). And laws vary from state to state.

Living in NJ, I work with many rx's written in PA, MD, NY. New York state for

example, only allows the transfer of one refill at a time. Whereas, New Jersey

requires that the prescription in full be transferred out of the pharmacy. Does

the tech know how to handle that situation? And of course, does the technician

have an ego small enough to allow him/her to say that they don't understand or

need help with something?

New Verbal Orders: Again, I believe technicians are capable of this job aspect.

All technicians - definitely not. I know you have said before that technicians

need to know drug interactions and have the patient's chart available to accept

verbal orders but I have to disagree with you here. The verbal orders are taken

by the pharmacist and given to the technician for data entry. Contraindications

and drug interactions, allergies and such, do not come into effect until the

pharmacist performs the final validation check. Regardless of who accepted the

order, we don't know if there is a problem until the final check against the

patient's profile. And that is a job I strongly feel only the pharmacist should

perform. I do take verbal orders from offices and from the voice mail. But I

am also not too proud to say to the RPh, I don't understand what they are

saying. There is a great potential for many mistakes and abuse of the system

when allowing technicians to take verbal orders. Sound alike drug names-will the

technician know to ask for a spelling of the drug or an indication for use?

Does the technician even know indications of use for the drugs? Does the

technician use the " Echo " form after accepting the order (reading back ALL the

information to the person calling in the rx to verify it)? Did the technician

get the name and phone number of the person calling in the rx (not the md)? I

was on the job one day several years ago when loss prevention came in fired the

WHOLE staff for stealing controlled substances. How easy would it be to fake a

phone in rx? Again, with the laws, CII's are not allowed by phone in EXCEPT at

the discretion of the pharmacist and then only for a 72 hour emergency supply

with the doctor knowing he/she must mail a hard copy to the pharmacy. Would I

trust any technician to know all of this? No. All that being said, I don't

think the technician needs anything close to a pharmacy degree to take a verbal

order. Some extra training - yes definitely. If this practice were permitted

by extension of an advance degree for technicians it would free up the

pharmacists time for other duties like counseling. Or allow the pharmacist to

perform the final check without the added pressure of being interrupted to take

a phone in rx.

I see a lot of technicians come and go. I see a lot of technicians pretend to

know more than they actually do so as to wish to appear more capable at the job.

But without any schooling at all, I don't think technicians take this job too

seriously. Do they care enough about the job to learn all the rules and

regulations and to follow those rules without cutting corners? I see a lot that

don't. I don't feel comfortable letting other technicians handle transfers and

I've said the same at work. Not everyone likes hearing the truth spoken aloud.

I also don't think this position requires a BS. Maybe an AAS. RN's go to

school for only 2 years. What is stopping pharmacy from having educated help of

their own?

I'm home fighting off a bad cold and (impatiently) waiting for my baby to make

her way into this world. So if what I wrote seems choppy, like I missed saying

something that I should have, please point it out so I can clarify myself.

Thanks,

--

To love what you do and feel that

it matters - how could anything

be more fun? -- Graham

.. . . for my heart rejoiced in

all my labour . . . Ecclesiastes

2:10

-------------- Original message --------------

From: Jeanetta Mastron <rxjm2002@...>

,

Thank you for your input on this idea.

I do not recall if you have AS or BS , I do know that you have attended

science courses. I am glad to see that you like this idea.

My question to you is this:do you believe that having courses in biolody or

chemistry would make one any more capable at transfering records or accepting

orders over the phone or other pharmacists jobs or tasks. Do you think that

there are safety issues in transfering orders? If so what are they? What are

the safety issues in accepting a phone in Rx?

Please explain in detail! I am seeking your opinion GREATLY as I respect your

background and work.

Taking orders from voice mail where a pharmacist can check it again as in

havign a copy is not an issue with me. Pharmacists who do not check the copy

should be shot.... But a tech taking an original order over the phone (as

suggests )? It is not the same as taking an order for burger and

fries. So I do not accept this. I do not think that any of my chemistry or bio

classes could have prepared me for the pharmacology that I must know in order

to ascertain if this is a good , UAD or safe order. That is only taught in

pharm school. To some extent I teach this and so do other programs that follow

ASHP guidelines, but it is not considered the techs function, other than to

question, catch the errors and to report to the RPh for futher direction. Techs

should not at any level be making any judgment calls. Even I with my degree.

But I am interested in your thoughts on the two tasks that discusses:

1. Transfering orders from one Rx to another Rx,

2. Taking live verbal orders over the phone

Thanks,

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

F/O

cphtgenius@... wrote: Hi,

This is also common practice in NJ. Certain technicians (with the permission

of the RPh on duty) take new verbal orders, give and recieves copies/transfers

and transcribe new Rx's from voice mail.

Your idea sounds plausible but I don't see it happening. Especially when so

much of the profession is controlled by the giant chains. They will not

upgrade pay levels for educated technicians if they don'thave to and they do

have the power to block advancements such as these.

--

To love what you do and feel that

it matters - how could anything

be more fun? -- Graham

. . . for my heart rejoiced in

all my labour . . . Ecclesiastes

2:10

-------------- Original message --------------

From: Donna Mackey <donna34056@...>

In Texas it is against the Law, " State Board of Pharmacy " to accept a new

order. It has to be a licensed person to licensed person, either a MD or DVM.

From experience, when you have a Pharmaist who feels very comfortable with you

and your work ethics, alot of this is already being done. It is a way of

assisting RPH, reducing the stress off them, to help the customer, etc., AM I

right about this with the others who have years of experience.

Donna CPhT

Texas

" A. " <mikeaparker@...> wrote: Forging New

Opportunities for Pharmacy Technicians

I am in the process of forming an Association whose primary purpose is

the advancement of Pharmacy as a whole and Pharmacy Technicians

specifically. Does anyone here have any opinions on creating a new

job description (career category) of an Advanced Pharmacy Technician,

or Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician?

With the current rapidly expanding Landscape of Pharmacy today, we

need to be proactive in addressing the needs of an aging population

and an increase in the number of prescriptions being filled each year.

I propose that a new position is created, where highly qualified

Pharmacy Technicians who possess a B.S. in Biology, Chemistry, or

BioChemistry, and have CPhT certification with 5 years experience as a

Certified Pharmacy Technician, would be able to take a practical

and/or written exam. Upon passing this exam (or exams), the CPhT,

would become an A.C.Ph.T., or C.Ph.T.A. (Advanced Certified Pharmacy

Technician). This A.C.Ph.T. would be able to take on some of the

functions that the Pharmacist currently performs. Namely, Taking new

drug orders from the doctor's office and providing and receiving

copies (transfer of Rx) from one Pharmacy to Another. This will free

up a lot of the Pharmacist's time, which can be spent or their " more

essential " roles of Patient Counseling & Performing the final check on

Prescriptions before Dispensing.

