After child's drug overdose, Iowa pharmacy is fined $500 for prescription error
An Iowa pharmacy has been fined $500 for committing an error that resulted in a child's drug overdose.
The Iowa Board of Pharmacy recently charged Houck Pharmacy of Mason City with incorrectly compounding a medication resulting in an overdose to a minor patient. The available board records give no indication as to the patient outcome or when the incident occurred.
The board charged Houck Pharmacy with five regulatory violations: dispensing an incorrect medication to a patient; failure to comply with regulations related to compounding nonsterile preparations; failure to include all of the required information in compounding records; failure to maintain a perpetual inventory of Schedule II narcotics; and failure to maintain a controlled substance accountability program.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
To resolve the case, Houck Pharmacy has agreed to pay a $500 civil penalty and have its pharmacy license placed on probation for 12 months.
In a related matter, Hillary Lee Lunning of Mason City was charged by the board with incorrectly compounding a medication resulting in an overdose to a minor patient.
The available board documents give no indication as to where or when the alleged violation occurred, but corporate records indicate Lunning is the president of Houck Drug Co., which operates Houck Pharmacy.
Lunning has agreed to pay a $500 civil penalty and have her license placed on probation for one year.
A central Iowa pharmacist has agreed to refrain from practicing in Iowa.
According to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy, Jeffrey Bates of Indianola has agreed to refrain from practicing any aspect of pharmacy in Iowa in order to 'meet the board's interest in protecting the public.'
The publicly available board documents provide no information as to what led to the agreement but stipulates that Bates is 'unable to practice' due to an administrative regulation that relates to pharmacists 'diverting prescription drugs from a pharmacy for personal use or for distribution.'
Although the board has not disclosed where Bates worked at the time of the alleged regulatory violation, his National Provider Identifier records indicate he has worked at the Hy-Vee pharmacy at 910 N. Jefferson Way in Indianola.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
UK tourist on vacation in Florida charged with trying to drown daughter-in-law in fight at lux resort
An Englishman's getaway across the pond ended with him in a jail cell with an attempted murder charge — after he allegedly tried to drown his daughter-in-law in the pool. Mark Raymond, 62, from Beaconsfield, England, allegedly held his daughter-in-law's head under water at the luxury Solterra Resort near Orlando — as his terrified 9-year-old granddaughter fought to stop him, the Polk County Sheriff's Office said. 'The victim told detectives that she and Gibbon began arguing about his grandchildren,' the office said in a release. Mark Raymond, accused of trying to kill his daughter-in-law at a Florida resort. : Polk County Sheriff's Office Aerial view of Solterra Resort pool and clubhouse. Google Earth Raymond allegedly kept shoving his daughter-in-law's head under the water, 'preventing her from breathing,' the sheriff's office said. The struggle continued even after his 9-year-old granddaughter leaped into the pool to save her mom, according to cops. He finally released his daughter-in-law after two bystanders called the cops, authorities said. Raymond has been charged with two counts of battery and one count of second-degree murder. The alleged crime happened at the Solterra Resort in Davenport, a sprawling luxury getaway that offers private villas — with prices of up to $800 a night. The resort's massive pool has artificial rock features, a water slide, and a lazy river.
