Texas pharmacy board blocking chloroquine prescriptions

The Texas State Board of Pharmacy has mandated that pharmacies not fill chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine prescriptions unless they obtain a diagnosis from the prescribing doctor. It would be illegal for the prescribing doctor to provide this information, under HIPAA privacy laws.

In an interview with Laura Ingraham, Dr. Ivette Lozano, MD, at a practice in Dallas Texas, about thirty miles southeast of me (ThePythonicCow), reported that she was getting incredible results using chloroquine on all the patients she tried it on, but that now pharmacies were refusing to fill any more such prescriptions, without the diagnosis, which she cannot legally provide them under HIPAA regulations.

Here’s the text of the directive, dated March 20, 2020, posted on the Texas pharmacy board’s website at https://www.pharmacy.texas.gov/files_pdf/291.30.pdf, with this directive:

LE 22 EXAMINING BOARDS
PART 15 TEXAS STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY
CHAPTER 291 PHARMACIES
SUBCHAPTER A ALL CLASSES OF PHARMACIES
§291.30.

No prescription or medication order for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine may be dispensed or
distributed unless all the following apply:

(a) the prescription or medication order bears a written diagnosis from the prescriber consistent
with the evidence for its use;

(b) the prescription or medication order is limited to no more than a fourteen (14) day supply,
unless the patient was previously established on the medication prior to the effective date of this
rule; and
© no refills may be permitted unless a new prescription or medication order is furnished.
Medication Limitations.

March 20, 2020 Page 1

As can be seen at this list of Recent Adopted Rule Changes, the above rule change §291.30 was the only change issued in the month of April 2020 by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy .

Here’s a World Tribune article about this.

Wishful thought for the day: Perhaps, if Trump is preparing, as he stated in a recent interview with Maria Bartiromo, to have the US Military help dispense a potential future vaccine for COVID-19, then he could also have the US Military immediately disperse around the nation to dispense chloroquine for any doctors prescription (no HIPAA violations or other unusual restrictions mandated.)

Here is a video of Laura Ingraham’s interview of Dr Lozano:

1 Like

welcome to

COVID-19(84)

2 Likes

Italian Politician Demands Bill Gates Be Arrested For Crimes Against Humanity on Parliament Floor

An Italian politician demanded the arrest of Bill Gates for “crimes against humanity” in a passionate speech on the parliament floor.

Sara Cunial, the Member of Parliament for Rome, blasted Gates during her seven minute long speech on Thursday, claiming that he has been working on a depopulation policy and plans for dictatorial control over global politics.

The lawmaker blasted the shut down orders, handling of the coronavirus pandemic, and vaccines.

Cunial claimed that the “real goal of all of this is total control. Absolute domination of human beings, transformed into guinea pigs and slaves, violating sovereignty and free will. All this thanks to tricks/hoax disguised as political compromises.”

Nationalist Review summed up her speech as “Bill Gates is a power-hungry elitist set on dominating the world through a campaign of genocide masked as charity—all in the hopes of controlling the population and preparing the world for slavery.”

1 Like

Thanks to checking the Q Map today… THIS UPDATE JUST IN!!!

And also guess what? I spoke with the office of Dr. Lozano earlier today and my family and I fired our “old” doctor, and are now going to Dr. Lozano for Family Medicine now… this is my wife, Cristina, her daughter, Alejandra and myself.

Interestingly too - Alejandra just called me from her office where she learned that “the cleaning lady” who felt sick last week and got tested Wednesday, learned just minutes ago that she is positive for COVID-19(84).

Interesting times…

2 Likes

And guess what? I sent this very link to my now “former” doctor Friday and the evening received a very arrogant reply - I have to post it -

Samuel,

I appreciate you sending me research that you do, but I will respectfully disagree. I, and many other doctors, have NOT had the results this ONE doctor speaks of. Again, I have not seen the results she speaks of when managing my positive patients. She does not speak for the vast majority of the American medical community including the infectious disease specialists.

