Police to track prescription drugs

What do they say around here> Say it Cite it!

BigDave said:

What do they say around here> Say it Cite it!

Click to expand...

Here article I, section 7 provides greater protection from state action than does the Fourth Amendment. State v. Simpson, 95 Wn.2d 170, 178, 622 P.2d 1199 (1980). The analysis under article I, section 7 begins with a determination of whether the State has intruded into a person's private affairs. State v. Boland, 115 Wn.2d 571, 577, 800 P.2d 1112 (1990). Unlike the Fourth Amendment and its reasonability determination, article I, section 7 protections are not “confined to the subjective privacy expectations of modern citizens.” State v. Myrick, 102 Wn.2d 506, 511, 688 P.2d 151 (1984). Instead article I, section 7 protects “those privacy interests which citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass absent a warrant.” Id.

The Washington Supreme Court repeatedly has held the privacy protected by article I, section 7 survived where the reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment was destroyed. For example in Boland, 115 Wn.2d at 578, the Washington Supreme Court found a warrantless search of an individual's garbage violated article I, section 7, even though “it may be true an expectation that [others] will not sift through one's garbage is unreasonable … .” By contrast, the United States Supreme Court previously held individuals had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage, and therefore there was no protection under the Fourth Amendment. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S. Ct. 1625, 100 L. Ed. 2d 30 (1988).

The Washington Supreme Court held the same in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986). In Gunwall, id. at 55, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether the State could collect, without a warrant, phone numbers dialed by an individual. United States Supreme Court precedent holds an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is destroyed when he dials a phone number because he “had to convey that number to the telephone company … .” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44, 99 S. Ct. 2577, 61 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1979). But the Washington Supreme Court held the individual privacy interest, no matter how unreasonably held, survives the conveyance of the phone number to the phone company and, as such, article I, section 7 prohibits collecting these numbers without a warrant. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d at 69.

The individual's privacy interest protected by article I, section 7 survives the exposure that occurs when it is intruded upon by a private actor. Unlike the reasonable expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment, the individual's privacy interest is not extinguished simply because a private actor has actually intruded upon, or is likely to intrude upon, the interest. The private search does not work to destroy the article I, section 7 interest, unlike the Fourth Amendment's, because the Fourth Amendment's rationale does not apply to our state constitutional protections.

State v. Eisfeldt, 163 Wn.2d 628, 636-638 (2008)

In many respects, the constitutional protections by the Washington Constitution offer markedly greater protections than does the federal Bill of Rights when it comes to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures and protection of our privacy rights.

rapgood you got to be bored but thanks for those cites but I was looking for Citizens supporting statement of "I've read where doctors and pharmacies are targeted for crossing the arbitrary line. At least one physician who cared for terminally ill people was heavily targeted because he "wrote too many prescriptions" for strong pain-killers. It was a nightmare for him and his patients. Actually, I think the physician might have been a women." and the bet was for one year, it is almost due.

BigDave said:

rapgood you got to be bored but thanks for those cites but I was looking for Citizens supporting statement of "I've read where doctors and pharmacies are targeted for crossing the arbitrary line. At least one physician who cared for terminally ill people was heavily targeted because he "wrote too many prescriptions" for strong pain-killers. It was a nightmare for him and his patients. Actually, I think the physician might have been a women." and the bet was for one year, it is almost due.

Click to expand...

Oh, come on Dave. I gave you a thread to pull if you were interested. Citing a source for law is a forum rule. Other stuff, not so much.

But, just to help you out, here's a couple to start:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/prescription-painkillers_b_1240722.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTJPraJZwno

Well well well guess what?

http://www.wapmp.org/
Washington State Prescription Monitoring Program

The Prescription Monitoring Program (Prescription Review) is a patient safety tool. Practitioners will have access to the information before they prescribe or dispense drugs. The information provided allows a practitioner to look for duplicate prescribing, misuse, drug interactions, and other potential concerns. By having this information available before prescribing or dispensing, a practitioner can provide improved care to their patients.

On October 7, 2011 dispensers began submitting data for the program on Schedules II, III, IV and V controlled substances dispensed to patients. The protected health information will be collected and stored securely.

As of May 2012 all user groups outlined in our law and rules can request patient prescription information.

