Village Public Safety Program can’t use the cash it has

Suzanne Downing

-

January 29, 2019

(4-minute read) PROGRAM STRUGGLES TO SPEND MONEY ALLOCATED BY STATE

In 2013, the Alaska Village Public Safety Officer Program hit a milestone of 101 safety officers in villages. It took an enormous effort by the Department of Public Safety to build those numbers from the 45 positions filled in 2007.

Earlier in VPSO history, there were as many as 130, but rebuilding the force was a priority of Gov. Sean Parnell, and staffing it to over 100 was a milestone.

But under the Walker administration, the number of VPSOs dropped back to less than 50 in 2018.

Historically, Alaska has found it difficult to retain high-quality paraprofessional police officers because the work is hard, can create conflicts with family members in villages, and recruiting outsiders to work in villages is a herculean task. VPSOs don’t carry guns, and they have little backup. They have a hard time finding housing in villages and when they do, they must sometimes house offenders in their own homes while they wait for Troopers to arrive. There are no jail facilities in most villages.

The VPSO program, started in the 1970s, is managed with help from various Native entities. That helps the State of Alaska manage costs by not having to place these safety officers into the State benefits plan. It shifts much of the responsibility back to the local level as a policing partnership.

The hiring of the VPSOs is contracted to nine Alaska Native nonprofit organizations and the Northwest Arctic Borough. The State trains the officers and pays them, and the budget for the program has been about $13 million for the past three years.

But one third of the positions are routinely empty. And this is the third year in a row the program has lapsed $3 million. In FY17 and FY18, it was also unable to spend the money it was given.

PUSHBACK FROM SENATOR OLSON

As Alaska is more than midway through the 2019 fiscal year, the Department of Public Safety offered $3 million back to the General Fund because it cannot use the money for what the Legislature intended — there are just not enough qualified people to hire in these positions.

The Senate Finance Committee today heard from Office of Management and Budget Director Donna Arduin about the unused VPSO funds that DPS sent back to the General Fund to help with earthquake recovery. The money was allocated for this year, but is unspent and will not be spent, Arduin said. The Dunleavy Administration wants to reallocate it.

Sen. Donny Olson of Golovin was not having it, however.

In committee, he all but blamed the death of Kotzebue’s Ashley Barr in 2018 on not having enough VPSOs, even though there is a Trooper post in Kotzebue, and even though the accused killer was a known perpetrator. Peter V. Wilson’s trial begins on March 25 in Fairbanks.

For all his chest-beating in committee, Olson has not been exactly a budget hawk. He’s the senator who infamously billed the state to move appliances, power tools, a piano, and an excessive number of other household goods north from Juneau, claiming that they were his legitimate household moving items after session ended.

The problem was, there were over 7,300 pounds of goods that went from Juneau to Golovin, but didn’t go the other way. He was shopping and shipping at state expense.

See the shipping Invoices of Sen. Donny Olson

Today, Olson badgered OMB Director Arduin with questions about why she didn’t reach out to the Native organizations who are running the VPSO programs.

She calmly answered that she leaves that interaction to the Department of Public Safety, where it properly belongs. Her role was to ask Departments to look for money they cannot use this fiscal year, and return what they can so the State can use it in areas where it’s actually needed now.

Sen. Scott Kawasaki also got in on the demagoguery, by taking his complaint to Facebook:

Kawasaki’s budget committee was in the House, which was under Democrat control last year, and he is claiming responsibility for the overpayment to the program and the lack of budgetary restraint.

VPSO PROGRAM HAS HEADWINDS

Even though most of the village safety officers are upstanding, hardworking, and honorable, the VPSO program has been fraught with chronic quality assurance failings in the past. Recruiting and retaining is just one of the problems.

Take the poll: Is Rep. Knopp on track?

The Social

Suzanne Downing

-

January 29, 2019

0

Quick like a bunny! MustReadAlaska cares what you think. We’re running a poll on Facebook to gauge Alaskans’ opinion of the Knopp Plan for organizing the Alaska House of Representatives.

The Rep. Gary Knopp explanation is here.

The David Eastman rebuttal is here.

The poll is here.