I believe that if medical secretaries are able to call in new orders

from physician offices without any experience in Pharmacy or Medicine,

then a highly qualified, highly experienced Certified Pharmacy

Technician who possesses a BS degree in the sciences (which provides a

background in understanding pharmacology and nomenclature etc..) as

described above with the correlating required experience, should be

able to, and is more than qualified to take on these new roles!

I have no problem with strict requirements, requiring a practical

exam, when the said technician applies for this new certification or

specialization and a written exam.

Liability would have to lie with the newly formed A.C.Ph.T., because

most Pharmacists would not want Technicians to take on these new roles

and be personally responsible for the Technician's actions.

This will also give many of the B.S. prepared Technicians a chance to

reduce their frustration and use some of their background in

chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, biology, microbiology et.

al. to move up the career ladder and get a chance to use their brain

more along with their ability to reason and problem solve.

Now, I know that there are many Pharmacy Tech's out there who could

also perform the tasks of an A.C.Ph.T., without the BS degree, however

you select few are very rare and talented. It would be much more

difficult to get this legislation passed by your State Board of

Pharmacy if you make the requirements too loose.

I am open up to suggestions if you have any, such as requiring a

certain group of science courses, like the prerequisites for Medical

or Pharmacy School (2 semesters each of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry,

Biology & Physics) as an alternative to the BS degree, but it is

ultimately up to the state, should they approve such a measure.

The key fact is that each level of education hopes to instill a level

of competency. For example a B.S. prepared Pharmacy Technician in one

of the above majors, would definitely have exposure to and would have

to have successfully passed the above science courses in order to

graduate with the B.S. degree in their respected field.

Laws vary from state-to-state, as some states currently allow Pharmacy

Technicians to give and receive copies (transfers). Can anyone who

works in one of these states provide me with some feedback on how this

works and any liability issues that arose from this practice? Please

also mention any other laws in different states which are unique to

Pharmacy Technicians in that state. There are a lot of Laws, where

the Feds leave the decision up to the state!

Thank you for you time and input!

A. , BS, CPhT

Owner/Program Director

P.A.S.S., LLC

PassPTCB.com

571-332-0212

@...

www.PASS.com

www.PassPTCB.com

p.s. Jeanetta, please contact me when you have time, as I believe your

extensive experience and network could be very helpful in the

development of this new job-classification!

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone-

I don't think a 4-year degree in biology or chemistry is necessary to

work as a CPhT. If Texas allowed CPhTs to take new orders over the

phone, I can't think of how the biology, chemistry, microbiology, or A

& P classes I have taken have prepared me for it. However, I do think

a 2-year degree with pharmacology and pharmacotherapy is a great

start! With so much variation among the states it will be hard to

convince all the state boards of pharmacy to make such a change when

many of them don't even require certification or state licensing. It

will be hard but I don't think it is impossible.

Annette, Austin, TX

[Guest guest]

Dear nne,

Perhaps you misunderstood me or I did not explain myself well: I do not

approve of tech taking orders over the phone (live). I am not thrilled about

them doing it from a recording either, because I KNOW many RPh's get busy and

lazy to double check them as they are supposed to.

Here is a cut and past of WHAT I did say:

" I am not at this time in favor of techs taking orders over the phone,

although several states do allow this, at the pharmacists decision. I do

believe that there needs to be a 'step career' ladder, and that includes

higher education than the basic programs that follow ASHP do now. "

I hpe that clarifies my point of view. As for he will have to answer

to your post, I will not attempt to speak for him.

Thank you for your viewpoint and input,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Founder/Owner

nne Vee <mariannevu2002@...> wrote: hello, michael and

Jeanetta

I didn't know why , you are thinking that we could take Pharmacist 's job to

take prescriptions call in , on the phone , from the doctor's office.

Some secretary or clerk from doctor's office call in ,the prescriptions

for patients, didn't even know how to say the drug 's name correctly, we don't

want to be responsible for their mistake. We didn't get pay enough to be

liability even we have to pay for ourself professional liability insurance. We

are tech to assist pharmacist only, questions and judgements are Pharmacist's

job and responsibility.

we are not earning more even if we get more degree, only for Pharmacist.

mpv cpht

Jeanetta Mastron <rxjm2002@...> wrote:

Dear ,

I have a LOT ot say on this issue. I left a very long detaild message on

your recorder. I ahave severalprojects in the works that are on education, of

which might overlap your direction 'somewhat'.

I personally do not believe that having a science degree makes a tech any

better at doing a pharmacists job. I do be that only ONE degree offers enought

pharmacology for this and that is the Pharm D. So I am not at this time in

favor of techs taking orders over the phone, although several states do allow

this, at the pharmacists decision. I do believe that there needs to be a

'step career' ladder, and that includes higher education than the basic

programs that follow ASHP do now. I also believe that BEFORE we can get there

we need to have a minimum national educational standard for techs 'just' to

be qualified technicians at entry level. There must be required continued

education. And I agree with an AS or higher to move up into areas of managment

or supervision or ?? I do not necessarily think that a tech should take on the

jobs or tasks of a pharmacist. There istoo much at stake and I can almost

guarantee you that it would not pay the tech well

enough for that

responsibility .

So in essence I say you have a great dream and I do not want to crush it.

I would like you to see the reality of the bigger picture: we need ALL techs

to have a standard basic education first before we can pursue other education

for higher placment. Many RPh's out there are against basic ed as it is!

I do nto know what else to say except I do wish to discuss this behind the

posts in private email/telephone in more depth.

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Pharm Tech Educator-ProgramDirector

Founder/Owner of this site

" A. " <mikeaparker@...> wrote: Forging New

Opportunities for Pharmacy Technicians

I am in the process of forming an Association whose primary purpose is

the advancement of Pharmacy as a whole and Pharmacy Technicians

specifically. Does anyone here have any opinions on creating a new

job description (career category) of an Advanced Pharmacy Technician,

or Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician?

With the current rapidly expanding Landscape of Pharmacy today, we

need to be proactive in addressing the needs of an aging population

and an increase in the number of prescriptions being filled each year.

