Review of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in the Unite(2)

Table1.Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Characteristics by State

State Agency governing program Schedules

monitored Year enacted Date data collection

started

Alabama Department of Public Health II-V2004April2006 Alaska*Division of Corporations,Business and

Professional Licensing

II-V20082011(tentative) Arizona Board of Pharmacy II-IV2007October2008

California Department of Justice,Bureau of

Narcotic Enforcement II-IV19391939triplicate prescription

program,Electronic

monitoring implemented in

1997

Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies-

Board of Pharmacy II-V2005July2007data collection;

2008users now allowed to

request prescription

information

Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection II-V2007July2008

Florida*Office of Drug Control II-IV2009Goal is December2010

Hawaii Department of Public Safety-Narcotics

Enforcement Division II-V19431992schedule II only;July

1999II-IV

Idaho Board of Pharmacy II-IV19671967triplicate prescription

program;October1997

Illinois Department of Health and Human

Services II-V19581958start of prescription data

collection;1968triplicate

prescription program;April1st

2000electronic monitoring of

schedule II only;January2008

expansion to include II-V

Indiana Board of Pharmacy II-V19941994schedule II only;July

2005expanded to schedules

II-V

Iowa State Board of Pharmacy Examiners II-IV2006January2009

Kansas*Board of Pharmacy II-IV2008Goal is October2010 Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family

Services,Office of Inspector General

II-V1998January1999

Louisiana Board of Pharmacy II-V2006November2008

Maine Office of Substance Abuse II-IV2003July2004

Massachusetts Department of Public Health II19921994

Michigan Bureau of Health Professions II-V19881989schedule II only;January

2003schedule II-V Minnesota*Board of Pharmacy II-IV2007Goal is2010

Mississippi Board of Pharmacy II-V2005April2005

Nevada**Board of Pharmacy II-IV1995January1st1997

New Jersey*Division of Consumer Affairs II-IV2008

New Mexico Board of Pharmacy II-IV2004July2005

New York Department of Health-Bureau of

Narcotic Enforcement

II-V1972July1982

North Carolina Department of Health and Human

Services

II-V2005July2007

North Dakota Board of Pharmacy II-V2005September2007;Pharmacists

were asked to provide data

from January2007

Ohio Board of Pharmacy II-V2005May2006

Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics II-V19901991schedule II only;July

2006electronic

Page6of28

Oregon*Department of Health and Human

Services

II-IV20092010(tentative)

Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General II1972Original circa1973;Current

data use2002

Rhode Island Department of Health,Board of

Pharmacy II-III19781979triplicate prescription

program-schedule II;July1997

electronic monitoring of

schedules II-III

South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control

II-IV2006January2008

South Dakota*Board of Pharmacy II-IV2010

Tennessee Board of Pharmacy II-V2003December2006

Texas Department of Public Safety II1982July1982

Utah Board of Pharmacy II-V1995January1997

Vermont Department of Health II-IV2006January2009

Virginia Board of Pharmacy II-IV2002September2003-pilot

program in southwest

Virginia;June2006statewide

prescription monitoring Washington***Department of Health II-V2007

West Virginia Board of Pharmacy II-IV19951996schedule II only;January

12003

Wisconsin*Board of Pharmacy II-III2010

Wyoming Board of Pharmacy II-IV2004July2004

*States with legislation in place for establishment of PDMP,but not yet implemented.

**Nevada’s law mandated that both the Board of Pharmacy and the Investigation Division of the Department of Public Safety cooperatively establish the state’s PDMP;however,the Board of Pharmacy carries most of the responsibility with regard to its administration.

***Washington has temporarily suspended its PMP operations due to budgetary constraints.A bill was proposed during the most recent legislative session that would have allowed for the statewide operation of a privately funded PMP;however,the bill did not pass,and the Washington Legislature is no longer in session.

In addition to the general schedules outlined in Table1,some states also include other more specific guidelines for substance monitoring within their PDMP.For example,Iowa monitors schedule III and IV substances that the advisory council and Board of Pharmacy determine to be addictive or fatal if not taken under the care of a licensed practitioner,and Oklahoma’s PDMP statute excludes from monitoring schedule V substances containing any detectable quantity of pseudoephedrine(3).Nine states have PDMP laws that allow monitoring of non-controlled or nonscheduled substances under specific circumstances.It should be noted that not all states with statutory authority to monitor non-controlled substances are currently monitoring for such substances and,in fact,additional regulations may be needed before monitoring can commence in some states.(Figure2)(2,12).

Page7of28

Figure 2. States with Statutory Authority to Monitor Non-Controlled Substances ubstances© 2009 The National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL) Used with permission.Some states statutorily mandate that their PDMP work with or use an advisory committee, council, l, task force, or working group during program implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The states with such mandates are depi depicted in Figure 3 (12).Page 8 of 28

Figure 3. States with Statutory Requirements for Committee Oversight of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Oper …… 此处隐藏：5619字，全部文档内容请下载后查看。喜欢就下载吧 ……