Eastman to Knopp: Your plans cut your fellow Republicans out

Columns

Suzanne Downing

-

January 28, 2019

14

(5-minute read) LAWMAKER RESPONDS TO KNOPP’S PUBLIC EXPLANATION

By REP. DAVID EASTMAN

I read with interest your recent article: “Republicans and Democrats must work together to form a bipartisan coalition.”

As a fellow legislator representing a Republican district quite similar to yours, I believe your thoughtful proposal deserves an equally thoughtful response.

[Read: Knopp explains why he rejects fellow Republicans]

In your proposal you recommend that we form a bipartisan caucus with “upwards of 24 members” and you note that “A 50/50 split would be ideal.” From this, I take it that you envision a caucus of either 22 or 24 members, as 20 would be too small a number to form a majority, and the total must result in an even number to accomplish having a 50/50 split between Republicans and Democrats. In the first case, your caucus would be comprised of 11 Republicans and 11 Democrats, and in the second case, it would be made up of 12 Republicans and 12 Democrats.

Thank you for noting in your proposal your intention “not to divide our caucus but to help it succeed.” I must admit, had you not stated that up front, I would have come away with the opposite impression. If only 11 of the 23 elected Republicans are permitted to join the caucus, that would leave the majority of Republican legislators excluded from participating. If 12 are invited, that wouldn’t be much better, as it would divide the caucus right down the middle, with 11 Republican legislators still excluded. Even if those 11 were from the smallest Republican districts, that would still mean Republican representatives for 194,960 Alaskans would, on your plan, be excluded from participation.

And which 11 or 12 Republican legislators would be the ones excluded on your plan? You mention wanting to minimize the risk that one or more legislators might not vote with the caucus on a vote. To accomplish that, you would want to exclude the more liberal and more conservative legislators from your caucus. But I couldn’t help noticing that your district was one of only five districts statewide to prefer Joe Miller to Lisa Murkowski two years ago. If you plan to vote in keeping with the district you represent, you and your district would both be excluded from the caucus and from activity in the Legislature for the next two years.

And yet, I understand that your name is included on each of the versions of the caucus membership list that you have been circulating. But how could that be, unless you have already decided not to vote in keeping with the constituents you represent?

In reading your proposal, I have a concern. The people of Alaska voted overwhelmingly for Gov. Mike Dunleavy in the last election. The caucus you left last month included 21 Republican legislators who each supported Gov. Dunleavy, to a greater or lesser extent.

You are proposing bringing into your caucus 11 or 12 Democratic legislators for whom the candidate who best represented them was his opponent, Mark Begich. You are proposing putting these legislators into positions of leadership from which they will be advocating for the very positions that Dunleavy opposed and that the people of Alaska rejected at the ballot box. Likewise, from those positions of leadership they will have the power to block each of the items on the governor’s agenda. Have you considered this? In your mind, is that a good thing?

I’m certain it couldn’t have escaped your notice that, as a result of the last election, Republican House legislators currently represent more than 145,000 more Alaskans than their Democratic Party counterparts.

Your proposal would have the effect of wiping away the results of the last election and artificially choosing to move forward into this legislative session as though Republican and Democratic legislators in fact received the exact same number of votes across our state. Is this fair to those who voted? And does it best serve the interests of a state in which Republican voters outnumber Democrats by a ratio of two to one?

I have my own proposal that I would like you to consider.

In both of our districts, Mike Dunleavy beat Mark Begich by more than 40 percent. The constituents we represent have spoken clearly that they like our new governor and his priorities. I propose that the best group of legislators to work together to accomplish these priorities are our fellow 23 Republican legislators (and any other legislators who catch the governor’s vision and publicly commit to working with us to accomplish it).

Let us work together to repeal Senate Bill 91, to protect the dividend and to pass a balanced budget. Let us do so for the rest of the 31st Legislature in an environment where each legislator is invited to contribute, will be heard and will be able to use their talents and experience to the fullest in the pursuit of these shared goals. If you have serious concerns over the specific role of another legislator in the caucus, let us have that conversation now.

We have already spent the first 12 days of this session working through which Republican legislators will be excluded. Let us focus the remainder of our time and energies on accomplishing the goals that the people have tasked us with accomplishing.