I propose that a new position is created, where highly qualified

Pharmacy Technicians who possess a B.S. in Biology, Chemistry, or

BioChemistry, and have CPhT certification with 5 years experience as a

Certified Pharmacy Technician, would be able to take a practical

and/or written exam. Upon passing this exam (or exams), the CPhT,

would become an A.C.Ph.T., or C.Ph.T.A. (Advanced Certified Pharmacy

Technician). This A.C.Ph.T. would be able to take on some of the

functions that the Pharmacist currently performs. Namely, Taking new

drug orders from the doctor's office and providing and receiving

copies (transfer of Rx) from one Pharmacy to Another. This will free

up a lot of the Pharmacist's time, which can be spent or their " more

essential " roles of Patient Counseling & Performing the final check on

Prescriptions before Dispensing.

I believe that if medical secretaries are able to call in new orders

from physician offices without any experience in Pharmacy or Medicine,

then a highly qualified, highly experienced Certified Pharmacy

Technician who possesses a BS degree in the sciences (which provides a

background in understanding pharmacology and nomenclature etc..) as

described above with the correlating required experience, should be

able to, and is more than qualified to take on these new roles!

I have no problem with strict requirements, requiring a practical

exam, when the said technician applies for this new certification or

specialization and a written exam.

Liability would have to lie with the newly formed A.C.Ph.T., because

most Pharmacists would not want Technicians to take on these new roles

and be personally responsible for the Technician's actions.

This will also give many of the B.S. prepared Technicians a chance to

reduce their frustration and use some of their background in

chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, biology, microbiology et.

al. to move up the career ladder and get a chance to use their brain

more along with their ability to reason and problem solve.

Now, I know that there are many Pharmacy Tech's out there who could

also perform the tasks of an A.C.Ph.T., without the BS degree, however

you select few are very rare and talented. It would be much more

difficult to get this legislation passed by your State Board of

Pharmacy if you make the requirements too loose.

I am open up to suggestions if you have any, such as requiring a

certain group of science courses, like the prerequisites for Medical

or Pharmacy School (2 semesters each of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry,

Biology & Physics) as an alternative to the BS degree, but it is

ultimately up to the state, should they approve such a measure.

The key fact is that each level of education hopes to instill a level

of competency. For example a B.S. prepared Pharmacy Technician in one

of the above majors, would definitely have exposure to and would have

to have successfully passed the above science courses in order to

graduate with the B.S. degree in their respected field.

Laws vary from state-to-state, as some states currently allow Pharmacy

Technicians to give and receive copies (transfers). Can anyone who

works in one of these states provide me with some feedback on how this

works and any liability issues that arose from this practice? Please

also mention any other laws in different states which are unique to

Pharmacy Technicians in that state. There are a lot of Laws, where

the Feds leave the decision up to the state!

Thank you for you time and input!

A. , BS, CPhT

Owner/Program Director

P.A.S.S., LLC

PassPTCB.com

571-332-0212

@...

www.PASS.com

www.PassPTCB.com

p.s. Jeanetta, please contact me when you have time, as I believe your

extensive experience and network could be very helpful in the

development of this new job-classification!

[Guest guest]

Dear Annette,

I personally had the SAME conversation with on the phone on Friday.

I told him that my degree in Chemistry did not prepare me to take orders over

the phone or to know pharmacology. ONLY my classes in pharmacology and years of

experience and asking RPh's more and more qwuewtiosn and attending LIVE

pharmacist CE's on pharmacology prepared me to do so. In Ca I did so in

hospital before the l994 laws changed. I do not believe at this time that any

tech shold take orders over the phone. I do however believe and I told

that IF the techs were ALL given and required the same basic education

including pharmacology THEN we could think about offering a higher DEGREE in

pharmaceutical services between a program graduate tech and a Pharm D. But that

it must include PHARMACOLOGY advanced.

So in essence I agree with you . I just did not post it as I thought it

may take conversation or posts off topic or too hot. Micahel and I had a nice

conversation. He was not aware of the the struggel we have been having just

to get a basic education accepted in the states. He is an accomplished former

Kaiser trainer and his home study program is accepted by state of Virginia. I

have respect for this young man. A bit green (sorry ) but he is

sincere in his desire to make a step ladder for techs. beleives if you

have a BS in science already that perhaps a few more courses in pharmacology

may qualify one for this other type of degree that we have not yet named.

Personally, I still am beating the path of getting all states to require

education. PTCB has made great progress sin the last 6 yrs for CPhT to be

required, but we still have over half of the states not accepting that. MUCH

lies in the hands of the RETAIL pharmacies becauase they do not want to pay

techs MORE money and they do not beleive that techs need any more education or

training that they are already getting in house. But I did feel that to

accepts the current need. We need to put the cart before the horse.

This is a fight I have been fighting for 11 or 12 years now. the White Paper

on Technicians made a great impact as well as ACPE and PTCB going to all

orgs to present it and more. But still more must be done.

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Founder/Owner

Annette Porterfield <nutterbutter818@...> wrote: Hi everyone-

I don't think a 4-year degree in biology or chemistry is necessary to

work as a CPhT. If Texas allowed CPhTs to take new orders over the

phone, I can't think of how the biology, chemistry, microbiology, or A

& P classes I have taken have prepared me for it. However, I do think

a 2-year degree with pharmacology and pharmacotherapy is a great

start! With so much variation among the states it will be hard to

convince all the state boards of pharmacy to make such a change when

many of them don't even require certification or state licensing. It

will be hard but I don't think it is impossible.

Annette, Austin, TX

[Guest guest]

hi, jeanetta

I am so sorry that i misunderstood you, i have to say that you are absolutely

right. I was try to let , know about my opinion, but by accident I had

your name also. I am sorry for my mistake.

Jeanetta Mastron <rxjm2002@...> wrote:

Dear nne,

Perhaps you misunderstood me or I did not explain myself well: I do not

approve of tech taking orders over the phone (live). I am not thrilled about

them doing it from a recording either, because I KNOW many RPh's get busy and

lazy to double check them as they are supposed to.

Here is a cut and past of WHAT I did say:

" I am not at this time in favor of techs taking orders over the phone,

although several states do allow this, at the pharmacists decision. I do

believe that there needs to be a 'step career' ladder, and that includes

higher education than the basic programs that follow ASHP do now. "

I hpe that clarifies my point of view. As for he will have to answer

to your post, I will not attempt to speak for him.

Thank you for your viewpoint and input,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Founder/Owner

nne Vee <mariannevu2002@...> wrote: hello, michael and

Jeanetta

I didn't know why , you are thinking that we could take Pharmacist 's job to

take prescriptions call in , on the phone , from the doctor's office.