Medscape
29-07-2025
- Medscape
Judge: Trump Must Restore Federal Health Websites
The Trump administration has begun restoring health-related websites and datasets that it removed in January in order to comply with an order from a federal judge, who said that agencies such as the CDC unlawfully deleted treatment guidelines and other critical data that impaired doctors' ability to care for patients. Federal agencies report that they now have restored 67 of the 212 webpages that plaintiffs included in their list, according to a court document filed on July 18. Those sites include pages about adolescent and school health, endometriosis, and health disparities among LGBTQ youth. The administration's initial purge of online health information prompted a lawsuit from the medical advocacy group Doctors for America and the city and county of San Francisco, which sought to force the government to restore the information. 'With this ruling, we can provide care for our patients and protect public health based on evidence, rather than ideology,' said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a Doctors for America board member, in a statement. The legal battle began when President Trump issued an anti-transgender executive order on his first day in office. The order denies transgender people government recognition, stating, 'It is the policy of the US to recognize two sexes, male and female.' The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the federal government's human resources agency, told federal agencies to comply with Trump's order. In a memo issued on January 29, the OPM gave agency heads until January 31 to 'take down all outward-facing media' that recognize or reference transgender identities. As part of a temporary restraining order issued in February, Judge John D. Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the federal agencies to restore missing websites on which the plaintiffs relied. Although the agencies said they followed the judge's order, plaintiffs reported that some webpages are still missing. Information Remains Missing Months later, some of the deleted webpages are still blank. A CDC webpage with information about HIV and transgender patients says 'the page you're looking for was not found,' for example. An FDA webpage about health equity in artificial intelligence contains no data. And an FDA webpage with guidance for increasing the number of minorities in clinical trials was found. 'In an order on July 2, Bates vacated the federal health agencies' directives calling for the removal of public information. In an accompanying legal opinion, Bates found that federal agencies did not follow federal law when they stripped medical information from government websites in January. He ordered the plaintiffs to compile a list of websites and datasets that they needed to treat patients by July 11 and for the federal agencies to file an update on their progress restoring the sites. In their legal response, the federal agencies said they will finish restoring the webpages that fall under the judge's order 'as soon as practically possible,' but that the pace of the restoration 'is limited by staffing and other resource constraints, as well as by agency safeguards that require multiple layers of approval in order to modify a website.' But the federal agencies also said they haven't been able to restore some webpages because the plaintiffs haven't given them a specific web link, according to court documents. In other cases, the agencies argue in court filings that certain missing websites are exempt from the judge's order because they were deleted for reasons other than now-vacated orders. In his opinion, Bates wrote that while presidents have the right to issue executive orders, the removal of 'hundreds or even thousands' of webpages and datasets upon which doctors, researchers, and policymakers rely failed to follow a federal law that regulates how agencies act. 'The decision serves as a reminder that the government must follow the law, just like the rest of us,' said Zach Shelley, a Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, in a statement. But in a court document filed in March, the federal agencies defended the purge by saying the health websites and datasets were 'inconsistent with administration policy' both in terms of sex and gender, as well as Trump's executive order barring activities that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. In the document, the agencies wrote, 'Forcing [US Department of Health and Human Services] HHS to host websites with information contrary to current policy would severely impinge the government's authority to choose what to say and not to say.' 'Arbitrary and Capricious' In their lawsuit, several physicians in Doctors for America described how the loss of professional medical guidelines on the CDC website harmed patient care. For example, Stephanie Liou, MD, FAAP, a member of the group's board, said the sudden loss of online resources for treating sexually transmitted infections stymied her efforts to combat an outbreak of chlamydia at 'one of the most underserved high schools in Chicago,' according to court documents. Ramachandran described how the abrupt disappearance of CDC resources delayed her care of a patient with a complex medical history. Without access to the CDC's professional guidelines, Ramachandran had to search elsewhere for specific instructions on prescribing medication to prevent HIV for this patient, according to court documents. In an article in The New England Journal of Medicine , a physician and two legal scholars noted that 13% of CDC datasets disappeared between January 21 and February 11, which left researchers and policymakers unable to assess key measures of American health, identify outbreaks of infectious disease, or spot trends in overdoses. The removals also impaired the ability of state and local agencies to monitor public health. 'Without access to accurate and timely, scientists' work will become more difficult, and we will understand less about the world,' the authors wrote. Bates questioned why government officials acted with such haste in January. Trump's executive order set a timetable of 120 days — not 48 hours — to rid federal websites of references to what the president calls 'gender ideology.' OPM's rushed directives were 'arbitrary and capricious,' Bates wrote in his opinion. 'This case involves government officials acting first and thinking later.' Federal officials didn't need to order the 'bulk removal of health care resources' to comply with the executive order, Bates wrote in the opinion. The judge noted in court documents that some agency officials took a measured approach by simply replacing terms to which Trump objects, such as 'gender' and 'pregnant people,' with alternatives such as 'sex' and 'pregnant women.' Other agency officials, Bates wrote in his opinion, took a 'slapdash approach' by 'fully removing any webpage with offending language, no matter how minimal, without any stated intent to modify and republish the webpage.' 