Rep. David Eastman, represents District 11, the Mat-Su Valley, in the Alaska House of Representatives.

Readers: Take the poll:

https://www.facebook.com/mustreadalaska/posts/1018729368314333

Earthquake damage? You’ve got more time to file for assistance

The 907

Suzanne Downing

-

January 28, 2019

0

(2-minute read) DUNLEAVY EXTENDS EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY APPLICATION DEADLINE

Gov. Michael Dunleavy today extended the application period for the State of Alaska’s Individual Assistance Program for 30 more days. The original deadline was Tuesday, Jan. 29.

The Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management will accept applications for the State Individual Family Grant and Temporary Housing programs until Feb. 28. The program, which provides assistance to individuals and families who suffered damages or losses to personal or real property during the Nov. 30, 2018 earthquake, is available in Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

Individual residents or households with damages to their primary residence, personal property, or transportation during the earthquake or aftershocks, may apply. But the Feb. 28 deadline is firm — if you miss it, you won’t be able to apply later.

“We encourage everyone with damages from the Cook Inlet Earthquake to apply for State Individual Assistance. If damages are discovered at a later date, or damages from the earthquake are compounded by ground thaw in the spring, an application may be amended,” said Mike Sutton, director of the division.

To apply for State Individual Assistance, call DHS&EM at 1-855-445-7131, or visit Ready.Alaska.Gov.

Applicants will be asked to provide a description of damages, photographs or videos, ownership documents for transportation and real property, and insurance information.

Applicants needing an interpreter, or those with hearing disabilities should have a representative call the number above to arrange for assistance.

Dunleavy requested activation of federal disaster recovery programs on Jan. 3. The president may activate Federal individual and public assistance programs, and/or Small Business Administration disaster recovery loans.

Alaskans who have applied for State individual assistance will be required to apply for federal disaster recovery programs if or when they become available. Federal programs have separate application processes and may require documentation not requested during the State Individual Assistance application.

Dunleavy submits supplemental budget with a twist: Some cuts

Politics

Suzanne Downing

-

January 28, 2019

8

Dunleavy submits supplemental budget with a twist: Some cuts

(3-minute read) TRIMS SPENDING TO SCHOOLS, PUTS IT TOWARD EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY

Today, Gov. Michael Dunleavy introduced his Fiscal Year 2019 Supplemental Budget, which was unusual in that instead of asking for more money for the General Fund, he actually returned money to the fund.

But the supplemental budget he gave the Senate is not all cuts. Here are the top-line details:

Dunleavy’s Office of Management and Budget has pulled back some $20 million that the 2018 Legislature passed that was over and above the “base student allocation,” which is basic funding for schools based on numbers of students enrolled. The money hasn’t been spent yet, and the governor wants to prioritize differently.

It’s not an unheard of move. In 2015, the public school funding was also pulled back, when the Alaska economy crashed along with the price of oil. That was under Gov. Bill Walker.

Dunleavy asked departments to prioritize their current-year spending and return any funds they anticipate not needing between now and July 1, the beginning of the next fiscal year.

The Alaska Gasline Development Agency returned $5 million to the General Fund, because the agency is moving in a different direction, and the Village Public Safety Officer program returned $3 million, because it has so many positions unfilled. This is the third year in a row that it hasn’t needed that $3 million.

The Department of Education returned $2 million from the school bond debt reimbursement program, a savings that came because the bond debt is lower than was anticipated.

The supplemental budget doesn’t return all of that to the General Fund. Ultimately, just $12.5 million goes back to the State purse, between the undesignated funds and designated funds.

Money is being allocated for disasters. Dunleavy is requesting spending for $37 million in earthquake recovery, which will bring in more than $100 million in federal funds.

He also budgeted nearly $8 million in supplemental spending for fire suppression between now and July 1, in anticipation of forest fire season.

The governor allocated $15 million for Medicaid spending, which ballooned over the last year and was short-funded by as much as $70 million in 2018. The new Dunleavy Administration has since been able to whittle that down.

Sen. Tom Begich immediately found fault with the supplemental budget request.

