Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pharmacists Scope topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada pharmacists, educators press lawmakers to remove regulatory and Medicaid barriers to clinical services
Summary
Pharmacists and pharmacy educators told the committee that Nevada's PharmD workforce is qualified to deliver many non‑dispensing clinical services but that state rules (CLIA lab director limits, medication administration tied to pharmacy location, collaborative practice limits) and Medicaid payment gaps block broader use; presenters urged legislative changes similar to AB186 and payment parity for pharmacist services.
Pharmacists, educators and health‑system representatives told the Health and Human Services interim committee on March 31 that Nevada's regulatory structure and Medicaid reimbursement rules limit pharmacists from providing routine clinical care that many states already use to expand access.
Speakers summarized training and evidence: Evan Williams (Roseman University) described PharmD education, required clinical hours and residency options, and summarized literature showing pharmacist‑led care improves medication adherence and yields a positive return on investment. Zach Roscoe and Adam Porath outlined Nevada‑specific barriers: pharmacists can perform certain HIV‑ and contraception‑related services, but ordering CLIA‑waived tests, serving as CLIA lab directors, administering medications outside a pharmacy setting, and adjusting or prescribing drugs generally require collaborative practice agreements (CPA) tied to supervising clinicians. Nevada’s CPA model, they argued, creates operational and liability frictions in clinics and community settings.
Payment gaps: Presenters said Medicaid in Nevada reimburses a narrow set of pharmacist‑delivered services (HIV prevention, contraception and OUD treatment in certain circumstances) but not many of the other clinical interventions pharmacists provide—blood pressure management, diabetes medication adjustment, test‑and‑treat for conditions such as influenza—so pharmacies cannot sustainably offer them to Medicaid patients. Several speakers recommended statutory payment parity (state‑level legislative direction requiring Medicaid and commercial plans to pay for pharmacist clinical services) and pointed to other states and to Maryland’s 2023 model as examples of multi‑stakeholder reform.
Lawmakers’ concerns: Physicians on the panel cautioned about scope and clinical safety; presenters stressed standards of care, referral back to physicians for complicated cases, facility design for private exams, and that many pharmacies already use protocols. Several committee members asked for pilot designs and for demographic/rural impacts; advocates offered to provide follow‑up briefs, model statutory language and the fiscal impact of payment parity.
No votes were taken; presenters requested reintroduction of AB186‑style language and asked for committee assistance to examine Medicaid payment changes and regulatory clarification to enable safe pharmacist practice expansion.
