Drug Therapy Systems Company

Sorry for having to inconvenience a customer and Revdex.com.We are a licensed healthcare facility and we are afraid of the bug MRSA- Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus that is recently making people very sickFinger cots may be easily contaminated and the customer had the item for a few days without mention to our facility she was dissatisfiedThe patient's finger was still wrapped in gauze could easily have contaminated the cots also.We hope you find we had good reason to not allow the finger cots to be returned

I am partially rejecting this response because:I went to the pharmacy today and was issued a refund for my purchaseI have found a sign posted stating the pharmacy return policyThe pharmacy has many signs, several of them at the entrance about the use of cellular phones on premises, and other very visible signs in and outside the pharmacyThe sign about their return policy is displayed on the side wall near the door, and not easily noticeable, due to its location away from the counter Some customers who have already paid and are on their way out may or may not notice the signI understand that the management of the pharmacy wants to strictly enforce the rules related to the health and safetyIt would be even better if in addition to the safety and financial benefits of the pharmacy the management would also pay attention to financial interests of their customers who should know the pharmacy's no return policy before they payI request that the manager will keep her promise and post a "conspicuous sign" stating the pharmacy's return policy near the counter

I am rejecting this response because: It is hard to accept the pharmacy’s explanations based on their concern of spread of MRSAAlong with other items the box of finger covers waslocated in the open access area and anyone who was interested could touch the box with their “fingers wrapped in gauze” or without gauzeFollowing pharmacy’s safety concerns in the conditions of open access, the pharmacy would have equally “good reason not to allow” the finger covers to be sold to their customers in the first place!In my complaint I did not discuss the pharmacy rules or their reasonsI complained that there was no sign in the pharmacy alerting customers about their policy of no returns, and that the clerk never mentioned that I would not be able to return the box once purchased, despite the fact that she clearly saw my hesitationSince all other pharmacies I know allow customers to return items purchased over the counter, Chico pharmacy practices of not allowing returns and not informing clients about their rule seem deceptive to the customers.I request that a refund of $for the box of finger covers be issued to me, and that the pharmacy post a clear sign indicating their policy of no returns

In regards to complaint ID# *** we have reviewed the comments by the customer, and have concluded that we will accept the return, and issue the refund We will post a more a conspicuous sign stating our return policyNot all items are non-returnable, but some are designated as such for patient safetyItems such as the cots, which come in a non-sealed package are not accepted for return due to the fact that once they have left our control, (as with prescriptions, [by order of CA Board of pharmacy]) we cannot guarantee that the item is still in saleable condition (the package may have been opened, or the item exposed to temperature extremes) for the next person who might want to buy itPatient health and safety are primary concerns, and most people are more comfortable knowing that we are not reselling items such as this that have left the store and been returned.Please let Ms *** know that she may return the item for refund, and we will dispose of it.Sincerely,Chico Pharmacy

I am rejecting this response because: It is hard to accept the pharmacy’s explanations based on their concern of spread of MRSA. Along with other items the box of finger covers waslocated in the open access area and anyone who was interested could touch the box with their “fingers … wrapped in gauze” or without gauze. Following pharmacy’s safety concerns in the conditions of open access, the pharmacy would have equally “good reason not to allow” the finger covers to be sold to their customers in the first place!In my complaint I did not discuss the pharmacy rules or their reasons. I complained that there was no sign in the pharmacy alerting customers about their policy of no returns, and that the clerk never mentioned that I would not be able to return the box once purchased, despite the fact that she clearly saw my hesitation. Since all other pharmacies I know allow customers to return items purchased over the counter, Chico pharmacy practices of not allowing returns and not informing clients about their rule seem deceptive to the customers.I request that a refund of $6.33 for the box of finger covers be issued to me, and that the pharmacy post a clear sign indicating their policy of no returns.

Sorry for having to inconvenience a customer and Revdex.com.We are a licensed healthcare facility and we are afraid of the bug MRSA- Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus that is recently making people very sick. Finger cots may be easily contaminated and the customer had the item for a few days...

without mention to our facility she was dissatisfied. The patient's finger was still wrapped in gauze could easily have contaminated the cots also.We hope you find we had good reason to not allow the finger cots to be returned.

On October 28, 2015 a new prescription was written by the patient’s doctor. The medication is not covered by the patient’s insurance. We requested the doctor do a Prior Authorization. The prescription was filled on October 30, 2015. Our normal policy is to wait for the Prior Authorization before...

filling. On rare occasions, we allowed someone to purchase the medication and if the Prior Authorization came through, we would refund when the patient brought in the receipt.In this case, when the doctor requested the Prior Authorization, he did not ask for it to be retroactive to October 30. The Prior Authorization is approved, but not effective until November 16, 2015 and good until November 15, 2016. We asked the insurance to retroactive the date to October 30, they wouldn’t. we asked the doctor to request the authorization be retroactive to October 30. As of this date, the Authorization still is effective November 16.We can’t refund the prescription price since we can’t bill her insurance. If she can convince her insurance to change the effective date to October 30 so that we can bill her insurance, we will be willing to refund what she paid, if she brings in the receipt.Thank you for your attention to this matter.Sincerely,[redacted]

I am partially rejecting this response because:I went to the pharmacy today and was issued a refund for my purchase. I have found a sign posted stating the pharmacy return policy. The pharmacy has many signs, several of them at the entrance about the use of cellular phones on premises, and other very visible signs in and outside the pharmacy. The sign about their return policy is displayed on the side wall near the door, and not easily noticeable, due to its location away from the counter.  Some customers who have already paid and are on their way out may or may not notice the sign. I understand that the management of the pharmacy wants to strictly enforce the rules related to the health and safety. It would be even better if in addition to the safety and financial benefits of the pharmacy the management would also pay attention to financial interests of their customers who should know the pharmacy's no return policy before they pay. I request that the manager will keep her promise and post a "conspicuous sign" stating the pharmacy's return policy near the counter.