Nevada’s Proposed Pharmacy Staffing Rules Raise A Broader Question: How Should Boards Regulate Workload And Patient Safety?

A Nevada Board of Pharmacy proposal establishing minimum pharmacy staffing requirements is generating debate among pharmacy operators—and raises a broader regulatory question that extends well beyond Nevada. How far should a Board of Pharmacy go in regulating pharmacy staffing when workload may affect patient safety?

Under proposed regulation R072-25, a Nevada pharmacy expecting to fill more than 250 prescriptions in a day generally would be required to have at least two pharmacists dedicated to pharmacy services for at least 75% of the time the pharmacy is open to the public between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. If anticipated volume exceeds 500 prescriptions, a third pharmacist generally would be required to provide or supervise non-dispensing services.

The proposal also seeks to establish minimum technician or intern staffing when only one pharmacist is working and contains additional requirements intended to reduce pharmacist fatigue and distraction.

The objective is easy to understand. Pharmacists increasingly perform far more than traditional prescription dispensing. Immunizations, patient counseling, medication management and other clinical responsibilities compete for attention in an environment where dispensing errors can have serious consequences. But translating those patient-safety concerns into fixed staffing requirements presents its own challenges—particularly for privately owned and independent pharmacies.

The Case for Board Involvement

Boards of Pharmacy exist first and foremost to protect patients. The Nevada Board describes its own mission as carrying out and enforcing Nevada law to protect the “health, safety and welfare of the public.” Staffing can plainly implicate that mission.

A pharmacist responsible for hundreds of prescriptions while simultaneously answering patient questions, administering vaccines, communicating with prescribers and supervising technicians may face fatigue and distraction. At some point, workload becomes more than an employment or business issue. It can become a patient-safety issue. Nevada’s proposal attempts to address that problem directly.

It would require pharmacies dispensing controlled substances or dangerous drugs to maintain staffing sufficient to minimize fatigue, distraction and other conditions interfering with competent and safe pharmacy practice. It also creates a process through which pharmacy staff can raise staffing concerns and protects employees from retaliation for doing so.

The proposed regulation would further permit pharmacists, based on their professional judgment, to limit immunizations and other non-dispensing services when those services cannot safely be provided or could negatively affect patients’ access to medications. Those provisions recognize something pharmacists have argued for years: professional judgment requires enough time and resources to exercise it.

But Prescription Volume Is an Imperfect Measure

The more difficult issue is whether a numerical prescription threshold is the right regulatory tool. Not all pharmacies operate the same way. A pharmacy dispensing 275 relatively routine prescriptions with experienced technicians and sophisticated automation may present a very different workload from a pharmacy dispensing 200 prescriptions involving extensive compounding, patient counseling, prior authorizations or other clinical services.

Ownership models also matter. For example, a national chain may have access to a large labor pool, centralized processing, sophisticated scheduling systems and substantial resources. By contrast, a privately owned, independent pharmacy may operate with a handful of pharmacists in a community where recruiting another pharmacist is difficult. Requiring an additional pharmacist based primarily on crossing a prescription-volume threshold could therefore affect pharmacies differently even when they dispense comparable volumes.

The Board’s proposal recognizes some of this complexity. Rural pharmacies are excluded from the prescription-volume staffing requirement, and the proposal allows exceptions for emergencies, disasters and other circumstances the Board determines reasonably prevented compliance. Expected prescription volume also would be calculated using multiple factors, including historical dispensing data, patient demographics, seasonal trends and predictive analytics.

Those provisions add flexibility, but privately owned pharmacies may still have legitimate questions and concerns about how the rule would operate in practice.

Patient Safety Also Includes Patient Access

There is another consideration for regulators: a pharmacy cannot serve patients if the economics of operating it become unsustainable. Independent pharmacies already operate in a difficult reimbursement environment. Adding mandatory pharmacist hours can create substantial additional expense, particularly when reimbursement for dispensing the underlying prescriptions may already be inadequate.

A pharmacy unable to recruit sufficient staff could also respond by reducing operating hours, limiting services or, in an extreme case, closing. None of those outcomes necessarily follows from Nevada’s proposal. But they are reasonable issues for a Board to consider when evaluating the final rule. Patient safety and pharmacy access should not be viewed as competing objectives. In many communities, maintaining access to a well-run local pharmacy is itself an important component of patient safety.

Finding the Right Regulatory Balance

Nevada’s proposal reflects a legitimate concern confronting Boards of Pharmacy nationally. Pharmacy practice has changed dramatically. Pharmacists are being asked to perform more clinical services while prescription volumes remain substantial and economic pressure throughout the pharmacy marketplace continues to increase. Boards cannot ignore working conditions when those conditions threaten safe pharmacy practice.

At the same time, regulation should leave enough flexibility to recognize differences among pharmacy practice settings, technology, workflow, staffing availability and ownership models.

One possible approach is to place greater emphasis on outcomes and professional judgment alongside numerical staffing benchmarks. Prescription volume can be one indicator of workload without necessarily being the only measure of whether a pharmacy is operating safely.

Nevada’s proposal already incorporates aspects of that philosophy by empowering pharmacists to respond when workload threatens safe practice and by requiring pharmacies to establish procedures for addressing staffing concerns.

As the proposal moves through the regulatory process, the most productive discussion is therefore unlikely to be whether staffing should be regulated at all.

The better question is how Boards can establish meaningful patient-safety protections without creating requirements that unintentionally reduce pharmacy access or disproportionately burden smaller pharmacy operators. That is a conversation worth having—not only in Nevada, but before Pharmacies, Pharmacists, and Boards of Pharmacy throughout the country.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.