Announcement

NABP cautiously estimates early November NAPLEX reinstatement
Civil lawsuit filed against University of Georgia pharmacy professor for allegedly sharing test questions.
The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) “cautiously estimates” an early-November reinstatement of the American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) and Georgia Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination (MPJE). Both exams were suspended on August 25, leaving many recent graduates in a difficult position. Of note, while the NAPLEX is suspended nationwide, the Georgia MPJE is the only law exam affected by the suspension—those in all other states remain active.

In a September 6 headline on its homepage, NABP wrote that the “rapid reactivation timeline is possible thanks to the strength of the programs and processes that NABP has in place and despite these programs having sustained significant damage that may have completely destroyed other programs.” The “damage” refers to the alleged actions of Flynn Warren Jr., BPharm, a professor at the University of Georgia College of Pharmacy since 1985. Retired since July 1 but still teaching elective classes at the college, Warren is well known for his long-running NAPLEX review course. NABP’s allegations are that Warren attained questions from test takers subsequent to exam completion and distributed them to students about to take the NAPLEX. According to court documents, NABP has accused the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia and Warren of misappropriating trade secrets, violating copyright, and breaking contract. NABP has investigated Warren twice previously regarding similar allegations, according to court documents filed in the case.

The Red & Black, an independent University of Georgia student newspaper, reported Warren’s ties to NABP’s discontinuation of the exams. Among legal documents posted at The Red & Black Web site is a court order explaining why an August 6 NABP news release seemingly disappeared shortly after being disseminated. In the release, which was circulated to executive officers and state boards of pharmacy and deans of schools and colleges of pharmacy, NABP Executive Director Carmen A. Catizone, MS, BPharm, DPh, specifically mentions the seizure of “materials and computers” from the university and Warren’s home and states that “NABP is disappointed and appalled that the public trust and health were victimized.” The news release was retracted, however, because it violated the court’s order sealing the case by disclosing “the existence of the Court’s ex parte Order, the identities of the Defendants, certain of Plaintiff’s factual allegations, and the seizure actions taken by the United States Marshals Pursuant to the order.”

According to an affidavit cited by The Red & Black, Alan Ray Spies, Assistant Professor at Samford University’s McWhorter School of Pharmacy in Birmingham, Ala., indicated that he had learned that Warren was giving NAPLEX questions to students subsequent to Warren holding his review course at Samford. Spies passed this information on to Steven Pray, PhD, DPh, of Southwestern Oklahoma State University’s College of Pharmacy in Weatherford, Okla., who, in a separate affidavit, wrote that Warren’s activities “will force NABP to endure a loss of millions of dollars and will necessitate a radical overhauling of the examination pool.” Spies also indicated learning that Warren’s course materials included “some 2,700” questions that were “very similar, if not verbatim, to questions asked on the NAPLEX.” Court documents indicate that Pray sent the results of his research to Catizone.

Although many residents had already been licensed before the NAPLEX was suspended, a considerable number may remain unlicensed because, for example, they experienced delays with their paperwork submitted for obtaining licensure in another state, they were unsuccessful in passing the NAPLEX on their first attempt, or, for whatever reason, they had initially delayed scheduling their examination. Unlicensed pharmacy graduates will be delayed in assuming their full responsibilities as a registered pharmacist and will likely feel the financial pressure of not realizing their full earning capacity. In addition, employers are left without licensed pharmacist employees in a difficult job market.

Accredited pharmacy residency programs have policies on the date by which a resident must be licensed and that date is usually early in the program, such as in August or early September. If residents are not able to take the NAPLEX, residency program directors and preceptors may be placed in an awkward position regarding how to make appropriate accommodations. Some programs have a rule that, if a resident is not licensed by a certain date, he or she is dismissed from the program. Other programs may require residents to extend enrollment in the residency at their own expense in order for the resident to gain the appropriate learning experiences required in the program.

Anne Burns, BPharm, APhA Vice President of Professional Affairs, commented, “If you don’t have a license to practice, you have to have a pharmacist supervising your work. The residency experience focuses on advanced training, which includes putting your skills into practice by working independently, where you truly are responsible for the patient’s care. This can result in increased pressure put on the preceptor of the program to supervise the resident when really the resident should be able to have some independent autonomy.”

You can click on the post title to go to www.pharmacist.com and read the latest news.

Posted By: Joe Sheffer (jsheffer@aphanet.org)
from pharmacist.com