Pharmacy License Reciprocity: Compromise for Our Patients

Licensure reciprocity “denotes the mutual recognition, endorsement, and acceptance by states of licenses granted by other jurisdictions,” according to a recent blog post by ESPER, a tech company dedicated to improving policymaking.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many state boards of pharmacy relaxed their regulations to allow pharmacists to cross state lines to practice, administer vaccinations, and perform other critically important functions. Not only was this important for patient care, but it also was welcomed by bureaucrats, regulators, and the pharmacy profession.

Now that COVID-19 is starting to wane across much of the United States, what will happen to the open licensure reciprocity that was so welcomed just a few short months ago? I suspect that some people, if not many, will want to return to the same regulations that preceded the pandemic. Is that wise?

There is a dichotomy of thought here. On one side is the traditional way of controlling the medical professionals in your state, by requiring them to be licensed in good standing to practice. This is clearly understandable and allows the state to monitor the practice of the pharmacist. On the other hand, allowing pharmacists to practice across state lines without the financial and time burden of relicensing in other states can improve patient care, especially in times of need such as the pandemic.

I call on the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy to compromise by allowing the state of origin and the new state(s) to monitor practice by sharing information freely and, if necessary, penalizing together, but at the same allowing freedom of movement for pharmacists across state lines. 

There is no debate that the profession received a great deal of positive press for our efforts in the pandemic, so having licensure reciprocity across state lines in place for the next inevitable pandemic would be ideal.