For more information, browse this website or contact the PMP staff.

Local, state, and federal law enforcement or prosecutorial officials engaged in an investigation involving a designated person.

Click to expand...

How much of an investigation? Is there a rule somewhere?
Is a traffic ticket enough to qualify, or does it have to be a felony, or somewhere in between?
That's the problem - they're allowed to look during an 'investigation', but there's no guidance (let alone court rulings) as to what's 'enough' of an investigation.

MKEgal said:

How much of an investigation? Is there a rule somewhere?
Is a traffic ticket enough to qualify, or does it have to be a felony, or somewhere in between?
That's the problem - they're allowed to look during an 'investigation', but there's no guidance (let alone court rulings) as to what's 'enough' of an investigation.

Click to expand...

Its a pretty obvious end-run around the 4th Amendment. Just moving the data off-site from the doctor's office or pharmacy opens the door. Now, you have the information concentrated in one location where law-enfarcement can go fishing easily. The statute language about investigation just cements the deal and provides the final nail. It was the database that built the coffin. Without the database, individual doctors and pharmacists could demand a warrant or subpoena before surrendering the information to law-enfarcement.

Metalhead47 said:

...'nuther good reason to switch one's prescriptions to OTC supplements (if possible, of course). At least they can't track those.

Yes.

Click to expand...

Wonder if they know about the 30 pills if Viagra I take everyday .... lol

Really, none of the gov't's business. Ever.

davidmcbeth said:

Wonder if they know about the 30 pills if Viagra I take everyday .... lol

Really, none of the gov't's business. Ever.

Click to expand...

Nor, ours. That was way too much information.

How fitting. A zombie thread dug up the day after Halloween.

BigDave said:

Well well well guess what?

http://www.wapmp.org/
Washington State Prescription Monitoring Program

The Prescription Monitoring Program (Prescription Review) is a patient safety tool. Practitioners will have access to the information before they prescribe or dispense drugs. The information provided allows a practitioner to look for duplicate prescribing, misuse, drug interactions, and other potential concerns. By having this information available before prescribing or dispensing, a practitioner can provide improved care to their patients.

On October 7, 2011 dispensers began submitting data for the program on Schedules II, III, IV and V controlled substances dispensed to patients. The protected health information will be collected and stored securely.

As of May 2012 all user groups outlined in our law and rules can request patient prescription information.

For more information, browse this website or contact the PMP staff.

Click to expand...

Considering the number of people that go from Dr to Dr, Clinic to Clinic, looking for prescriptions for Oxycodone and other pain killers, just to sell on the street, expect this law to curb some of that.

davidmcbeth said:

Wonder if they know about the 30 pills if Viagra I take everyday .... lol

Really, none of the gov't's business. Ever.

Click to expand...

Call a doctor after 120 hrs.

Well I have to fill out paperwork if I was to buy MSM to give to dogs and horses anytime I buy 2lbs or more.

That information gets sent to the state patrol.

davidmcbeth said:

Wonder if they know about the 30 pills if Viagra I take everyday .... lol

Really, none of the gov't's business. Ever.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Call a doctor after 120 hrs.

Click to expand...

And be extra careful if going through any revolving doors

Our Oldest daughter is an Emergency Room nurse in TX. She says there are quite a few people that she sees that are drug users. They go to the emergency room, just to get extra drugs, for free,,they have learned how to play the system and abuse it...this is probably what this rule is all about. Good, bad or ugly.

As to multiple doctors treating one patient,,,that is what happens with my wife. I have no problem that the 4 doctors (GP and 4 different specialists, two are neurologists that have a different focus) she sees keep in constant contact with each other...keeps duplication of effort down (I'm paying this out of pocket, she is not eligible for Medicare yet) and also tracks meds so that conflicting drugs are given. (And I double check on this one)

That said, I think this type of information is private, and should be only shared by those I authorize...and definitely NOT with LE.

hermannr said:

that said, i think this type of information is private, and should be only shared by those i authorize...and definitely not with le.

Click to expand...

amen brother!!!

Freedom1Man said:

I guess he's trying to be an upright Citizen.:uhoh:

Click to expand...

ROFL! Lets go back to the topic before the family-friendly moderators lock the thread or delete posts.

amlevin said:

And be extra careful if going through any revolving doors

Click to expand...

