The ongoing controversy over ivermectin continues. In Alabama, a retired Marine Corps veteran Dale Pufahi’s 87-year-old father in law had been diagnosed with Covid-19 and all other treatments had failed. A doctor prescribed ivermectin for the ailing octogenarian but when Pufahi went to the pharmacy to pick up the medication the pharmacist asked Dale why his father-in-law needed the drug. Pufahi said it was because his father-in-law had COVID-19. The pharmacist, Deborah Collette, then refused to fill the prescription saying the medication was no longer in stock. Dale reminded Collette that they had spoken about an hour prior and that she confirmed that they in fact did have ivermectin at this Kroger pharmacy. Finally, the pharmacist admitted the drug was in stock but still refused to fill the prescription. When Dale asked why, the response was because the pharmacist’s mother had a bad reaction to ivermectin. But did this pharmacist have the right to withhold the prescription due to her own personal experience with this drug? After several attempts and refusals by the druggist, Pufahi left and a few days later found another pharmacy to fill the prescription. But during the time it took to finally secure the prescription filled, Dale’s father-in-law’s condition worsened and has now deceased.
Because of the frustration of the incident, Pufahi wrote a letter to the Alabama Board of Pharmacy and filed a complaint which triggered an investigation. The board response letter, authored by the Director of Compliance Cristal Anderson, Pharm D, declared there were “no regulatory violations that could be determined during the course of the investigation”. The board also said they appreciated Pufahi’s position but had to adhere to Alabama law. Yet the letter, included herein as an attachment, failed to disclose the true matter according to Mr. Pufahi. They completely ignored the facts upsetting Mr. Pufahi who approached the TrialSite. Why would the Director of Compliance completely ignore the nature of the complaint in her investigation? Did Pufahi, a U.S. armed services veteran not deserve an honest and straightforward response?
The American Pharmacist’s Association (APhA) maintains “pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill medications—especially ivermectin-containing products—if they believe that it is not being used for a legitimate medical purpose, even if the dosing is appropriate for another FDA-approved indication.” The pharmacist’s association also warns against “misinformation”.
Dale Pufahi’s case is not unusual. At one time earlier in the pandemic, physician-prescribed ivermectin was easy to find in pharmacies and many front-line physicians are certain that this has saved thousands of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. But since prescriptions for the drug skyrocketed with a growing awareness that the generally low-cost antiparasitic drug may help treat COVID-19, the drug has suddenly become “unavailable” in many pharmacies. Apparently, pressure has come from the Biden administration, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and at least certain players in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) not to fill prescriptions for the medication. In fact, TrialSite reported in “Feds Coming After Doctors & Pharmacies that Market Ivermectin as Effective & Safe for COVID-19” that the federal government was warning national pharmacy and physician board associations to pressure members not to prescribe or fill ivermectin prescriptions.
This was on the basis that the FDA only recommends the drug for clinical trials. But what about a physician’s right to prescribe an approved drug off-label? Apparently, those rights have been usurped by the federal government during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now pharmacies merely claim the drug is not “approved.” TrialSite conducted a pharmacy survey back in October revealing access to the therapy was severely diminished.
TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor reports that “We now have multiple examples of evidence where even when doctors are prescribing ivermectin for bad cases of scabies they are rejected by insurance companies who are monitoring for ivermectin use.”
Several state legislatures have moved forward with bills to allow ivermectin to be prescribed as treatment for COVID-19. In one case, in Kansas, a state senator proposing the change in the law is a doctor who prescribed the controversial drug for a patient. There is a paradox here. In many cases when the prescription for ivermectin is filled it’s paid for by a health insurance company. A recent study by the University of Michigan found insurance companies had paid at least $130 million in ivermectin prescriptions as reported by TrialSite.
Despite government and pharmacists’ objections to ivermectin, the so-called “horse de-wormer” is still being prescribed and the controversy over the drug continues.
In the meantime, Mr. Pufahi is both furious and saddened at the same time, telling TrialSite’s Daniel O’Connor “It’s time to vote politicians out that don’t have the patient’s interests in mind.” Pufahi shared with TrialSite he has never seen anything like this in America—it’s like an evil cloud has blown over the country, he suggested. Pufahi was prescribed an approved drug by a licensed physician, yet because of a confluence of political, economic, and healthcare agendas, the Kroger pharmacist, undoubtedly under pressure from above, rejected his legitimate prescription. The Alabama Board of Pharmacy could have at least dealt with Pufahi in a straightforward manner, addressing his real complaint. Rather they completely bypassed his grievance.