“Last year, the Senate and House put aside partisanship and crafted an education budget that responded to public demand for increased education resources. Local schools and communities have been hit hard with the high cost of energy and the lack of inflation-proofing of our funding formula. The actions of the Governor send our education system backward, something our schools can’t afford.”

Last year, Gov. Bill Walker put forward his supplemental budget, adding $178 million in spending. The Legislature trimmed that back to $110 million in extra spending, mostly for exploding Medicaid costs.

(This story is developing and will be updated.)

Murkowski introduces bill to pass the Equal Rights Amendment

Suzanne Downing

-

January 28, 2019

26

Murkowski introduces bill to pass the Equal Rights Amendment

(4-minute read) WILL BE CHAMPIONED BY ABORTION ADVOCATES AND TRANSGENDERED

U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, introduced of Senate Resolution 6, which would reopen consideration of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Thirty-seven states have already ratified the amendment, which was first proposed in 1972. Only one more state is needed.

Read Senator Murkowski’s and Senator Cardin’s joint op-ed in The Washington Post (Paywall) here.

The Cardin-Murkowski resolution would lift the ratification deadline to revive consideration of the ERA by the states.

The measure is exceedingly controversial and the timing is pointed: It will become an abortion issue and a major election issue going into the 2020 presidential election year, also the year that Sen. Dan Sullivan is up for re-election.

Critics say that proponents are falsely positing that America is a reflection of a “Handmaid’s Tale” dystopian world where women are nothing more than breeding machines.

They also point out that women who are pregnant do have limitations on where they should work: Toxic waste dumps, combat missions, and even piloting commercial jets can harm the baby. And there are reasons why women and men have their own professional wrestling circuits.

Other critics warn that the ERA is no longer about women at all, but is clearly moved into a new angle: It’s about abortion rights and extending special rights to LGBTQ — lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer.

In other words, critics warn, the ERA will be not interpreted on behalf of women, but on behalf of other Americans who want to ensure that the way they express themselves doesn’t interfere with jobs, housing, or use of bathrooms and locker rooms of another gender.

Murkowski and Cardin don’t recognize these issues — which will become litigated endlessly — in her public announcement.

“Nearly 100 years after women fought for and earned the right to vote, most Americans are shocked to realize that the U.S. Constitution does not already guarantee women the same rights and protections as men. It’s long past time for us to correct this injustice and recognize the equality of women under the law.,” said Senator Cardin. “What better way to set a positive tone for a new Congress than to take clear steps to fix a long-standing slight to America’s women. I’m proud to work with Senator Murkowski to move this essential legislation over the finish line.”

“In order for the ERA to be incorporated into the Constitution, we need 38 states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. As of now, we have 37. The bipartisan legislation I’m leading, alongside Senator Cardin, will resolve any ambiguity over whether states can make the ERA effective by ratifying. We cannot and must not put a time limit on the fight for women’s equality,” Senator Murkowski said.

The Equal Rights Amendment wording states:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

“The Equal Rights Amendment is as important in the fight for women’s equality as it was on April 5, 1972, when Alaska ratified,” said Murkowski. “Women’s equality is fundamental to the American way of life and needs to be expressly recognized in the Constitution.”

ABORTION FRIENDS AND FOES WILL WEIGH IN

But the measure reflects a logic that could lead to a constitutional basis for abortion rights, and could result in overturning the federal partial birth abortion ban, third trimester abortions, and parental notification of minors seeking abortions.

It could interfere with religious beliefs of nurses, doctors and hospitals who do not facilitate abortions.

It could threaten tax exemptions of private religious schools that do not believe abortion is moral and that discourage it when teaching students.

The passage of the ERA could lead to Medicaid funding for abortions. Since men have procedures exclusive to them that are funded by Medicaid, including circumcision and prostatectomies, abortions would be subject to the same logic: They are unique to women and related to reproductive functions.

Pro-abortion groups have submitted legal briefs in support of the ERA for this reason, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Congress granted an extension to ratification of the ERA back in 1982. The amendment failed because it did not receive enough state support during the time extension. Time simply ran out.

But Murkowski and Cardin think they have a workaround.

