Certainly would be nice to have a clear set of rules that we could all know and fall back on so we could more easily comply with what is expected of us...
So is the phrase, digital signed enough, correct or not? Or do we actually have to have an image of a signature on these stupid things? And again I'm not talking about the carriers including gov't programs being OK with it, I'm just talking about the pharmacies themselves. Although I guess if all those other people have issue with it, in the end the pharmacy is then going to wave a flag, and make us redo our homework because then they can not get paid for the meds.
Again I don't see a big difference here other than paying off SureScripts and the other vendors. Any real crooked person who wanted to send in phony scripts via fax could use similar tools to insert a fairly decent looking signature, even one copied and scanned from letters, orders and previous Rx's from various providers, right? So like what the heck is the difference. If anything it is access to a real program or the certificates that Bert refers to that actually makes a real difference.
Just another layer of confusing bull to drive us all mad just trying to take good care of our folks and get them in and out the door with what they need to be well cared for...
Last edited by hockeyref; 05/30/2008 5:40 PM. Reason: Better Said?
