Collaborative Practice Agreement for Pharmacists in Indiana

pharmacist practicing outside a hospital: Available remotely (no on-site requirement)

IC 25-26-16-4.5(b) defines 'direct supervision' as the supervising physician, qualifying APRN, or PA with delegated prescriptive authority being 'readily available to consult with the pharmacist while the protocol services are being provided.' Coded TELECOMMUNICATION: it is a live-availability standard, not a physical-presence or mileage one. Note it binds DURING the service, which is tighter than a general on-call obligation.

pharmacist practicing in a hospital: Available remotely (no on-site requirement)

IC 25-26-16-4 applies instead: the pharmacist is 'supervised by a physician as required under the protocols of the facility.' The statute sets no proximity standard of its own — the facility's protocol does. Coded TELECOMMUNICATION as the closest available value; treat it as 'not codified at the state level' rather than as an affirmative finding that remote availability suffices.

Annually

IC 25-26-16-7: a protocol developed under the chapter 'must be reviewed at least annually.' A protocol-review cadence, not a chart-review quota — Indiana codifies no percentage for pharmacists. IC 25-26-16-6 adds a real administrative friction point: except for adding or deleting authorized practitioners and pharmacists, ANY modification to a written protocol 'requires the initiation of a new protocol' rather than an amendment. IC 25-26-16-8 separately requires documentation showing 'adequate, consistent, and regular communication' with the authorizing practitioner, and immediate entry of any regimen change in the patient's medical record — but sets no frequency for either.

Covered by the practice agreement · no controlled-substance authority

IC 25-26-16 is silent on controlled substances and DEA scheduling entirely — this is genuine statutory silence, not merely an unresolved search. Coded False as an INFERENCE from the 'physician-first' structure, the same reading applied to Texas's pharmacist entry; flagged as an inference rather than an explicit statutory prohibition. SEPARATE AND UNVERIFIED: Indiana pharmacists also hold narrow independent authority outside IC 25-26-16 — immunizations under a standing order, prescription, or protocol (IC 25-26-13-31.2), and reportedly self-administered hormonal contraceptives, which an April 2026 Board of Pharmacy final rule (856 IAC, LSA #25-798) is said to have moved from a health-commissioner standing order to a statewide protocol with the pharmacist as prescriber of record. The IARP register page for that rule returned an empty SPA shell; the description is secondary-sourced only and is NOT relied on for any coded rule here.

Non-licensee ownership permitted — Indiana does not require pharmacist ownership of a pharmacy. Every pharmacy permit application must name a qualifying pharmacist who is in full responsible charge of the pharmacy's legal operation (IC 25-26-13-17 area; 856 IAC 1-7-4), but the ownership of the business itself is not licensee-restricted — the qualifying-pharmacist safeguard, not equity, is the control mechanism. Materially more permissive than the medical/APRN entity rules above. SECONDARY-SOURCED: this ownership point was confirmed via Board of Pharmacy guidance summaries rather than by reading IC 25-26-13-17's full current text.

Pharmacists are absent from IC 25-22.5-1-2(a)(22)'s health-care-organization ownership list, but that list governs exclusion from the MEDICAL Practice Act and is not the operative rule for pharmacy ownership.