Their resolution would “immediately remove the ratification deadline and revive the consideration of the ERA by the states, finally guaranteeing full and equal protections to women in the Constitution. Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for ratification of amendments, and the states finally ratified the Twenty-Seventh Amendment in 1992 regarding Congressional pay raises more than 200 years after Congress proposed it in 1789 as part of the original Bill of Rights. The ERA time limit was contained in a joint resolution, not the actual text of the amendment, and Congress has already once voted to extend the ERA ratification deadline,” they wrote in a joint press release.

Rep. Knopp explains why he rejects Republicans

Columns

Suzanne Downing

-

January 28, 2019

34

Rep. Knopp explains why he rejects Republicans

CALLS FOR A 50-50 SPLIT CAUCUS

In a column that ran in the Kenai Peninsula-Clarion, Rep. Gary Knopp, District 30, explains why he doesn’t believe in a Republican-led caucus:

His explanation, in full:

To all of my constituents, my neighbors and my friends — You are the reason I am here in Juneau.

I have not forgotten that, and your opinions are important to me. Which is why I need to explain my decision to step away from the state House Republican caucus. I hope you will understand my action and agree with me that it is the best decision for Alaska.

I’ll start off by apologizing for the uncertainty, unrest and not getting this message out sooner. I had hoped it would not take so long for the House to organize itself and start work this session.

The first misconception I have heard from some of you is that I have changed my political beliefs. I want to reassure all of you that I will not be joining the Democrats. Nothing against them as individuals, but that’s not where I belong. Though I stepped away from the fragile Republican caucus, I did not abandon my values, principles or my party.

My intentions are not to divide my caucus but rather to help it succeed. A 21-member majority simply will not be successful. You must increase the numbers, a bipartisan coalition would accomplish this.

The very slim Republican majority that gathered after the November election was doomed to fail. With only 21 very diverse members, every member of the caucus would be needed to get anything done in the 40-member House, especially electing a speaker and passing a budget.

The biggest problem with a 21-member majority is that every single legislator has veto power over every single issue every day. I believe such a minimal majority would not serve our state well. It would be contentious and fall far short of the productive legislative work that we need.

To be perfectly honest, even after the November election, we never had a truly functional Republican majority in the House. Yes, 23 Republicans were elected but only 20 committed to joining the governing caucus. Those other three each had their own reasons not to sign on. But regardless of the reasons, it meant no group had enough committed House members to organize into a majority.

I have spoken with many of my Republican colleagues who agree with me on the necessity of creating a solid, working coalition to move the House forward in the most effective and successful manner possible.

Legislators need to resolve our personal differences to focus on taking care of Alaska. To get the job done, we need to work together to overcome the substantial challenges we face as a state — building a stronger economy, educating our children and college-age students, reducing crime and showing the public that elected officials can do their job without partisanship.

My proposal is simple:

Create a bipartisan coalition to govern the House. My hope is to have upwards of 24 members. A 50/50 split would be ideal. The key leadership positions would be divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats, nominated by coalition members and elected by simple majority of the coalition.

During the 1st session of the 31st Legislature all members would agree to the following terms:

• No changes to the state’s oil and gas tax credits.

• No broad-based tax proposals, such as a state income or sales tax.

• Minimize the introduction of personal legislation in order to avoid distractions and hopefully to lessen the odds of extended or special sessions.

Not that other issues are not important or worthy of discussion, but we need to focus all energy on the people’s top priority. Which is PFD, crime reform and the budget. We are now eight days into Alaska’s 31st legislative session and we are falling behind schedule. The House cannot organize, elect a speaker, appoint committee chairs and set a work agenda until a majority is established. It’s time we get to work.

I want to assure the constituents of District 30 that I did not take my decision lightly. I knew that forcing the issue would disrupt the process and push my colleagues into making hard decisions. But I felt then, and still believe now, that at the end of the day my responsibility is to represent the people of this district to the best of my abilities. Political parties are good, but they are not the sole deciding factor.

This will remain my goal as long as I have the honor of serving as your Republican Representative. I want to reassure you that conversations are ongoing daily, we are slowly moving through this process in hopes of being organized and open for business very soon!

Please feel free to call the office at 907-465-2693 with any questions or concerns.