I went to medical school and have a background in research. I can read studies independently and make my own clinical decisions. Every physician should be doing that. We continue to see studies showing these meds you refer to, not having the results that people report in anecdotal reports and case studies. It’s not saying I won’t consider them, and maybe they’ll have use in early disease, but they currently don’t have a place for wide spread use.

So you are aware, there are studies currently underway here at our local institutions looking at these drugs in non-hospitalized patients. I am continuously doing my own research and forming my own opinions. Just as a I did for vaccines many years ago - and don’t just believe any doctor who is screaming on a news station.

Again, our medical societies continue to agree, most notably the Infectious Disease Society of America. They establish their guidelines for any infectious dose ease by reviewing all available literature and evening repeating statistics as needed to ensure accurate (of note, this was actually a problem in one published study that eluded to more positive findings than accurate). This is a group of physicians. Esteemed colleagues within the field of infectious disease. This is not a politically motivated group. Or a group trying to get you to watch their news channel. This is a group I would trust as a starting point for reference.

https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-treatment-and-management/

Finally, we continue to learn about this virus and these guidelines and our opinions will continue to evolve as we learn.

Respectfully,
Dr. XXXXX

I fired her on the spot before even talking to Dr. Lozano’s office.

2 Likes

I tracked down this, on the Texas State Board of Pharmacy website. It seems that when the Texas Board issued this Emergency Rule on or about March 20, it also qualified that order, on another webpage, to not require what the Rule plainly seems to require, in the case that “the furnishing of this information [the intended use for the drug] is not in the best interest of the patient

The left hand taketh what the right hand giveth away.

Here are the details and evidence, supporting the above:

At https://www.pharmacy.texas.gov/coronavirus/emergency-adoptions.asp, it states:

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Resources

Emergency Adoptions & Procedures

Emergency rule adoptions and emergency procedures are listed here as they are adopted and issued. This page also includes waivers issued by TMB, CMS, and DEA.
Click here to return to the main COVID-19 resource page.

Texas State Board of Pharmacy (TSBP)

New Rule 291.30 Adopted on Emergency Basis - Adopted March 20, 2020

Guidance for dispensing drugs in compliance with Emergency Board Rule 291.30

The Texas State Board of Pharmacy is issuing the following guidance to pharmacists when dispensing prescriptions for Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, Mefloquine, or Azithromycin. The rule does not prevent a physician from prescribing one of these drugs for an off-label use. Please note, the intended use for the drug is not required if the practitioner determines the furnishing of this information is not in the best interest of the patient in accordance with Board rule 291.34 (b)(7).

The intent of board rule 291.30 is to prevent the stockpiling of the drugs and to ensure that reasonable quantities are available for ALL patients that require therapy with the drugs, including patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis.

It was not the board’s intent to hinder the use of the drugs on patients that are in need of drug therapy, but rather to prevent unreasonable quantities that would otherwise be representative of hoarding or stockpiling tactics.

In addition, the rule does not apply to a prescription issued for a patient already established on the medication (e.g., prescription to treat rheumatoid arthritis or lupus for already established patients).

Emergency Dispensing of Prescription Medications - Authorized March 19, 2020

Looking at Board rule 291.34 (b)(7), I see that it states in part:

(7) Prescription drug order information.
(A) All original prescriptions shall bear:
(i) … (vi) …
(vii) the intended use for the drug unless the practitioner determines
the furnishing of this information is not in the best interest of the patient;

===

P.S. – (Probable) Correction: The Pharmacy Board Loosens Restrictions on Hydroxychloroquine Prescriptions, Reversing Course (TheTexan.news) article that Chester posted above is (1) dated May 15, 2020, and (2) claims that this qualification to not require the “intended use for the drug” is a recent addition to the Texas Pharmacy Board website.