Some secretary or clerk from doctor's office call in ,the prescriptions

for patients, didn't even know how to say the drug 's name correctly, we don't

want to be responsible for their mistake. We didn't get pay enough to be

liability even we have to pay for ourself professional liability insurance. We

are tech to assist pharmacist only, questions and judgements are Pharmacist's

job and responsibility.

we are not earning more even if we get more degree, only for Pharmacist.

mpv cpht

Jeanetta Mastron <rxjm2002@...> wrote:

Dear ,

I have a LOT ot say on this issue. I left a very long detaild message on

your recorder. I ahave severalprojects in the works that are on education, of

which might overlap your direction 'somewhat'.

I personally do not believe that having a science degree makes a tech any

better at doing a pharmacists job. I do be that only ONE degree offers enought

pharmacology for this and that is the Pharm D. So I am not at this time in

favor of techs taking orders over the phone, although several states do allow

this, at the pharmacists decision. I do believe that there needs to be a

'step career' ladder, and that includes higher education than the basic

programs that follow ASHP do now. I also believe that BEFORE we can get there

we need to have a minimum national educational standard for techs 'just' to

be qualified technicians at entry level. There must be required continued

education. And I agree with an AS or higher to move up into areas of managment

or supervision or ?? I do not necessarily think that a tech should take on the

jobs or tasks of a pharmacist. There istoo much at stake and I can almost

guarantee you that it would not pay the tech well

enough for that

responsibility .

So in essence I say you have a great dream and I do not want to crush it.

I would like you to see the reality of the bigger picture: we need ALL techs

to have a standard basic education first before we can pursue other education

for higher placment. Many RPh's out there are against basic ed as it is!

I do nto know what else to say except I do wish to discuss this behind the

posts in private email/telephone in more depth.

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Pharm Tech Educator-ProgramDirector

Founder/Owner of this site

" A. " <mikeaparker@...> wrote: Forging New

Opportunities for Pharmacy Technicians

I am in the process of forming an Association whose primary purpose is

the advancement of Pharmacy as a whole and Pharmacy Technicians

specifically. Does anyone here have any opinions on creating a new

job description (career category) of an Advanced Pharmacy Technician,

or Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician?

With the current rapidly expanding Landscape of Pharmacy today, we

need to be proactive in addressing the needs of an aging population

and an increase in the number of prescriptions being filled each year.

I propose that a new position is created, where highly qualified

Pharmacy Technicians who possess a B.S. in Biology, Chemistry, or

BioChemistry, and have CPhT certification with 5 years experience as a

Certified Pharmacy Technician, would be able to take a practical

and/or written exam. Upon passing this exam (or exams), the CPhT,

would become an A.C.Ph.T., or C.Ph.T.A. (Advanced Certified Pharmacy

Technician). This A.C.Ph.T. would be able to take on some of the

functions that the Pharmacist currently performs. Namely, Taking new

drug orders from the doctor's office and providing and receiving

copies (transfer of Rx) from one Pharmacy to Another. This will free

up a lot of the Pharmacist's time, which can be spent or their " more

essential " roles of Patient Counseling & Performing the final check on

Prescriptions before Dispensing.

I believe that if medical secretaries are able to call in new orders

from physician offices without any experience in Pharmacy or Medicine,

then a highly qualified, highly experienced Certified Pharmacy

Technician who possesses a BS degree in the sciences (which provides a

background in understanding pharmacology and nomenclature etc..) as

described above with the correlating required experience, should be

able to, and is more than qualified to take on these new roles!

I have no problem with strict requirements, requiring a practical

exam, when the said technician applies for this new certification or

specialization and a written exam.

Liability would have to lie with the newly formed A.C.Ph.T., because

most Pharmacists would not want Technicians to take on these new roles

and be personally responsible for the Technician's actions.

This will also give many of the B.S. prepared Technicians a chance to

reduce their frustration and use some of their background in

chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, biology, microbiology et.

al. to move up the career ladder and get a chance to use their brain

more along with their ability to reason and problem solve.

Now, I know that there are many Pharmacy Tech's out there who could

also perform the tasks of an A.C.Ph.T., without the BS degree, however

you select few are very rare and talented. It would be much more

difficult to get this legislation passed by your State Board of

Pharmacy if you make the requirements too loose.

I am open up to suggestions if you have any, such as requiring a

certain group of science courses, like the prerequisites for Medical

or Pharmacy School (2 semesters each of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry,

Biology & Physics) as an alternative to the BS degree, but it is

ultimately up to the state, should they approve such a measure.

The key fact is that each level of education hopes to instill a level

of competency. For example a B.S. prepared Pharmacy Technician in one

of the above majors, would definitely have exposure to and would have

to have successfully passed the above science courses in order to

graduate with the B.S. degree in their respected field.

Laws vary from state-to-state, as some states currently allow Pharmacy

Technicians to give and receive copies (transfers). Can anyone who

works in one of these states provide me with some feedback on how this

works and any liability issues that arose from this practice? Please

also mention any other laws in different states which are unique to

Pharmacy Technicians in that state. There are a lot of Laws, where

the Feds leave the decision up to the state!

Thank you for you time and input!

A. , BS, CPhT

Owner/Program Director

P.A.S.S., LLC

PassPTCB.com

571-332-0212

@...

www.PASS.com

www.PassPTCB.com

p.s. Jeanetta, please contact me when you have time, as I believe your

extensive experience and network could be very helpful in the

development of this new job-classification!

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Do not fear, you expressed yorself well. BRAVO!

I believe that 'educated technicians' take their job much more seriously than

non-educated techs. And I agree that if they were all educated that more techs

could be further educated to an advanced degree to handle these two job

functions. Unfortuately the reality is that we have to deal with that hand we

are dealt with right now. And that is we have a revolving door among techs

because of too much responsibility and little pay, lack of tier for a career

ladder/promotion, lack of education on the job, little training on the job, and

the long time it takes to master the job with out such (not to mention little

recognition for work done well). And because of this it is no wonder that

most pharmacists (and I myself at this time) would fear all techs being given

these two tasks. Continuing to give certain functions to certain techs,

continues to under rate technicians, yet allows professional growth for others,

it promote lack of trust in technicians abilities and potential yet

allows others to be trusted. It is a negative for techs, yet it is a positive

for some techs - a double edged sword.

What we need is a national educational and training standard for ALL

technicians so that each is educated on the 'fine points' and law that you so

aptly describe and address. It means that there must be competencies to be

performed and continued education to promote further knoweldge in a forever

changing environment.

