32-1970. Collaborative practice agreements; requirements; rules; definitions
A. A pharmacist who is licensed pursuant to this chapter may enter into a collaborative practice agreement with a provider pursuant to this section to initiate, monitor and modify drug therapy or provide disease management assistance. The collaborative practice agreement may be between one or more pharmacists and one or more providers. The collaborative practice agreement shall:
1. Outline the duties related to drug therapy and disease management that the provider is delegating to the pharmacist to perform, including drug therapy that the pharmacist may initiate, monitor and modify and laboratory tests that the pharmacist may order, and the eligible group of patients that may be treated under the collaborative practice agreement.
2. Specify, at a minimum, the conditions to be managed by the pharmacist through disease management and drug therapy management, the circumstances for which the pharmacist must notify the provider and any documentation or recordkeeping requirements.
3. Specify that the pharmacist must follow the written drug therapy and disease management guidelines provided by the provider and may provide drug therapy and disease management services only pursuant to those guidelines. The guidelines shall specify, at a minimum, the specific drug, drugs or drug classes and the conditions to be managed by the pharmacist, the conditions and events for which the pharmacist must notify the provider and the laboratory tests the pharmacist may order.
B. A provider who enters into a collaborative practice agreement under this section must have a previously established provider-patient relationship with a patient in order for that patient to be a part of the eligible group of patients who may be included under the collaborative practice agreement.
C. A licensee who violates this section commits an act of unprofessional conduct.
D. A pharmacist is responsible for the pharmacist's negligent acts that are the result of the clinical decisions made pursuant to the collaborative practice agreement. This subsection does not limit a provider's liability for negligent acts that are not related to a pharmacist's change of medication pursuant to the collaborative practice agreement.
E. The pharmacist shall maintain a copy of the collaborative practice agreement and make the collaborative practice agreement available to the board on request.
F. The Arizona state board of pharmacy, the Arizona medical board, the Arizona board of osteopathic examiners in medicine and surgery and the Arizona state board of nursing may adopt rules relating to collaborative practice agreements.
G. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Collaborative practice agreement" means an agreement between a pharmacist and a provider that outlines the drug therapy and disease management services, including initiating, monitoring and modifying prescription drug and laboratory test orders, that are authorized by the provider and delegated to the pharmacist for the purposes of drug therapy management or disease management based on the pharmacist's skills or training.
2. Initiate, monitor and modify does not include a pharmacist's selection of drug products that are not prescribed by the provider unless the selection of specific drug products is authorized by the collaborative practice agreement.
3. "Provider" means a physician who is licensed pursuant to chapter 13 or 17 of this title, a registered nurse practitioner or certified nurse midwife who is licensed pursuant to chapter 15 of this title or a physician assistant who is licensed pursuant to chapter 25 of the title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases, 1971–1985 · leading case:
State v. Varela, 587 P.2d 1173 (Ariz. 1978).
State v. Varela, 587 P.2d 1173 (Ariz. 1978).
· cites it 14× “§ 32-1901(9) by giving a series of characteristics followed by the chemical name for specific drugs having those characteristics. The definition in question, found in A.”
State v. Dungan, 718 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 10× “Was appellant indicted under a non-existent statute? Appellant argues that at the time of his indictment on August 6, 1981, A.R.S. § 32-1970 (repealed 1981) in conjunction with the definition of dangerous drugs in § 32-1901(9)(a) (amended 1981) and the sentencing provisions of §…”
State v. LeMatty, 590 P.2d 449 (Ariz. 1979).
· cites it 4× “The warrant was executed by the officers on the same date, and as a result of the ensuing search which yielded a usable quantity of Phencyclidine, appellant was charged with possession of dangerous drugs for sale in violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-1970(A) and 32-1996(C). On April 6,…”
State v. Page, 564 P.2d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to a plea agreement the appellant entered a plea of no contest on February 6, 1975 to the charge of possession of dangerous drugs in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1970(C)(1), Laws 1971. On March 6, 1975 she was placed on probation for a period of three years.”
State v. Pike, 650 P.2d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “On July 10, 1975, the defendant was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs for sale in violation of the former A.R.S. §§ 32-1970(C), 32 — 1996(C), and 32-1901, and was sentenced to serve a term of not less than 40 nor more than 50 years in the Arizona State Prison.”