'The government is free to say what it wants, including about 'gender ideology,'' Bates wrote in his opinion. 'But in taking action, it must abide by the bounds of authority and the procedures that Congress has prescribed.' Not the Last Word Bates noted in his opinion that federal agencies can head 'back to the drawing board' to 'craft a lawful policy with similar objectives.' And Janet Freilich, a professor at the Boston University School of Law, Boston, described the court decision as 'a partial win' for doctors and public health staff, noting that federal agencies are likely to appeal the decision. Bates' ruling 'does not entirely prevent these datasets and webpages from being taken down in the future,' Freilich said. 'The government could find a lawful way to modify and take down datasets.' Freilich also noted that the ruling won't necessarily resurrect all the data that have disappeared this year. That's because federal agencies are only obligated to restore the specific webpages on the plaintiffs' list. Yet Bates left the door open to recover additional webpages, Shelley said. For example, other doctors or public health leaders could potentially sue to force the Trump administration to restore webpages that are particularly important to them. 'The reasoning is that all of these removals are unlawful,' Shelley said in an interview. 'This administration has been incredibly careless. It's been, at times, just outright malicious. Carelessness and maliciousness don't hold up well in court.' Although many of the health webpages are back online, they now display a prominent yellow warning label noting that the health agencies were legally required to restore the pages and that their content may not be reliable. In his ruling, Bates wrote that federal agencies do not need to remove the disclaimers, which read, 'Any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female….This page does not reflect biological reality, and therefore the administration and this department reject it.' Critics of the Trump administration have filed more than 300 lawsuits to block his policies, according to Lawfare, a nonprofit multimedia publication. Two Harvard Medical School researchers sued the Trump administration in March after their research was removed from an online patient safety resource on the website of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, part of HHS, because of the agency's attempt to comply with the anti-transgender executive order. One of the deleted articles, which focused on endometriosis, noted that physicians should be aware that the painful condition can occur in transgender and nonbinary patients. Another article noted that people who identify as LGBTQ have a higher risk for suicide. In May, federal judge Leo Sorokin ordered the administration to restore the articles while the case is litigated. In his order, Sorokin wrote that 'the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving that the removal of their articles was a textbook example of viewpoint discrimination by the defendants in violation of the First Amendment.' Although judges in lower courts have put many of Trump's policies on hold, the Supreme Court has reversed several of these decisions. The sudden disappearance of masses of public data has undermined faith in government health agencies, said Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, PhD, LLB, law professor at the University of California, San Francisco. 'If government needs a court decision to provide good science, we cannot trust that it will provide it in cases when people don't sue,' Reiss said.
Newsweek
28-07-2025
- Newsweek
Japan Nuclear Plant Reports Triple Drone Intrusion
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Three suspected drones recently intruded into a nuclear power complex in southwestern Japan, the country's nuclear watchdog said Sunday. Newsweek reached out to Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority by email with a request for comment. Why It Matters Japan strictly prohibits drone flights near nuclear power plants under its 2016 Drone Act, with violations punishable by up to a year in prison or a maximum fine of 500,000 yen or approximately $3,370. Since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster—triggered by a massive earthquake and tsunami—Japan's approach to nuclear energy has shifted dramatically. The government suspended all reactors until 2015, gradually restarting some under stricter safety standards while decommissioning others. What To Know The Nuclear Regulation Authority said that bright objects believed to be drones were spotted Saturday over the four-reactor Genkai nuclear power plant in Saga Prefecture, according to Kyodo News. The statement was more cautious than the organization's earlier remarks on Saturday, when officials reported the objects as definitely being drones, citing reports from plant operator Kyushu Electric Power Co. An official with the nuclear regulator described the incident as "extremely unusual." Local authorities told Kyodo News that no abnormal fluctuations in radiation levels were detected at the complex afterward, and residents were not instructed to evacuate. Police spokesperson Masahiro Kosho told Agence France-Presse (AFP) that the aircraft have not been recovered. The identities and motives of the drone operators remain unknown, he added. Japan is cautiously turning back to nuclear power, with a new law allowing reactors to operate beyond 60 years taking effect in June. Nuclear-generated electricity reached 88.87 terawatt-hours last year—up 9.6 percent from the previous year, according to the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum. That's due to the reactivation of two boiling water reactors: Onagawa-2, operated by Tohoku Electric Power Co., and Shimane-2, run by Chugoku Electric Power Company. Imagery captured by Airbus on July 24, 2024, and provided by Google Earth shows Japan's Genkai Nuclear Power Plant in its southwestern Saga prefecture. Imagery captured by Airbus on July 24, 2024, and provided by Google Earth shows Japan's Genkai Nuclear Power Plant in its southwestern Saga prefecture. Aribus/Google Earth What People Are Saying A spokesperson for the Nuclear Regulation Authority told AFP: "No abnormalities were detected after the incident was reported, and no drones were found inside the plant's perimeter." Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) said at an event in Tokyo in March: "The restart of nuclear power plants is critical. I feel really bad that a country I really love, Japan, has so much idle capacity. I very much hope that soon, not only the Kashiwazaki Kariwa plant, but other nuclear power plants in Japan will come back, in a safe way." What Happens Next? While Genkai's No. 3 and 4 units resumed operation in 2018, units 1 and 2 are in the process of being decommissioned.
