It is silly for a pharmacy or any agency for that matter to consider a replica of a signature any more valid than a replica of a water buffalo. It is still a replica just as a stamp is. We have agencies here that will accept a stamped signature and one that will not. It is obvious that a stamped signature could be stolen and used over and over.
Now is is rather obvious to me and probably most that anything faxed is safer than any other way, save tamper proof scripts and I would argue with even that. It would not be all that hard to steal a tamper proof pad especially with the new Mainecare law which requires doctors without EMRs to carry them with him or her. So, in my way of thinking here is the order:
Faxing: with or without a signature whether stamped or otherwise. In fact a picture of Dora the Explorer or her friend Boots would still make it the most valid. I am not conting the web versions.
Tamper-proof scripts w/signatures
Printed scripts from an EMR w/signature
Call ins. Give me a break. Any person with that is courageous enough can call a pharamcy and call in a script. Hell, 1200 people have my paper script at least once with most of my important information. Why I can call in a script for Vicodin when I can't fax one in without a signature is ridiculous.
While there is probably someone out there who could download AC (still ridiculous that anyone can without at least creating some type of an account) and then fax it where it looks like it came from my office, that is still the most difficult.
I would still think the safest way would be for a law to require that faxed scripts contain an very long code key such as the ones you enter to install Windows where all the pharmacies would have it. They wouldn't have to check it every time, but it would be there when they wanted. Or the number could autopopulate your cover page.
The problem is, those who make the rules, don't think. It's rather straightforward once you do.