State v. Pike, 557 P.2d 1068 (Ariz. 1976).
· cites it 2× “On July 10, 1975, the appellant, John Landon Pike, was convicted by the court of the crime of possession of dangerous drugs for sale, to wit, methamphetamine, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-1970(C), 32-1996(C) and 32-1901 and was sentenced to serve a term of not less than forty…”
State v. Page, 564 P.2d 379 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Appellant entered into a plea agreement to which she pled no contest to a charge of possession of a dangerous drug in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1970(C)(l). The trial court entered a judgment of guilty and sentenced appellant to three years’ probation.”
State v. Smith, 544 P.2d 213 (Ariz. 1975).
· cites it 2× “-05, and felony possession of dangerous drugs, A.R.S. § 32-1970. On appeal, defendant attacks only the denial of his motion to suppress evidence raising the following questions: 1.”
State v. Lewis, 512 P.2d 9 (Ariz. 1973).
· cites it 2× “The defendant was convicted of violating A.R.S. § 32-1970, subsection B and subsection C.”
State v. Turnbull, 560 P.2d 807 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “06, as added Laws 1961, and possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-1970(C)(l), 32-1996(B) and 32-1901 and placed on five years’ probation.”
State v. Tyree, 508 P.2d 335 (Ariz. 1973).
· cites it 2× “The defendant was convicted of violating A.R.S. § 32-1970, subsection B and subsection C.”
State v. Richards, 518 P.2d 113 (Ariz. 1974).
“LOCKWOOD, Justice: This is an appeal by the defendant, Thomas Edward Richards, from a judgment of guilt for the crime of possession of dangerous drugs for sale in violation of A.R.S. 32-1970 and § 32-1996 and a sentence of not less than two and one-half years nor more than five…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1970(0) — 1 case
State v. Varela, 587 P.2d 1173 (Ariz. 1978).
“§ 32-1901(9) by giving a series of characteristics followed by the chemical name for specific drugs having those characteristics. The definition in question, found in A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1970(A) — 1 case
State v. LeMatty, 590 P.2d 449 (Ariz. 1979).
“The warrant was executed by the officers on the same date, and as a result of the ensuing search which yielded a usable quantity of Phencyclidine, appellant was charged with possession of dangerous drugs for sale in violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-1970(A) and 32-1996(C). On April 6,…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1970(B) — 5 cases
State v. LeMatty, 590 P.2d 449 (Ariz. 1979).
“The warrant was executed by the officers on the same date, and as a result of the ensuing search which yielded a usable quantity of Phencyclidine, appellant was charged with possession of dangerous drugs for sale in violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-1970(A) and 32-1996(C). On April 6,…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1970(C) — 7 cases
State v. Varela, 587 P.2d 1173 (Ariz. 1978).
“§ 32-1901(9) by giving a series of characteristics followed by the chemical name for specific drugs having those characteristics. The definition in question, found in A.”
State v. Pike, 650 P.2d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
“On July 10, 1975, the defendant was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs for sale in violation of the former A.R.S. §§ 32-1970(C), 32 — 1996(C), and 32-1901, and was sentenced to serve a term of not less than 40 nor more than 50 years in the Arizona State Prison.”
State v. Pike, 557 P.2d 1068 (Ariz. 1976).
“On July 10, 1975, the appellant, John Landon Pike, was convicted by the court of the crime of possession of dangerous drugs for sale, to wit, methamphetamine, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-1970(C), 32-1996(C) and 32-1901 and was sentenced to serve a term of not less than forty…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1970(C)(1) — 1 case
State v. Page, 564 P.2d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
“Pursuant to a plea agreement the appellant entered a plea of no contest on February 6, 1975 to the charge of possession of dangerous drugs in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1970(C)(1), Laws 1971. On March 6, 1975 she was placed on probation for a period of three years.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1970(C)(l) — 2 cases
State v. Page, 564 P.2d 379 (Ariz. 1977).
“Appellant entered into a plea agreement to which she pled no contest to a charge of possession of a dangerous drug in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1970(C)(l). The trial court entered a judgment of guilty and sentenced appellant to three years’ probation.”
State v. Turnbull, 560 P.2d 807 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“06, as added Laws 1961, and possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-1970(C)(l), 32-1996(B) and 32-1901 and placed on five years’ probation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1970(c) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.