The Consultant Pharmacist is published by the
American Society of Consultant Pharmacists.

The official journal of the
American Society of Consultant Pharmacists

ASCP Board of Directors 1996-97

Ralph F. Kalies, RPh, PhD, FASCP
President

Brian A. Kahan, RPh, FASCP
Chairman of the Board and Immediate Past President

Jan Allen, RPh, FASCP
President-elect

David Kazarian, RPh, FASCP
Vice President

Arnold B. Cammeyer, BS (Pharm), FASCP
Secretary-Treasurer

Robert J. Miller, RPh, FASCP
Director (Region I)

Diane B. Crutchfield, DPh, FASCP
Director (Region II)

Helen Deere-Powell, RPh, FASCP
Director (Region II)

Carl F. Skrabacz, BS, RPh, FASCP
Director (Region III)

Diane Talley Darling, RPh, FASCP
Director (Region III)

Alan Mason, RPh, FASCP
Director (Region IV)

Armon B. Neel, Jr, PD, FASCP
Director (Region IV)

Mark Sey, RPh, FASCP
Director (Region V)

William Simonson, PharmD
Director (Region V)


Editorial Review Board

Gerald L. Arenstein, PharmD, FASCP
Judith L. Beizer, PharmD
Rami Ben-Joseph, PhD
Norman V. Carroll, RPh, PhD
Patricia Cash, PharmD, FASCP
Diane Crutchfield, DPh, FASCP
Gary W. Dawson, PhD, RPh, FASCP
David P. Elliott, PharmD, BCPS, FASCP
N. David Etokebe
Janice Feinberg, PharmD, JD
I. Barton Frenchman, RPh, FASCP
Marie Gardner, PharmD
Lisa Giammarco, RPh
John Gotowko, RPh, MS, MBA
Dale R. Grothe, PharmD
Howard Harpel, RPh, PhD
Tina M. Harrison, PharmD, FASCP
Shelley D. Holmes, RPh, PharmD
Anthony Hughes, PhD, FASCP
Edward A. Jergens, MBA, RPh, FASCP
Les Kazmierczak
Todd King
Renee Kubacka, PharmD
Ivan Lambert
Diane C. Layton
Mark E. Lehman, PharmD
Richard A. Marasco, PharmD
Leisa L. Marshall, PharmD
Robert P. Mauch, Jr., PharmD, PhD
William J. Mullen, RPh, FASCP
Janet K. Pitner, PharmD, FASCP
Thomas T. Ranz, RPh, FASCP
Rodney G. Richmond, MS
William Scholtens, RPh
Donald W. Schraffenberger, MA, RPh, FASCP
James A. Sherman, PharmD
Deborah A. Simcox, PharmD, FASCP
Debra Smith
George Taniguchi, PharmD
Patricia Thoman, RPh, FASCP
Dianne Tobias, PharmD
Pamela Walker-Renard, PharmD, BCPS, FASCP
Bruno A. Wroblewski, MS
Eric J. Zwick

Letters

Conflicting Information, Regulations Add Confusion to the Drug Disposal Question

I am writing in search of information, shared miseries, and answers to some pressing questions dealing with drug disposal. Recent changes in California law have removed prohibitions against disposing of hazardous drugs as medical waste. This allows us to use biohazard waste haulers to remove and dispose of drugs that can no longer be used, such as outdated or non-reusable returned meds and infectious or trace chemotherapeutic waste.

My previous experience in many settings of pharmacy practice has been that returned, non-hazardous drugs that cannot be re-used or sent back to the manufacturer have traditionally been disposed of using the sewer system (or, rarely, by incineration). I think we all know what the most common practice was (and may still be).

In past conversations, our state board inspector condoned proper handling and disposal of drugs, but he did not recommend a specific method, other than not using the sewer system.

In the long-term care pharmacy setting, we are witnessing a large increase in the types and quantities of drugs being returned to pharmacies. Many are drugs that technically are not returnable, either because they are not packaged in a way that legally allows reuse, or they cannot be returned for credit and therefore need to be discarded. There are many reasons for this trend, but at this time, many pharmacies accept the returns to "keep their customers happy" by fulfilling what is perceived by many long-term facilities as a "pharmacy responsibility."

In cases where nursing facilities understand and are willing to take responsibility for the destruction/disposal of non-returnable medications, they are having trouble knowing how to properly dispose of them-inhalers, for example, often present a problem.

