Why don't pharmacists have provider status yet??

Pharmacists are not currently recognized as providers, and have faced major challenges in attaining provider status. Though most people associate provider status with prescribing, lacking this designation at a federal level means that practicing pharmacists cannot be reimbursed by Medicare for services that they already provide, such as point-of-care screening. There are some settings where pharmacists can provide services that a mid-level practitioner can provide (NP, PA, etc.), but this is determined by state. In some states, community pharmacists have the ability to provide based on a point-of-care screening results; for example, Colorado allows statin prescribing in the community setting. Other states allow pharmacists to prescribe under collaborative practice agreements, though the terms are often more stringent than one an NP or PA might sign. Despite these, the proper recognition and reimbursement is sorely lacking. 

Though most major pharmaceutical organizations, including the APhA, are advocates for pharmacist provider status, this movement has received a significant amount of pushback from other stakeholders. Large retail pharmacies and the AMA are among those that are against provider status. Corporations such as CVS are concerned about the cost of malpractice insurance for their pharmacists. The AMA is constantly coming out with articles about "scope creep", arguing that granting provider status to pharmacists would infringe on physicians' scope of practice, and that pharmacists lack appropriate training and qualifications. 

While these concerns are valid, to some extent, the climate of pharmacy practice is becoming increasingly favorable for the push to provider status. For example, it's becoming less of a recommendation and more of a requirement that practicing pharmacists pursue residency following a 4-year professional education - which would be the same amount of training that a physician would receive. Certainly, as the AMA says, boundaries would need to be drawn for a pharmacist's roles and responsibilities, but our curriculum emphasizes how pharmacists are not meant to diagnose conditions. Despite these, the AMA argues that even pharmacist prescribing in response to point-of-care rapid strep testing is trespassing into the grounds of their practice. On the other hand, have we not repeatedly seen how poorly large retail chains treat their pharmacists, with their eyes fixed on vertical integration and maximizing profit? 

The potential benefits of pharmacist provider status, in my opinion, far outweigh the counterpoints that the opposition raises. The AMA's stance is perplexing, as pharmacists could easily shoulder the burden of the inadequate supply of (and access to!) primary care physicians. "Deserts" where hospital and clinic access is limited could be remedied by pharmacists. As for malpractice insurance, pharmacists already bear a significant portion of the responsibility for inappropriately prescribed medications - if a community pharmacist fails to recognize a prescriber's mistake, the onus also falls on that pharmacist if the medication is dispensed. 

During the emergent need for COVID vaccination, we've seen firsthand how crucial of a role pharmacies can play in equitable access. It's past time we took this opportunity to increase access to care, get properly reimbursed for things we already do, and improve overall health outcomes. 

https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/supporting-provider-status-for-pharmacists