Under this I would accept a technician with an advanced degree, further of the

basic education that a pharm tech program would give. But the reality is we can

not even get pharmacists to accept this. Many pharmacists fear that given the

opportunity and law changes that techs will replace pharmacists. Yet with a

shortage of pharmacists this advanced degree makes absolute sense. But again

ONLY after having a basic pharmacy tech program under one's belt AND experience.

I myself have said numerous times why would a pharmacist want to work and

depend upon a non-educated person when physicians have educated PA's, Rn's, and

MA's, while Rn's have educated LVN's and CNA's to help and assist them. It

makes NO sense. But I do believe the time has come. But unfortunately it is not

going to happen any time soon! Retail chains have seen to this. Getting State

Boards of Pharmacy to accept their in house 'training' programs as 'education'

and state requirements is bogus at best. CRAP is my best word. (sorry folks -

but I am honest). Wht this means is the retail chains gets the state to accept

the 'way' that they specifically train a tech and then keep the tech at a low

income, no higher salary. But if the techs were required to attend a true

'educational and training' program then techs would most likely demand more

money for their education. They could also be better educated, trained and

prepared to learn more on the job, faster and more efficiently and

have a better attitude, higher pay, better recognition. But guess what they

could assist the pharmacist better IF they only were required to go to school.

But we (retail chains) do not want to pay techs more, so lets 'control' what

they learn, how and where they learn, so that we (retail cahins) can also

control how much they get paid (ie how much money we loose in profits after

paying tech and pharmacist salaries).

If we want such an advanced degree we have to earn it.

You and I agree there is nothing in our classes: biology, physics, math, or

chemistry that will allow us techs with such education to take an order over the

phone better. Only experience, knowledge of the law and knowledge of

pharmacology will allow us to do this.

Now as for taking orders over the phone and transfering Rx's I believe when we

are speaking of the actual script directions for use, allergies, pt meds

currently being taken etc all are necessary to know and be checked at the time

of the transactions in order to be part of the double and triple checks and

balances that pharmacy should perform. Without this the final check is the

only check. However this is not a checks and balance system. So here we do

disagree. I believe that all that should be checked by a pharmacist up front and

again when the dispensing actually occurs.

So we agree on some points and on others we do not. But we do agree on

education as a motivating factor to get keep better techs and keep better techs.

I am so glad to have you as a TEXPERT on this site and proud to know you (even

though only via the internet sites). I am proud to call you a colleague. I knew

of your history of education I just wanted our current audience to know too

so that they would understand where you are coming from. Thank you for indulging

me, yet again!

Thank you for the blow by blow information. Again any time you want to do a CE

for the FREE CE site just let me know. I think that would make a good one!

I wish you well during the birth of your child and May the Lord Bless you and

keep you well.

Keep posting as long as you can!

Love ya

With Great Admiration and Respect for your work and opinions,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Pharm Tech Educator

Founder/Owner

cphtgenius@... wrote:

Hi Jeanetta,

I have always felt that there was a need for an advanced pharmacy technician

position - maybe a pharmacist's assistant - much like a physician's assistant.

A place somewhere between the technician and the pharmacist much like the place

the PA holds between the nurse and the MD.

I didn't quite obtain my BS. I stopped going to school about 10 credits shy of

my dual BS in Chemistry and Biology. It's been some time and I've been trying

to remember all the courses I did complete. Of course, there were Bio, Gen

Chem, Org. Chem, A & P, Calc, Physics (all I & II). I think they completed my

first two years (minus the other pre-reqs like Communications, Art & Such).

Then I took Cell Culture Technology, Embryology, Genetics, Biochemistry,

Quantitative Analysis, Pharmacognosy, a class where we made medical slides (I

can't remember the name), Invertebrate Anatomy. Without pulling out my

transcript, that's what I remember at the moment.

At the risk of opening up a can worms with my prior post, I neglected to say

that I don't think ANY of those classes help/or will ever help with an advanced

pharmacy technician position yet to be created. It's a stretch saying even

this, but maybe (just maybe) some of the chemistry classes teach a student to

pay close attention to detail (thinking of Quantitative Analysis here.) But

other than that no.

I need to break this down piece by piece.

Transfering/Accepting Copies of Rx's: I believe technicians are capable of this

job aspect. All technicians - definitely not. In order to properly transfer a

prescription (in NJ) you need the following information: Patient name, address,

telephone number, today's date, name, address & telephone #, DEA # of the

pharmacy where the transfer is coming from., original Rx #, original date the Rx

was written, the date of the first fill and the last fill, name of drug,

directions for use, original # of refills, # refills left, original quantity

prescribed, md's name, address, telephone # & DEA # and the name and initials of

the transferring RPh. Potential mistakes to be made. There are many. Does the

technician know that CIII - CV can only be transferred one time? That CII have

no refills and may never be transferred? That the quantity of medication

covered by the insurance company and dispensed on the last fill may or may not

be different than the original quantity prescribed by

the physician? That rx's are valid for only 1 year from the date that the rx

was written not 1 year from the date that the rx was first filled? That the

ORIGINAL date the rx was written is the date that needs to be entered in the

data entry screen when filling the rx not the date the rx was transferred?

When accepting a copy for a generic drug ask what brand it was substituted for?

(example many drugs come in different forms and LA is NOT the same as SA or SR

or IR sorry but I'm drawing a blank right now for an actual drug name-feel free

to insert an example of your own here). And laws vary from state to state.

Living in NJ, I work with many rx's written in PA, MD, NY. New York state for

example, only allows the transfer of one refill at a time. Whereas, New Jersey

requires that the prescription in full be transferred out of the pharmacy. Does

the tech know how to handle that situation? And of course, does the technician

have an ego small enough to allow him/her to say that they don't understand or

need help with something?

New Verbal Orders: Again, I believe technicians are capable of this job aspect.

All technicians - definitely not. I know you have said before that technicians

need to know drug interactions and have the patient's chart available to accept

verbal orders but I have to disagree with you here. The verbal orders are taken

by the pharmacist and given to the technician for data entry. Contraindications

and drug interactions, allergies and such, do not come into effect until the

pharmacist performs the final validation check. Regardless of who accepted the

order, we don't know if there is a problem until the final check against the

patient's profile. And that is a job I strongly feel only the pharmacist should

perform. I do take verbal orders from offices and from the voice mail. But I

am also not too proud to say to the RPh, I don't understand what they are

saying. There is a great potential for many mistakes and abuse of the system

when allowing technicians to take verbal orders.

