Letters to the editor: January 9, 2006

Regarding your Nov. 21 cover story, I absolutely support a national pharmacist licensure program. There wouldn't be so much red tape and differing laws from state to state, and it would be easier for R.Ph.s to relocate to another state.
Michael Moghadasi, R.Ph.mmrph1@gmail.com

Upon completion of the seminar, an unconditional permit could be issued. States could recover revenue lost from relicensure by levying a professional privilege tax similar to that in Tennessee, charging tuition for educational seminars, or charging an annual administrative fee for verifying to the "national board" that the pharmacist has fulfilled that particular state's continuing education requirement.

The issue is practice competency. The NABPLEX and MSJE both speak to competency on a national level. If a pharmacist passes both examinations, he/she is competent to practice anywhere. State boards of pharmacy exist to protect the public and ensure adherence to regulation and practice standards. Allowing mobility to pharmacists does not decrease the scope of their mission. If done correctly, everyone-pharmacist, public, and regulatory board-will benefit from national licensure.
John K. Beville, R.Ph.
Bowling Green, Ky.
johnkbeville@yahoo.com

As a pharmacist employed by the federal government, I only need to hold any valid state license in order to practice in any federal facility in any state. What is good enough for pharmacists working for the federal government should be good enough for multi-state retailers, healthcare systems, and wholesalers.
Edward E. Maurer, R.Ph.
Primary Care Pharmacy Coordinator
Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center
Edward.Maurer@va.gov

I had to take a day off from work and pay $78 to get fingerprinted to renew my license in one state. The other four states I am licensed in don't require this.

To my knowledge, fingerprinting hasn't reduced fraud among licensed professionals. I think the fingerprinting issue requires a standard federal policy that applies to all 50 states. It will save money and time-for the licensed professional, by having him/her renew only once via one application/ACPE submission; and for the taxpayer, by streamlining infrastructure and reducing employee costs to one federal-level office instead of 50. Where do I vote for this?
Michael Castagna
New Jersey
mcastagna@pharmasset.com

After reading your article about a national license for all pharmacists, I came to the conclusion that too many parties are making the pharmacist licensure process too difficult. We should use a KISS approach-keep it simple, stupid. It would be very simple to decree that every license is eligible in every state. Every state would still administer the exam, collect the fees, and issue the license, including the renewals. However, the license itself would be transferable across state lines, and there would no longer be the need for reciprocity.