In December, I received a large paper document from the American Medical Association (AMA) that was intended for use by the organization’s state lobbyists and others to describe the scope of pharmacy practice. We were asked for comments, clarifications, and corrections.
I shared the document with a number of colleague pharmacy organizations. The holidays ensued and before we blinked, it was January. I was concerned that the information contained in it was dated at best, inaccurate, and perhaps damaging to pharmacy at worst. The primary contention was that physicians should be wary of collaborative practice agreements with pharmacists, as pharmacists are not typically well trained enough to trust with such roles.
I chose not to distribute the document broadly, in part due to the volume of paper involved, and in part due to the collaborative spirit in which Dr. Maves at AMA shared it with me. We began to gather comments from other pharmacy organizations so that we could share our collective views with AMA. The goal was to establish a meaningful dialogue, as we had been invited to do.
We have now submitted our comments to AMA. I am grateful to our colleague organizations for their thoughtful input. Together, we submitted what I believe to be excellent evidence and facts to support a more enlightened view by AMA. We also provided a detailed list of suggestions and have issued a joint news release.
In this process, we are not launching missiles. In fact, it is just the opposite. I had a very productive discussion with Dr. Maves this morning when we were both speakers at the US Pharmacopeia meeting in Washington. He acknowledged receipt of our comments, and we agreed to meet shortly to discuss next steps.
I believe our discussion will be productive. Pharmacy is not seeking turf from physicians. Rather, in the intrests of patient safety and quality care, we are focused on collaborative practices that meet needs not fully addressed by other health professionals. Pharmacy’s positions will be backed up by evidence from the Institute of Medicine, numerous medical and pharmacy schools, extensive research and our own scope of practice research, as well as the research from numerous other colleagues in pharmacy and medicine.
I am confident these efforts will move the needle toward improved relationships and collaborative care. I hope you are with us in this effort.
Tom:
Good job on the response to this document, but I have a bit of a query/comment.
I read through the letter sent to Dr. Maves dated 16 April with great interest and high intensity. What struck me is not so much what was in the letter, but what was NOT in the letter. We (PSTAC) spent five long years working with the AMA and the AMA’s CPT Editorial Panel to (finally) recognize pharmacists and the delivery of MTM by pharmacists in the official health reporting nomenclature. CPT Insider 2006 (see Isetts-JAPhA-Jul 2007) dedicated 4 pages to describing these contributions. The 7 pharmacy organizations must have made a conscious decision to omit this fact for a good reason. My thinking here is, “why don’t we hit ‘em with a dose of their own medicine.”
Warm regards,
Isetts.
Tom,
The responses that were crafted were very well worded. As a student I’m continuing to learn that it is easy to “offend a friend” when we’re really only trying to make clarifications. I think AMA is a friend (though I really wish we knew the real and clear purpose for their writing of the document) and I think you all did a masterful job of writing a response in such a way as to avoid conflict. Your response included such phrases as “We have concerns…”, “To provide an accurate perspective for the reader…”, “We recommend…”, “We call AMA’s attention…”, and many others. Some call it ‘political correctness’, but I think it’s diplomacy and I think you did us proud.