Sound alike drug names-will the technician know to ask for a spelling of the

drug or an indication for use? Does the technician even know indications of use

for the drugs? Does the technician use the " Echo " form after accepting the

order (reading back ALL the information to the person calling in the rx to

verify it)? Did the technician get the name and phone number of the person

calling in the rx (not the md)? I was on the job one day several years ago

when loss prevention came in fired the WHOLE staff for stealing controlled

substances. How easy would it be to fake a phone in rx? Again, with the laws,

CII's are not allowed by phone in EXCEPT at the discretion of the pharmacist and

then only for a 72 hour emergency supply with the doctor knowing he/she must

mail a hard copy to the pharmacy. Would I trust any technician to know all of

this? No. All that being said, I don't think the technician needs anything

close to a pharmacy degree to take a verbal order. Some extra

training - yes definitely. If this practice were permitted by extension of an

advance degree for technicians it would free up the pharmacists time for other

duties like counseling. Or allow the pharmacist to perform the final check

without the added pressure of being interrupted to take a phone in rx.

I see a lot of technicians come and go. I see a lot of technicians pretend to

know more than they actually do so as to wish to appear more capable at the job.

But without any schooling at all, I don't think technicians take this job too

seriously. Do they care enough about the job to learn all the rules and

regulations and to follow those rules without cutting corners? I see a lot that

don't. I don't feel comfortable letting other technicians handle transfers and

I've said the same at work. Not everyone likes hearing the truth spoken aloud.

I also don't think this position requires a BS. Maybe an AAS. RN's go to

school for only 2 years. What is stopping pharmacy from having educated help of

their own?

I'm home fighting off a bad cold and (impatiently) waiting for my baby to make

her way into this world. So if what I wrote seems choppy, like I missed saying

something that I should have, please point it out so I can clarify myself.

Thanks,

--

To love what you do and feel that

it matters - how could anything

be more fun? -- Graham

.. . . for my heart rejoiced in

all my labour . . . Ecclesiastes

2:10

-------------- Original message --------------

From: Jeanetta Mastron <rxjm2002@...>

,

Thank you for your input on this idea.

I do not recall if you have AS or BS , I do know that you have attended

science courses. I am glad to see that you like this idea.

My question to you is this:do you believe that having courses in biolody or

chemistry would make one any more capable at transfering records or accepting

orders over the phone or other pharmacists jobs or tasks. Do you think that

there are safety issues in transfering orders? If so what are they? What are

the safety issues in accepting a phone in Rx?

Please explain in detail! I am seeking your opinion GREATLY as I respect your

background and work.

Taking orders from voice mail where a pharmacist can check it again as in

havign a copy is not an issue with me. Pharmacists who do not check the copy

should be shot.... But a tech taking an original order over the phone (as

suggests )? It is not the same as taking an order for burger and

fries. So I do not accept this. I do not think that any of my chemistry or bio

classes could have prepared me for the pharmacology that I must know in order

to ascertain if this is a good , UAD or safe order. That is only taught in

pharm school. To some extent I teach this and so do other programs that follow

ASHP guidelines, but it is not considered the techs function, other than to

question, catch the errors and to report to the RPh for futher direction. Techs

should not at any level be making any judgment calls. Even I with my degree.

But I am interested in your thoughts on the two tasks that discusses:

1. Transfering orders from one Rx to another Rx,

2. Taking live verbal orders over the phone

Thanks,

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

F/O

cphtgenius@... wrote: Hi,

This is also common practice in NJ. Certain technicians (with the permission

of the RPh on duty) take new verbal orders, give and recieves copies/transfers

and transcribe new Rx's from voice mail.

Your idea sounds plausible but I don't see it happening. Especially when so

much of the profession is controlled by the giant chains. They will not

upgrade pay levels for educated technicians if they don'thave to and they do

have the power to block advancements such as these.

--

To love what you do and feel that

it matters - how could anything

be more fun? -- Graham

. . . for my heart rejoiced in

all my labour . . . Ecclesiastes

2:10

-------------- Original message --------------

From: Donna Mackey <donna34056@...>

In Texas it is against the Law, " State Board of Pharmacy " to accept a new

order. It has to be a licensed person to licensed person, either a MD or DVM.

From experience, when you have a Pharmaist who feels very comfortable with you

and your work ethics, alot of this is already being done. It is a way of

assisting RPH, reducing the stress off them, to help the customer, etc., AM I

right about this with the others who have years of experience.

Donna CPhT

Texas

" A. " <mikeaparker@...> wrote: Forging New

Opportunities for Pharmacy Technicians

I am in the process of forming an Association whose primary purpose is

the advancement of Pharmacy as a whole and Pharmacy Technicians

specifically. Does anyone here have any opinions on creating a new

job description (career category) of an Advanced Pharmacy Technician,

or Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician?

With the current rapidly expanding Landscape of Pharmacy today, we

need to be proactive in addressing the needs of an aging population

and an increase in the number of prescriptions being filled each year.

I propose that a new position is created, where highly qualified

Pharmacy Technicians who possess a B.S. in Biology, Chemistry, or

BioChemistry, and have CPhT certification with 5 years experience as a

Certified Pharmacy Technician, would be able to take a practical

and/or written exam. Upon passing this exam (or exams), the CPhT,

would become an A.C.Ph.T., or C.Ph.T.A. (Advanced Certified Pharmacy

Technician). This A.C.Ph.T. would be able to take on some of the

functions that the Pharmacist currently performs. Namely, Taking new

drug orders from the doctor's office and providing and receiving

copies (transfer of Rx) from one Pharmacy to Another. This will free

up a lot of the Pharmacist's time, which can be spent or their " more

essential " roles of Patient Counseling & Performing the final check on

Prescriptions before Dispensing.

I believe that if medical secretaries are able to call in new orders

from physician offices without any experience in Pharmacy or Medicine,

then a highly qualified, highly experienced Certified Pharmacy

Technician who possesses a BS degree in the sciences (which provides a

background in understanding pharmacology and nomenclature etc..) as

described above with the correlating required experience, should be

able to, and is more than qualified to take on these new roles!

I have no problem with strict requirements, requiring a practical

exam, when the said technician applies for this new certification or

specialization and a written exam.

Liability would have to lie with the newly formed A.C.Ph.T., because

most Pharmacists would not want Technicians to take on these new roles

and be personally responsible for the Technician's actions.

This will also give many of the B.S. prepared Technicians a chance to

reduce their frustration and use some of their background in

chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, biology, microbiology et.

al. to move up the career ladder and get a chance to use their brain

more along with their ability to reason and problem solve.

