Fred M. Eckel, RPh, MS
Pharmacy Times Editor-in-Chief
Mr. Eckel is professor and director of
the Office of Practice Development
and Education at the School of
Pharmacy, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill.
After years of debate, could we
finally see the emergence of a
new category of behind-thecounter
(BTC) drugs?
The idea of a drug category that would
be available to patients with pharmacist
advice but without a prescription is gaining
support. Notably, the FDA's position
has shifted. For years, the agency maintained
that it lacked the authority to designate
drugs for BTC access without legislative
changes. The agency's 2006 decision
to assign BTC status to levonorgestrel
(Plan B) suggested just the
opposite, however, and the FDA's recent
hearings reflect its interest in applying
BTC status more broadly.
BTC systems have been operating successfully
for years in several countries,
including the United Kingdom and
Canada. Medications already being
offered abroad on this basis include
some of those being discussed for potential
BTC status here, such as drugs for
chronic conditions like high cholesterol.
In this country, a BTC category could
benefit patients by providing easier
access to some drugs, along with the
medical guidance needed to ensure safety.
It also could benefit our profession,
not least by helping us expand our role
as medication advisers.
Of course, BTC remains controversial.
An argument still exists about whether
patients need expert counseling to help
them manage chronic conditions, or
whether they should simply be able to
obtain drugs over the counter.
I feel that the pharmacist's role with BTC
medications could be viewed as confirming
a patient's self-diagnosis—ruling out
the possibility that the diagnosis is incorrect—
and then providing a treatment plan
to address the patient's condition.
The Asheville Project has confirmed
that pharmacist intervention can be
extremely effective at improving outcomes
for various chronic disease states.
This could substantially cut the nation's
health care costs, because chronic diseases
account for many billions of dollars
in health care spending every year, and
much of the cost is due to inappropriate
treatment of those diseases.
Another question about the introduction
of a BTC category is whether all
pharmacists are ready to step into this
new role. Clearly, we are well-trained and
adequately prepared to counsel patients.
Many of us are so preoccupied with filling
prescriptions, however, that we have
not yet adjusted to the idea of advisory
roles that involve higher visibility and
greater interaction with the public. To
make this transition feasible, we need to
push for adequate reimbursement for
the time we spend counseling patients.
Establishment of a BTC category could
help us provide the right drugs to millions
of people suffering from chronic diseases.
We should support efforts to make
this a reality.