In addition, one facility in northern California was recently told by their county environmental health department that they should not dispose of Schedule II medications via their sewer system. This presents something of a predicament, in that neither their biohazard waste hauler nor the pharmacy itself can accept them.

These changes in California law now greatly increase the volume of returned drugs that have to be disposed of by a medical waste hauler, and therefore increase costs of doing business for all parties involved. In my view, there are several factors that are currently making management of drug disposal more and more difficult to accomplish:

  • The ability to credit returnable medications to most payers is either nonexistent, too cumbersome, or requires a full refund of any dispensing fees, which is the impetus behind most "no credit for returns" policies.
  • Once a drug is repackaged, in "bingo cards," for example, the manufacturer will not handle it, nor will the drug return companies.
  • Different regulatory agencies and departments oversee and inspect pharmacies, in contrast to the situation with the nursing facilities to which the pharmacists provide service.
  • The problems associated with this issue lead me to question whether or not the state nursing facility surveyors, one county environmental agency, and the state board of pharmacy are "on the same page," leaving many of us confused as to which law or regulation predominates.
  • State laws and regulations pertaining to skilled nursing facilities (Title 22 in California) have not kept up with the changes made at other levels by other agencies.
I would like to see some simple clarification of this issue in this practice setting, as this has become such a problematic issue.

Greg Light, PharmD
Divisional CQI Manager
Vitalink Pharmacy Services
Stockton, California


ASCP's Government Affairs Department responds:

What is a nursing home to do with unused or outdated drugs? Should the drugs be returned to the pharmacy, crushed and flushed into the sewer system, or sent to a reverse distributor? Regulations established by states have provided limited guidance to long-term care facilities (LTCFs) for the destruction and disposal of medications. The regulations often mandate who shall conduct the disposal, who shall witness the disposal, and what information must be documented, but very few regulations define exactly how the disposal shall take place. Traditionally, disposal was accomplished by flushing drugs into the sewer system, but this method poses a concern for the environment. Some states are developing regulations that protect the environment by prohibiting the use of the sewer system for disposal of drugs, but are not providing an alternative method of disposal for LTCFs.

That is the case in the state of California. The Department of Health Service's Code of Regulations, Title 22, addresses the procedure that LTCFs must follow for the destruction and disposal of drugs. Section 72371(c)(1) states that drugs in Schedules II, III and IV shall be destroyed by the facility in the presence of a pharmacist and a nurse. Because the method of disposal is not defined, the sewer system has been the common disposal route-until now. Senate bill 1966, called the Medical Waste Management Act, amended in 1997, redefined pharmaceutical waste as medical waste that cannot be disposed of through the sewer system. This bill has stripped California's LTCFs of the traditional method of disposal and leaves those left with unused drugs searching for an alternative solution that ensures lawful disposal of medication.

One solution to this problem is to return some types of drugs to the dispensing pharmacy. Title 22, Section 72371(d) permits unopened drugs in sealed containers to be returned to the issuing pharmacy for disposition unless otherwise prohibited under applicable federal or state laws. Under the federal "Controlled Substances Act," controlled substances may only be returned between Drug Enforcement Administration registrants. LTCFs are not DEA registrants; therefore, pharmacies or reverse distributors may not accept controlled substances returned from such facilities. As a result, LTCFs are left with the burden of somehow disposing of controlled substances.

ASCP supports the return and reuse of non-controlled medications to the dispensing pharmacy to reduce waste and to offer substantial cost savings to the health care system, provided specific drug product safeguards and appropriate billing policies are in place. A mechanism (reasonable for both the payer and the dispensing LTC pharmacy) should be in place for billing only the number of doses used by the resident or crediting to the resident or the appropriate third-party payer the number of doses returned.

It is easy to see that regulations, including California regulations, do not necessarily provide the most effective answers for the disposal of drugs. ASCP is currently working with the DEA, boards of pharmacy, and regulators to find a solution for the disposal of all drugs that is realistic, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly. The California Department of Health is actively striving to develop a solution that will rescue LTCFs from the limbo that current regulations have created. ASCP will meet with the California Department of Health Services and the DEA in October to address specific concerns of long-term care pharmacy. To assist long-term care pharmacists in deciphering their current regulations, ASCP has created a product, titled State by State Guide to Controlled Substance Destruction and Disposal in Long-Term Care Facilities, which will be available in late October. For further information, please contact ASCP's Government Affairs department at 703-739-1316, ext.170.



The Consultant Pharmacist is published by the
American Society of Consultant Pharmacists.