— Representative Gary Knopp,

District 30

Quoth the Raven

The Social

Suzanne Downing

-

January 27, 2019

26

(2-minute read) ALASKA’S STATE BIRD JUST ISN’T SEXY ENOUGH? TAKE OUR POLL

I’ll admit it. When I’m eyeball to eyeball with an adult raven on a foggy evening, it creeps me out a little bit.

But then, so do half of the people I run into at the midtown Anchorage Walmart.

And yet, like any good macho gangsta, the raven commands a certain respect. One is never too sure about who is on the top of the food chain when a raven is holding his ground near a garbage bag full of fish scraps. He’ll tilt his head and look at you, sizing up the angle he’ll approach your eyeballs as he plans his attack.

In one of the most important pieces of legislation that Sen. Scott Kawasaki has ever authored (Think Local Day being right up there), the Fairbanks freshman senator has proposed to change the State bird from the willow ptarmigan to the common raven.

That glossy black hulk of a bird that crossed the Bering Straits land bridge and has been stalking human encampments in Alaska ever since, that surly bird so iconic in literature and Southeast Alaska Native cosmology, could have a new feather in its cap: Official State Bird.

You might call it the ultimate clever prank on humans by the “Trickster” raven, inserting himself into our very government.

They’re city slickers, most of them. So ubiquitous they are in some places that they are practically pests, dumpster diving as they do. While they can’t tear open a caribou carcass with their beaks, they surely can undo a garbage bag.

When they group together, as they also do quite raucously, they are referred to as an “unkindness” or a “conspiracy” of ravens.

*A conspiracy of ravens pecks at a snow berm as the fog grounds the planes at the Juneau International airport on Sunday.*

They’re smart. They’re communicative. And, bleh, very few creatures in the natural world want to eat them.

That’s unlike the willow ptarmigan, which is a fat, juicy grouse popular with humans, foxes, wolves, and raptors. The willow ptarmigan boasts that it can change colors with the seasons to better blend and evade the dinner table, and that’s a good trick, something that ravens cannot do. But beyond being camo birds, no one has much kind to say about their good nature.

But should Alaska mess with the state bird, while preparing to look at a $3.2 billion budget ($1.6 billion smaller than last year’s state budget)? The willow ptarmigan, after all, was voted on by school children in 1955 and has been the official state bird since Statehood. Think of the children.

Senate Bill 28 would vote in the raven and vote out the hapless ptarmigan. It amends Sec. 44.09.060 to read that “The Common Raven (Corus Cora principalis) is the official bird of the state.”

Hop on over to the Must Read Alaska Facebook page and take our poll: Raven or Willow Ptarmigan for official state bird?

State, Pharmacy Board tell pharmacies: ‘Fill legitimate opioid prescriptions’

Suzanne Downing

-

January 27, 2019

17

State, Pharmacy Board tell pharmacies: ‘Fill legitimate opioid prescriptions’

(8-minute read) BUT PROBLEM IS DEEPER — WHOLESALERS ARE CUTTING SUPPLY

In what has emerged as a crisis within a crisis, patients with chronic pain in Alaska are having a harder time getting legitimate pain medication. They are being turned away by pharmacies for the opioids or other controlled substances that keep their pain manageable.

News accounts across the country report that patients who have had their pain medication cut off or drastically reduced are killing themselves because they can’t live with their chronic pain. Those in chronic pain understand this growing health crisis, which is a personal crisis to them.

[Read: Man, 58, kills himself because pain too much to bear without needed drugs]

This problem grew when recent federal legislation attempted to reduce the amount of illegal opioids hitting the streets through pill mills — unscrupulous doctors who flood the market with classified drugs through misuse of the prescription pad.

But in Alaska, it’s been a painful transition for those who rely on controlled pain medication. Pharmacies have been turning them away, to the point where the patients have reached out to the State Pharmacy Board for relief.

In response to these complaints, a letter went out to Alaska’s pharmacists from the Pharmacy Board last week, telling them to follow the law, which is to fill legitimate prescriptions.