This “TheTexan.news” article states, specifically:

Over six weeks after the original rule was published, the Texas State Board of Pharmacy has recently changed its guidance to pharmacists about dispensing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

The website now says, “The rule does not prevent a physician from prescribing one of these drugs for an off-label use. Please note, the intended use for the drug is not required if the practitioner determines the furnishing of this information is not in the best interest of the patient…”

2 Likes

:clap: :clap:

:clap: :clap:

2 Likes

…and I don’t know of a single US politician that can hold a candle to Sara Cunial, that has the guts to stand up in the House or the Senate and speak the truth…

2 Likes

The RIGHT View…

go to 16:30 ish in… These four awesome folks talk about Trump and Hydroxychloroquine -

https://twitter.com/TeamTrump?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1263188276099203072&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustthenews.com%2Fpolitics-policy%2Felections%2Ftrump-campaign-targets-abcs-view-launches-womens-talk-show-called-right

1 Like

There is a trick to posting a link to a specific tweet.

If one posts a link to the twitter feed that that tweet is currently at the top of, then that link will sooner or later on resolve to the same feed after more tweets have been posted to it. This leaves the reader wondering what old tweet on that feed was intended.

To get a perennially reliable link to a specific tweet, pick up the link under the date or tweet age field, the field circled in the example below.
tweet_tweet_Screenshot_2020-05-21_19-25-11
I figure that in the above post to which I am responding, Chester had the following tweet in mind: The Right View Opening Show

1 Like

Thank You as that is indeed what I intended and also… I knew better and will be more careful in the future.

Looks like you have the edit feature on a timer (which if you do, I like that parameter… that we only have so long to “edit” a post).

1 Like

I’ve still got most of the default settings that came with the initial install.

It looks like trust level 0 (tl0) and 1 (tl1) members get an hour to edit a post, and level 2 and up (tl2+) get a day. Right now, we’re all trust level 1 (tl1), which is the starting level for the first fifty members.

Posting, reading, thanking, being thanked, and other such activities automatically raise one’s trust level. An active user might expect to get from tl1 to tl2 in a couple of weeks, and to tl3 in another couple of months. Continuous, almost every day, visiting of the forum is a key metric. We’ll also need more posts on the forum, as, for example, getting from tl1 to tl2 requires having read 100 posts, and we don’t even have that many posts :slight_smile: .

By default, every new member in the first fifty members start at tl1, and thereafter, new members start at tl0.

The thresholds and levels are configurable. I’ve started with default settings because I don’t (yet anyway) know of any reason not to.

These “trust levels” seem a bit odd at first glance, but they might be good enough to avoid having to have to ask members to join a “Staff” to handle new member applications and routine moderation.

2 Likes

Hey Paul… as I mentioned before, I have been using this software at the RichardDolanMembers forum and overall, I really like it. I like those features (you detailed) too. I can only imagine those features make moderation far easier.

It seems some of these are configurable and came with defaults. I can imagine the defaults were chosen consciously, utilizing experience the creators have had with their software. I am a total “thumbs up” with the features and the default configurations and also have the utmost trust/faith in your judgments in this regard if you ever test and/or make permanent a different setting. I will always give my honest feedback.

I will add that I am active on several forums now as I learned a hard lesson with PA in that I became over attached and, because I was fearful of banning and had no other option, I likely held back when I would have otherwise taken a stand on things. I have noticed that the casualty of succumbing to this fear has been my own personal integrity. So, to get around this fear, I spread myself out in case “the hammer” falls at any particular forum.

Apologies I just did some self-reflection… but this has always been helpful for me, especially in the older days over at PA where there seemed to be a membership that was so diverse, I almost always received helpful feedback. We grow, we change, we move in different directions… so sometimes I find myself less compatible with some of these forums. This doesn’t say a thing negative about any particular forum - and since I mentioned PA already, I must say, “including PA.”

…end of ramble.

1 Like

Good plan :+1:

2 Likes