Home Forums Discussions Problems Actual Image of Signature on Rx's

So check this out. I went to one of the local Kinny Drugs where they know us pretty well and we can talk to them openly about stuff. It seems that unless we can find a way to insert an image of Nancy's signature on the Rx's we can not do direct from AC Rx faxing... (RRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!) Just got to love NYS and all their over done, well intended, gone all wrong laws. Here in NYS any and all controls have to be done on hardcopy, and all printed Rx's have to be on their paper. Like it hasn't come from my fax machine with my phone and fax and name on it. And all controls still have to walk thru the door on NYS paper anyway, so why isn't "Digitally Signed" with Nancy's name on it enough. Sure I'm sending in false Rx's for ammoxicillan or other no high inducing drugs... What bullcchitt.

Besides going on the surescripts forever monthly taximeter and paying for the stupid interface how can I get this stupid image on the Rx??? Leslie, did you say that the paperport in your brother did this for you??? If so, if I get one will you walk me thru it???

Unbelievable, simply Amazing....

Yes, paperport will insert a signature image. You could also use adobe photoshop if you already have that software. I also confirmed that CutePDF Professional stamp image tool (this is cheap and a small step above the free CutePDF writer).

First thing, you will need to print the script from AC into a PDF format. Use the free CutePDF writer that I talked about in earlier posts(just do a search on old posts for the link).

Then, just send the file via fax.

Paul,
Yes, Paperport has a "stamp tool". You convert the faxes to PDF, stamp your signature (which you have previously scanned, appropriately sized and cropped and placed into a bitmap file) and send the fax back on its way. Really simple.
I will PM the screen again to you.

Leslie

Well then I guess I need to make a final choice on which model brother to get....

Wayne and Vinny,
As NYS'ers yourselves, what's your take on all of this? How are you dealing with this???

Adobe will as well.

Our pharmacies will accept the following:

Digitally signed by Albert Adams, MD. They are ecstatic about that.

Meaning just the phrase that AC inserts under or above your type printed name or do you mean having the actual image with those two other things that AC does already for all of us? Thanks. BTW, does anybody know for sure just what are the federal or state laws on any of this??? Information is always the best arms.

I could be wrong, but the laws are very ambiguous on this. I have no issues with private insurance. With Mainecare, most have to have a digital signature. Federal law also mandates that I either fax, call in, or use tamper proof scripts for any script including antibiotics. With private or self pay, I don't have these restrictions. I can also fax in without a signature Paragoric, Lomotil, Vicodin, Tylenol with codeine to some pharmacies but not others. The DEA person I spoke with is rather confused on this issue.

But, I had issues AFTER the Mainecare law came out ONLY because pharmacies were much more vigilant. They simply told me to write Electronically signed or Digitally singed, and they would be OK, which is rather silly as it means nothing without two certificates or keys on both ends.

Hope this helps.

Certainly would be wonderful if AC would insert a signature image for me.
I'm going to put this high on my "Wish List"

I use a tablet PC. I print to Windows Journal, sign it and print to network fax. I also do use paperport stamp

Mail order pharmacies will not usually accept unless I also cross out the phrase "electronic signature"

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...

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.

I wrote to Jon this morning about allowing us to print our signature itself on the scrip and he says he will work on this on his end.

Thanks Steve, one phone call is worth a thousand words on the user board, aahhh? Did you get any sense of a time frame from your chat? Did he sound very interested, might it have already been in the works, or more like we'll get there eventually kind of thing?

Thanks again...

I think he is putting it on the list and not sure when he can do it. Hopefully it is something that won't require a huge programming issue - could just scan, attach JPEG image to the scrip when you hit print.

Bert,
I agree completely with all your points. I just cannot see why our legislators are wanting (perhaps soon demanding) that we eprescribe rather than fax. As we all know, the internet is widely vulnerable to hackers, no matter how "Secure". However, a fax is a fax, originating from a fixed point to a fixed point. And, if a wrong number is put in, it only goes to one wrong place, not potentially hundreds of thousands. I like the code suggestion. There could be some set way to add that code to your fax ID, the number that shows the point of origin.

Leslie

Bert,
Not only do they not think, but the only people they do not care to interact with on such things are plain, every day working stiff docs like everyone here. Imagine all that might happen if our elected gov't officials actually went out in their every day lives and really talked to people in the various tasks and rolls in our society. And then if they would simply incorporated such common sense things as they would learn from such real, unfiltered, un-canned, not bought and paid for common sense facts.... But instead we have the wonderful mess we have created instead.

Leslie,
I don't know why it didn't dawn on any of us any sooner. It's not really about the security of the Rx or attempting to really control and reduce drug abuse. Just look at our boarders with all the illegal and drug traffic down there while we tie our boarder patrol's hands. Most of the time they are not even allowed to draw their firearms, while their is serious violence going on around them and at them. Do you really think that their friends in Big Pharma are going to stand for a 1/3 reduction in pain and other abused drugs sales??? Heck know, it certainly is not about any of these smoke a mirrors issues.

It's about requiring you all to have to purchase and work with the largest software vendors of these products who have done the most intense lobbying and paid the best contributions, all while at the same time allowing the gov't and carriers to use the networking and recieving computer systems to track and control you....

They can't track and control nearly as well with the faxes, not all that they care to watch gets captured that way, or at least it's not a fast or as reliable. But with computers and the internet, they will get to capture your prescribing habits in real time as they happen. I swear it must be in the tracking that they really want... Along with getting their buddies software company lots of forced business.

Pleasant dreams.