WASHINGTON — Calling Medicare's accreditation requirement "unnecessary and unfair," Reps. Marion Berry, D-Ark., and Jerry Moran, R-Kan., introduced a bill on Wednesday that would exempt pharmacists.

The bill comes just days before CMS' advised Jan. 31 accreditation sign-up deadline. Applying by that date, the agency has said, will ensure providers get through the process in time to meet the agency's mandatory Sept. 30 deadline, by which all DMEPOS providers must be accredited in order to bill Medicare.

CMS has exempted some "eligible professionals," including physicians, from the requirement. In addition, "other persons," including orthotists, prosthetists, opticians and audiologists, are also exempt. The proposed legislation would add pharmacists to the list.

In announcing the bill (H.R. 616), Berry pointed out that community pharmacists "are the only licensed medical professionals that must meet new CMS accreditation requirements as suppliers of DMEPOS."

"In rural areas … community pharmacists are often the only medical professionals available who can supply this vital equipment to patients," he said. "The current law threatens the ability of patients to get the supplies and care they must have to stay healthy. This bill will ensure Medicare patients have access to the supplies they need while also helping community pharmacies keep their doors open."

Pharmacy groups, including the American Pharmacists Association, Food Marketing Institute, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, National Community Pharmacists Association and the National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations, applauded the bill.

"Not only are there significant costs associated with the accreditation process that can create huge financial barriers for pharmacies and pharmacists that are already state-licensed, more importantly, the process poses a threat to patients' access to DME supplies and counseling from their pharmacist," according to a release from the groups.

But accreditation stakeholders were not as enthusiastic about the bill.

"It's mixed good and bad from this perspective," said Carmen Catizone, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy in Mount Prospect, Ill., which accredits pharmacies. "We didn't really believe this rule was needed for pharmacists or pharmacies to begin with. We thought it was a bit of overkill because they are already licensed.

"Now that we are accrediting," he continued, "we have seen some benefits from accreditation, and we have been able to detect a bit of fraud that wouldn't have been detected if accreditation hadn't been in place."

He said while some independent pharmacies have complained that the accreditation price tag is too high, others have said the process has helped them do business better. Indeed, he said, accreditation — and NABP has accredited about 10,000 pharmacies, "every major chain except Wal-mart," Catizone said — has helped raise pharmacies to higher standards.

"Hopefully, the right thing to do is to keep accreditation in place and if it is not working, then get rid of it in a few years," he said.

Sandra Canally, president of accrediting body The Compliance Team, Spring House, Pa., said she does not support exempting pharmacies — or anyone else.

"To exempt these folks is not a good decision," said Canally, noting her company has already accredited hundreds of pharmacies. "The whole point of the Medicare Modernization Act [which mandated accreditation] was not only to prevent fraud and abuse but to elevate standards of care. How can you raise standards of care when one provider can get away from any standards and the other is held accountable to the nth degree?"