Now, I know that there are many Pharmacy Tech's out there who could

also perform the tasks of an A.C.Ph.T., without the BS degree, however

you select few are very rare and talented. It would be much more

difficult to get this legislation passed by your State Board of

Pharmacy if you make the requirements too loose.

I am open up to suggestions if you have any, such as requiring a

certain group of science courses, like the prerequisites for Medical

or Pharmacy School (2 semesters each of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry,

Biology & Physics) as an alternative to the BS degree, but it is

ultimately up to the state, should they approve such a measure.

The key fact is that each level of education hopes to instill a level

of competency. For example a B.S. prepared Pharmacy Technician in one

of the above majors, would definitely have exposure to and would have

to have successfully passed the above science courses in order to

graduate with the B.S. degree in their respected field.

Laws vary from state-to-state, as some states currently allow Pharmacy

Technicians to give and receive copies (transfers). Can anyone who

works in one of these states provide me with some feedback on how this

works and any liability issues that arose from this practice? Please

also mention any other laws in different states which are unique to

Pharmacy Technicians in that state. There are a lot of Laws, where

the Feds leave the decision up to the state!

Thank you for you time and input!

A. , BS, CPhT

Owner/Program Director

P.A.S.S., LLC

PassPTCB.com

571-332-0212

@...

www.PASS.com

www.PassPTCB.com

p.s. Jeanetta, please contact me when you have time, as I believe your

extensive experience and network could be very helpful in the

development of this new job-classification!

[Guest guest]

No Problem nne!

I just needed to clarify my stance so that new comers do not get confused! I

appreciate your response.

Jeanetta

nne Vee <mariannevu2002@...> wrote:

hi, jeanetta

I am so sorry that i misunderstood you, i have to say that you are absolutely

right. I was try to let , know about my opinion, but by accident I had

your name also. I am sorry for my mistake.

Jeanetta Mastron <rxjm2002@...> wrote:

Dear nne,

Perhaps you misunderstood me or I did not explain myself well: I do not

approve of tech taking orders over the phone (live). I am not thrilled about

them doing it from a recording either, because I KNOW many RPh's get busy and

lazy to double check them as they are supposed to.

Here is a cut and past of WHAT I did say:

" I am not at this time in favor of techs taking orders over the phone,

although several states do allow this, at the pharmacists decision. I do

believe that there needs to be a 'step career' ladder, and that includes

higher education than the basic programs that follow ASHP do now. "

I hpe that clarifies my point of view. As for he will have to answer

to your post, I will not attempt to speak for him.

Thank you for your viewpoint and input,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Founder/Owner

nne Vee <mariannevu2002@...> wrote: hello, michael and

Jeanetta

I didn't know why , you are thinking that we could take Pharmacist 's job to

take prescriptions call in , on the phone , from the doctor's office.

Some secretary or clerk from doctor's office call in ,the prescriptions

for patients, didn't even know how to say the drug 's name correctly, we don't

want to be responsible for their mistake. We didn't get pay enough to be

liability even we have to pay for ourself professional liability insurance. We

are tech to assist pharmacist only, questions and judgements are Pharmacist's

job and responsibility.

we are not earning more even if we get more degree, only for Pharmacist.

mpv cpht

Jeanetta Mastron <rxjm2002@...> wrote:

Dear ,

I have a LOT ot say on this issue. I left a very long detaild message on

your recorder. I ahave severalprojects in the works that are on education, of

which might overlap your direction 'somewhat'.

I personally do not believe that having a science degree makes a tech any

better at doing a pharmacists job. I do be that only ONE degree offers enought

pharmacology for this and that is the Pharm D. So I am not at this time in

favor of techs taking orders over the phone, although several states do allow

this, at the pharmacists decision. I do believe that there needs to be a

'step career' ladder, and that includes higher education than the basic

programs that follow ASHP do now. I also believe that BEFORE we can get there

we need to have a minimum national educational standard for techs 'just' to

be qualified technicians at entry level. There must be required continued

education. And I agree with an AS or higher to move up into areas of managment

or supervision or ?? I do not necessarily think that a tech should take on the

jobs or tasks of a pharmacist. There istoo much at stake and I can almost

guarantee you that it would not pay the tech well

enough for that

responsibility .

So in essence I say you have a great dream and I do not want to crush it.

I would like you to see the reality of the bigger picture: we need ALL techs

to have a standard basic education first before we can pursue other education

for higher placment. Many RPh's out there are against basic ed as it is!

I do nto know what else to say except I do wish to discuss this behind the

posts in private email/telephone in more depth.

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Pharm Tech Educator-ProgramDirector

Founder/Owner of this site

" A. " <mikeaparker@...> wrote: Forging New

Opportunities for Pharmacy Technicians

I am in the process of forming an Association whose primary purpose is

the advancement of Pharmacy as a whole and Pharmacy Technicians

specifically. Does anyone here have any opinions on creating a new

job description (career category) of an Advanced Pharmacy Technician,

or Advanced Certified Pharmacy Technician?

With the current rapidly expanding Landscape of Pharmacy today, we

need to be proactive in addressing the needs of an aging population

and an increase in the number of prescriptions being filled each year.

I propose that a new position is created, where highly qualified

Pharmacy Technicians who possess a B.S. in Biology, Chemistry, or

BioChemistry, and have CPhT certification with 5 years experience as a

Certified Pharmacy Technician, would be able to take a practical

and/or written exam. Upon passing this exam (or exams), the CPhT,

would become an A.C.Ph.T., or C.Ph.T.A. (Advanced Certified Pharmacy

Technician). This A.C.Ph.T. would be able to take on some of the

functions that the Pharmacist currently performs. Namely, Taking new

drug orders from the doctor's office and providing and receiving

copies (transfer of Rx) from one Pharmacy to Another. This will free

up a lot of the Pharmacist's time, which can be spent or their " more

essential " roles of Patient Counseling & Performing the final check on

Prescriptions before Dispensing.

I believe that if medical secretaries are able to call in new orders

from physician offices without any experience in Pharmacy or Medicine,

then a highly qualified, highly experienced Certified Pharmacy

Technician who possesses a BS degree in the sciences (which provides a

background in understanding pharmacology and nomenclature etc..) as

described above with the correlating required experience, should be

able to, and is more than qualified to take on these new roles!

I have no problem with strict requirements, requiring a practical

exam, when the said technician applies for this new certification or

specialization and a written exam.

Liability would have to lie with the newly formed A.C.Ph.T., because

most Pharmacists would not want Technicians to take on these new roles

and be personally responsible for the Technician's actions.

