Ethical Issues and Disciplinary Actions in Ross Medical Pharmacy Fraud Case

Section 4024 of the Business and Professions Code states that dispensing a drug or a device prescribed by a doctor, a pharmacist, or a nurse should always be within the jurisdiction of their practice. Section 4300 gives the Board the power to revoke or suspend licenses to practice pharmacy. Further, Section 4301 subdivision states that the pharmacist in charge of the pharmacy is responsible for compliance with all state and federal laws that govern the pharmaceutical practice. At the same time, Section 4301 of the Code says that any professional, who gets involved with unlawful activities and holds a license, or one, whose authorization has been acquired by deception or by mistake, shall be predisposed to prosecution. According to Strandberg, the California Code of Regulation, Title 16, Section 1761 states that a pharmacist should not dispense any drug prescription with omissions, irregularity, or uncertainty. If they do, the pharmacist should contact the concerned doctor to ensure the prescription is correct or correct it themselves. Section 125.3 of the Code states that a more reasonable amount used for the investigation and enforcement of the case is payable by the licentiate.

Facts of the Case as Alleged by the Board

According to the Board’s accusation, on September 25, 2013, Ross Medical Pharmacy had paid an amount of $20 to wrongfully use patients’ names and billed their insurance for medical services that they had not received. We tip brought forward that the manager had kept the drugs prescribed by Dr. M.G. after fake visits. Moreover, Ross Medical Pharmacy was deeply involved in this fraudulent scheme. The pharmacy had dispensed fallacious prescriptions. This violates Code section 4301, subdivision, for violating Healthy and Safety Codes section 11153. Between November 28, 2012, and December 17, 2013, Ross Medical Pharmacy failed to adhere to the responsibility of authenticating the legitimacy of prescriptions and evaluating the drug profile and its effects on the patients by dispensing prescriptions with no regard to objective factors. This again contravened Code Section 4301, subdivision and California Code of Regulation, Title 16, section 1761. During the same period between November 28, 2012, and December 17, 2013, the respondents, Ross Medical Pharmacy, recorded a total of 7,730 prescriptions of controlled substances that Dr. M.G. had prescribed and that had no legitimate medical indications. Dr. M.G pleaded guilty to distributing oxycodone illegally and money laundering. She also admitted that she had fallaciously prescribed unnecessary drugs to the patients, which was not in line with the ethics of professional practice. Dr. M.G. was later fired from Southfork Clinic.

Ethical Issues of the Case

The pharmacy was involved in various contraventions of moral principles. These principles should be followed for the perpetuation of professionalism. Thus, the pharmacy violated the ethical principle by taking advantage of the patients through Dr. M.G., who had intentionally prescribed unnecessary drugs without a legitimate medical purpose. This poses a great risk to patients’ health as the drugs might harm them. For instance, the patients had been recommended Alprazolam for muscle spasms and Promethazine with Codeine for cough regardless of their peculiarities. These are harmful medications, and thus, they are controlled substances. The doctor was also involved in a narcotic drug trafficking ring that sold illegal prescription drugs for cash that were later shipped to Texas for sale on the black market. This was for the doctor’s selfish interests since she did not keep the interest of the patients first, as she ought to. The pharmacy had also failed to fulfill the responsibility of supplying only authorized drug prescriptions when it dispensed the medications prescribed by Dr. M.G. Thus, some controlled substances purchased with cash were suspiciously more expensive than non-controlled substances paid for in cash. More often than not, cash payments are usually preferred when potential drug diversion and abuse are involved. By doing this, the pharmacy contravened the implicit trust of its clients.

Order Now