The trend toward “refusal to fill” prompted the board to issue specific guidelines and reminders to pharmacists:

Pharmacists must use reasonable knowledge, skill, and professional judgment when evaluating whether to fill a prescription. Extreme caution should be used when deciding not to fill a prescription. A patient who suddenly discontinues a chronic medication may experience negative health consequences;
Part of being a licensed healthcare professional is that you put the patient first. This means that if a pharmacist has any concern regarding a prescription, they should attempt to have a professional conversation with the practitioner to resolve those concerns and not simply refuse the prescription. Being a healthcare professional also means that you use your medication expertise during that dialogue in offering advice on potential alternatives, changes in the prescription strength, directions etc. Simply refusing to fill a prescription without trying to resolve the concern may call into question the knowledge, skill or judgment of the pharmacist and may be deemed unprofessional conduct;
Controlled substance prescriptions are not a “bartering” mechanism. In other words, a pharmacist should not tell a patient that they have refused to fill a prescription and then explain that if they go to a pain specialist to get the same prescription then they will reconsider filling it. Again, this may call into question the knowledge, skill or judgment of the pharmacist;
Yes, there is an opioid crisis. However, this should in no way alter our professional approach to treatment of patients in end-of-life or palliative care situations. Again, the fundamentals of using our professional judgment, skill and knowledge of treatments plays an integral role in who we are as professionals. Refusing to fill prescriptions for these patients without a solid medical reason may call into question whether the pharmacist is informed of current professional practice in the treatment of these medical cases.
If a prescription is refused, there should be sound professional reasons for doing so. Each patient is a unique medical case and should be treated independently as such. Making blanket decisions regarding dispensing of controlled substances may call into question the motivation of the pharmacist and how they are using their knowledge, skill or judgment to best serve the public.

The Pharmacy Board further warned that failing to practice pharmacy using reasonable knowledge, skill, competence, and safety for the public could result in disciplinary actions.

Read: Pharmacy Board Letter to Pharmacies

The State’s Division of Corporations also sent a similar letter, ordering pharmacies to consult physicians before refusing their patient’s opioid prescriptions.

“Recent federal legislation (21 CFR §1306.04(a)) provides more tools to strike this balance; it does not inhibit practitioners’ ability to prescribe controlled substances to patients,” the letter stated

“State law places the treatment of pain in the prescriber’s hands,” said Sara Chambers, director of the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing. “The prescribing practitioner has full authority to make a diagnosis and determine the appropriate course of treatment, including dosage and quantity of a controlled substance. The patient’s best interests must come first, and pharmacists are valued partners in the healthcare team; however, they are not prescribers and should not refuse to fill a valid prescription without first consulting the prescribing practitioner.”

PHARMACIES CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE

After the federal legislation to crack down on the opioid epidemic, wholesalers have begun cutting off the supply to pharmacists.

In Alaska and elsewhere, that has meant that if a wholesaler notices an increase in orders, they can refuse to send them. Alaska pharmacies are finding it increasingly hard to even get the drugs being prescribed by doctors.

But that leads to another problem: If a patient is turned away from one pharmacy, he or she will try another. Those pharmacies may not know the patient or feel comfortable with a new prescription showing up out of the blue. In addition, that new opioid prescription increases the number of opioids that pharmacy is filling, and then the pharmacy could find that it has exceeded the percentage of opioids-to-other-prescriptions, and find itself on the black list with the opioid wholesalers.

This has led some pharmacists to refuse to fill an opioid prescription unless the patient brings all of his or her prescriptions to that pharmacy, in order to balance the ratio required by wholesalers.

The burden, then, is shifted downward to the patient.

(Do you have a story about not being able to get your needed pain medication? Send it to [email protected]. Your name and identifiers will be kept confidential)

Village Public Safety Program can’t use the cash it has

Eastman to Knopp: Your plans cut your fellow Republicans out

Readers: Take the poll:

Earthquake damage? You’ve got more time to file for assistance

Dunleavy submits supplemental budget with a twist: Some cuts

Murkowski introduces bill to pass the Equal Rights Amendment

Rep. Knopp explains why he rejects Republicans

State, Pharmacy Board tell pharmacies: ‘Fill legitimate opioid prescriptions’

About us

The latest

Anchorage superintendent doubles down on budget drama, but weaves and dodges on actual layoffs

Video: Police descend on wooded camp where gunshots rang out

Gunfire in vagrant encampment brings in large police response near Mulcahy Stadium