This will also give many of the B.S. prepared Technicians a chance to

reduce their frustration and use some of their background in

chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, biology, microbiology et.

al. to move up the career ladder and get a chance to use their brain

more along with their ability to reason and problem solve.

Now, I know that there are many Pharmacy Tech's out there who could

also perform the tasks of an A.C.Ph.T., without the BS degree, however

you select few are very rare and talented. It would be much more

difficult to get this legislation passed by your State Board of

Pharmacy if you make the requirements too loose.

I am open up to suggestions if you have any, such as requiring a

certain group of science courses, like the prerequisites for Medical

or Pharmacy School (2 semesters each of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry,

Biology & Physics) as an alternative to the BS degree, but it is

ultimately up to the state, should they approve such a measure.

The key fact is that each level of education hopes to instill a level

of competency. For example a B.S. prepared Pharmacy Technician in one

of the above majors, would definitely have exposure to and would have

to have successfully passed the above science courses in order to

graduate with the B.S. degree in their respected field.

Laws vary from state-to-state, as some states currently allow Pharmacy

Technicians to give and receive copies (transfers). Can anyone who

works in one of these states provide me with some feedback on how this

works and any liability issues that arose from this practice? Please

also mention any other laws in different states which are unique to

Pharmacy Technicians in that state. There are a lot of Laws, where

the Feds leave the decision up to the state!

Thank you for you time and input!

A. , BS, CPhT

Owner/Program Director

P.A.S.S., LLC

PassPTCB.com

571-332-0212

@...

www.PASS.com

www.PassPTCB.com

p.s. Jeanetta, please contact me when you have time, as I believe your

extensive experience and network could be very helpful in the

development of this new job-classification!

[Guest guest]

and All-

I have been a long time proponent of raising the minimum educational

standards for techs---just check the archives of the various techs

sites for my previous statements (rants). That said, I believe

pushing for a BS requirement for teching--at this point in time--is

an unrealistic goal, destined for failure.

Here's my reasoning:

At this point in time we can't even get the collective BOPs to agree

on the title and requirements for techs. Some states require

licensing while other states fail to recognize the title 'pharmacy

technician' at all. Heck, PTCB will let anyone sit for the exam as

long as they have a high school diploma and no felony convictions---

never mind that the person has NEVER set foot in a pharmacy! ( THAT

chaps my hide to no end!!!) And don't even get me started on the

chains and their opposition to raising the minimum standards for

techs, or those pharmacists who are still afraid the techs will take

away their jobs--- unbelievable, but there are a few out there!!

I understand and appreciate you enthusiasm, but if we are to move

this profession forward we need to chip away at the existing

obstacles like the lack of standardized practice requirements, and

an unrestricted credentialing system. By achieving some shorter-

range goals we would feel a sense of success or moving forward. The

BOPs and others in the pharmacy businesses are less likely to feel

threatened by the changes (even the suggestion of a drastic change

can really freak some people and organizations out.), and we would

be aligning the profession for more far reaching goals (i.e. 4 year

degree).

Sincerely,

Dora

Group Mod

[Guest guest]

Dear Dora,

Nothing makes my day better than reading your input on something in which '

nothing chaps your hide more than.....!' You know I love it when you use that

phrase. And it means soooooooooo much when it comes from you! I love it! :)

You know we are on the SAME team here! WE have always been! And that's why you

are the moderator of this site...

Well you said it BEST. So nothing left for me to say except thank you for your

input, 'phraseology' ('Doraisms'), and mentoring our new eager enthusiastic and

well meaning friend ' '. I for one do not want to cool down his

heels, but I would like to have him place his actions in the right direction

that can win a race. Only will be able to make that decision. After

speaking to him and reading his posts, I believe that he is as adamant about

this as I (and you) are about a mionimu standardized education. But he may have

to experience this one for himself.

I have directed and now to all of you reading this to ACPE for its

over 500 posted comments on pharm tech education in the 2004 poll, in which many

retail pharmacists are opposed to this.

I should tell in this post that most Hospital Pharmacies are/have been

VERY OPEN to the professional growth, recognition and continued education and

basic foundational eduation for pharmacy technicans. And that it has been

mainly the retail pharmacies and some retail pharmacists who are not open to

this idea. Since there are more retail pharmacies than hospital or other types

of pharmacy practices, it stands to reason that we will not get this issue

resolved any time soon. But the fight continues. Small battles won each day. I

hear Florida is beginning to change too. It is looking into various educational,

registration and age requirements. So as more and more states accept PTCB we

just may see more and more states require education. Wouldn't that be nice. I

thoughts are this: if more and more states require PTCB and CE's then perhaps

PTCB should raise its level of questions to more difficult or have the two tests

that I proposed back in 1999 and 2000 for retail and

hospital certifications.

By raising the level of questions once all states require PTCB we may see a

need for basic education to pass the PTCB. When that happens I forsee more

states requiring the education. This is of course putting the cart behind the

horse. BUT it may have to be done this way. Again this will take a long time.

But we have seen more states require PTCB exponentially since 2000 when only 5

states required PTCB and only 3 states required education.

FYI: The actual stats are on the PTCB site.

Thanks Dora for allowing me to piggy back on to your post to Micahel.

Resepctfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Founder/Owner

doracpht <doracpht@...> wrote:

and All-

I have been a long time proponent of raising the minimum educational

standards for techs---just check the archives of the various techs

sites for my previous statements (rants). That said, I believe

pushing for a BS requirement for teching--at this point in time--is

an unrealistic goal, destined for failure.

Here's my reasoning:

At this point in time we can't even get the collective BOPs to agree

on the title and requirements for techs. Some states require

licensing while other states fail to recognize the title 'pharmacy

technician' at all. Heck, PTCB will let anyone sit for the exam as

long as they have a high school diploma and no felony convictions---

never mind that the person has NEVER set foot in a pharmacy! ( THAT

chaps my hide to no end!!!) And don't even get me started on the

chains and their opposition to raising the minimum standards for

techs, or those pharmacists who are still afraid the techs will take

away their jobs--- unbelievable, but there are a few out there!!

I understand and appreciate you enthusiasm, but if we are to move

this profession forward we need to chip away at the existing

obstacles like the lack of standardized practice requirements, and

an unrestricted credentialing system. By achieving some shorter-

range goals we would feel a sense of success or moving forward. The

BOPs and others in the pharmacy businesses are less likely to feel

threatened by the changes (even the suggestion of a drastic change

can really freak some people and organizations out.), and we would

be aligning the profession for more far reaching goals (i.e. 4 year

degree).

Sincerely,

Dora

Group Mod