American Society of Health-System Pharmacists

We are in receipt of your letter dated Sunday, April 16, in which you relayed a complaint alleging several issues connected with the pharmacy residency match process (the "Match")Specifically, the Complainant alleged that (a) information provided regarding application due dates was erroneous, (b) application dates are not uniform, (c) applications are due within hours of the dates on which applicants must submit their rankings, and (d) applicants in ust pay to send applications to programs which already possess their applicationsIn addition, the complainant seeks, as the desired settlement, a refund in the amount of $200, reflecting the fee paid for Phase II of the Match.Our records indicate that the complainant registered for the Match on January 2, He paid the fee, which the published Terms of Agreement explicitly provides is non-refundableThe confirmation email the complainant received on January 3, explicitly states that applicants must apply to programs in accordance with the deadline dates established by each respective program (i.e., ASHP does not in any way control the deadline dates)In addition, the application timelines are published online at https://www.natmatch.com/ashprimp/aboutdates.htmlThe Match is conducted in two phasesIf applicants fail to match with a program in Phase I, they may apply in Phase IIThe complainant submitted a rank order list containing one rank in Phase of the Match and failed to match with the program in questionOn March 27, applicants and programs were able to submit rank order lists for Phase II of the MatchApril 4, was the last date on which applicants could register for Phase ll of the MatchThe Complainant apparently waited until April 4, to submit a rank order list containing six ranks in Phase ll of the Match, and did not match with any of the programs in question.As is evident from a review of the foregoing, ASHP neither provided misinformation about the application process nor did it fail in any way to conduct the application process in other than a fair and orderly manner and in accordance with its published information and termsNotwithstanding these facts, and despite the fact that the complainant is accordingly clearly not owed a refund, ASHP has ordered that the requested refund in the amount of $be issued to the complainantAccordingly, we trust that this matter will be deemed immediately closed.Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding this matter.Sincerely, Paula *T [redacted] General Counsel, Vice President & Chief Compliance OfficerAmerican Society of Health-Systern Pharmacists East-West Highway, Suite 900, Bethesda, MD 20814- [redacted] www.ashp.org

April 20, 2017Dear *** *** ***:We are in receipt of your letter dated Sunday, April 16, in which you relayed a complaint alleging several issues connected with the pharmacy residency match process (the "Match")Specifically, the complainant alleged that (a) information provided regarding application due dates was erroneous, (b) application dates are not uniform, (c) applications are due within hours of the dates on which applicants rust submit their rankings, and (d) applicants in must pay to send applications to programs which already possess their applicationsIn addition, the complainant seeks, as the desired settlement, a refund in the amount of $200, reflecting the fee paid for Phase II of the Match,Our records indicate that the complainant registered for the Match on January 2, He paid the fee, which the published Terms of Agreement explicitly provides is non-refundableThe confirmation email the complainant received on January 3, explicitly states that applicants must apply to programs in accordance with the deadline dates established by each respective program (i.e., ASHP does not in any way control the deadline dates)In addition, the application timelines are published online at https://www.natmatch.com/ashprimp/aboutdates.htmlThe Match is conducted in two phasesIf applicants fail to match with a program in Phase I, they may apply in Phase IIThe complainant submitted a rank order list containing one rank in Phase of the Match and failed to match with the program in questionOn March 27, applicants and programs were able to submit rank order lists for Phase II of the MatchApril 4, was the last date on which applicants could register for Phase ll of the MatchThe Complainant apparently waited until April 4, to submit a rank order list containing six ranks in Phase ll of the Match, and did not match with any of the programs in question.As is evident from a review of the foregoing, ASHP neither provided misinformation about the application process nor did it fail in any way to conduct the application process in other than a fair and orderly manner and in accordance with its published information and termsNotwithstanding these facts, and despite the fact that the complainant is accordingly clearly not owed a refund, ASHP has ordered that the requested refund in the amount of be issued to the complainantAccordingly, we trust that this matter will be deemed immediately closed.Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding this matter.Sincerely,Paula TGeneral Counsel, Vice President & Chief Compliance Officer

We are in receipt of your letter dated Sunday, April 16, 2017 in which you relayed a complaint alleging several issues connected with the pharmacy residency match process (the "Match"). Specifically, the Complainant alleged that (a) information provided regarding application due dates was erroneous,...

(b) application dates are not uniform, (c) applications are due within 24 hours of the dates on which applicants must submit their rankings, and (d) applicants in ust pay to send applications to programs which already possess their applications. In addition, the complainant seeks, as the desired settlement, a refund in the amount of $200, reflecting the fee paid for Phase II of the Match.Our records indicate that the complainant registered for the Match on January 2, 2017. He paid the fee, which the published Terms of Agreement explicitly provides is non-refundable. The confirmation email the complainant received on January 3, 2017 explicitly states that applicants must apply to programs in accordance with the deadline dates established by each respective program (i.e., ASHP does not in any way control the deadline dates). In addition, the application timelines are published online at https://www.natmatch.com/ashprimp/aboutdates.html. The Match is conducted in two phases. If applicants fail to match with a program in Phase I, they may apply in Phase II. The complainant submitted a rank order list containing one rank in Phase of the Match and failed to match with the program in question. On March 27, 2017 applicants and programs were able to submit rank order lists for Phase II of the Match. April 4, 2017 was the last date on which applicants could register for Phase ll of the Match. The Complainant apparently waited until April 4, 2017 to submit a rank order list containing six ranks in Phase ll of the Match, and did not match with any of the programs in question.As is evident from a review of the foregoing, ASHP neither provided misinformation about the application process nor did it fail in any way to conduct the application process in other than a fair and orderly manner and in accordance with its published information and terms. Notwithstanding these facts, and despite the fact that the complainant is accordingly clearly not owed a refund, ASHP has ordered that the requested refund in the amount of $200 be issued to the complainant. Accordingly, we trust that this matter will be deemed immediately closed.Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding this matter.Sincerely, Paula *. T[redacted] General Counsel, Vice President & Chief Compliance OfficerAmerican Society of Health-Systern Pharmacists 4500 East-West Highway, Suite 900, Bethesda, MD 20814-[redacted]. www.ashp.org