No problems there! Remember, he carries a gun so he MUST BE COMPENSATING!

It's funny as heck watching you all "one up" each other.

(Sorry, play on words. Had to do it.)

At least he's not carrying a rifle with a "shoulder thingy that goes up".... or is he and it's just placed wrong?

I see two things lacking in this thread. One is the complete misrepresentation of the actual law in the OP's thread title. Nowhere is this a law or program about tracking "Prescription Drugs" in the general sense. The second, is an actual discussion about about the drugs actually intended to be tracked under this law.

It is specifically, as stated in the law and cited in Davids post, a law about tracking Schedule II-V "Controlled Drugs". Thus the references to Viagra are completely off topic. ( the resulting humor however, is pretty damn funny....)

The discussion about possible abuses of this law are well warranted however, if you use Controlled Substances for those illnesses/injuries for which they are prescribed. Even though both the current HIPPA laws and the hefty fines for violation those laws are a severe deterrent to accessing personal health information, and the "safeguards" built into this law should limit access without a warrant, we all know abuses take place.

Before this law took effect, there was significant, and I mean SIGNIFICANT concerns by the Licensed Healthcare Practitioners in this state that they could be punished arbitrarily for their prescribing practices of Schedule II-V drugs. That was addressed I believe by the safeguard in (5) below. However, "acting in good faith" to me is still a subjective term and open to interpretation.

There are now clinics and practitioners who specialize in Long Term Pain control, and many people with chronic conditions requiring use of Schedule II-V Controlled Drugs, now are referred to those Pain Clinics and Practitioners who have a good grasp of the laws, and who follow patients as a single point of use of the drugs in order to take the burden off of regular Licensed Healthcare practitioners.

As far as the above referenced posts concerning abuse of the database, parts (3)d and (3)h would be the relevant law.
Part 4 addresses the HIPPA requirement that all personal data be removed from any released info to the parties referenced in that section.


(1) Prescription information submitted to the department shall be confidential, in compliance with chapter 70.02 RCW and federal health care information privacy requirements and not subject to disclosure, except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section.

(2) The department shall maintain procedures to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of patients and patient information collected, recorded, transmitted, and maintained is not disclosed to persons except as in subsections (3) and (4) of this section.

(3) The department may provide data in the prescription monitoring program to the following persons:

(a) Persons authorized to prescribe or dispense controlled substances, for the purpose of providing medical or pharmaceutical care for their patients;

(b) An individual who requests the individual's own prescription monitoring information;

(c) Health professional licensing, certification, or regulatory agency or entity;

(d) Appropriate local, state, and federal law enforcement or prosecutorial officials who are engaged in a bona fide specific investigation involving a designated person;

(e) Authorized practitioners of the department of social and health services and the health care authority regarding medicaid program recipients;

(f) The director or director's designee within the department of labor and industries regarding workers' compensation claimants;

(g) The director or the director's designee within the department of corrections regarding offenders committed to the department of corrections;

(h) Other entities under grand jury subpoena or court order; and

(i) Personnel of the department for purposes of administration and enforcement of this chapter or chapter 69.50 RCW.

(4) The department may provide data to public or private entities for statistical, research, or educational purposes after removing information that could be used to identify individual patients, dispensers, prescribers, and persons who received prescriptions from dispensers.

(5) A dispenser or practitioner acting in good faith is immune from any civil, criminal, or administrative liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed for requesting, receiving, or using information from the program.

What I think many on here are not particularly aware of, is the rampant abuse of Schedule II-V drugs by individuals. Many many patients/drug abusers use multiple Healthcare Professionals and ER's to acquire these drugs. These individuals know the system well, and know the "lingo" well, and can pass themselves off as legitimate at each place. There was absolutely no way of tracking these prescriptions before this law. Now, a Licensed Healthcare practitioner, if he chooses ( the program is voluntary in this aspect of it ) can look in the database and see the history of prescriptions for an individual and who that individual is getting their prescriptions from.

Not to "bust" the individual, but so the Practitioner can simply refer the individual to one of the original prescribers or to a pain clinic for management.

The ones who get busted are the ones who "obtain" a legal script pad and go from Pharmacy to Pharmacy writing their own scripts.

That part of the law/program which addresses these last two points is most helpful.