Physician assistants are adequately trained in advanced pharmacology to be able to prescribe medications for patients without need of their supervising physician's name on the prescription.  Their supervising practice protocols with their physicians adequately outline the scope of their prescription practices.  Requiring that the supervising physician be attached to all prescriptions creates redundant and inefficient workflows that ultimately leads to delays in care for patients. 

The requirement for prescriptions for controlled substances written by physician assistants to include the name of the supervising physician is increasingly outdated and creates unnecessary administrative complexity without improving patient safety. Each PA already has a unique DEA registration number and National Provider Identifier (NPI), which clearly identifies the prescribing clinician and provides full traceability and accountability. Including the care team physician’s name therefore adds redundancy rather than meaningful oversight. Requiring the physician’s name on the prescription can cause confusion at pharmacies, delay medication dispensing, and create avoidable administrative burdens for both providers and pharmacists. Removing the supervising physician name requirement would align Virginia with modern team-based care models and with practices adopted in many other states. PAs in Virginia would continue to practice under collaborative agreements and remain subject to all applicable prescribing laws, DEA regulations, and state oversight. Overall, removing this requirement would streamline clinical workflows, reduce confusion at pharmacies, and better reflect the modern role of PAs in delivering safe, high-quality patient care.

The requirement for Physician Associate/Assistant to have supervising MD/practice included on each Shedule II-V medication prescription is outdated, and only serves to slow down care to patients. 

PAs carry their own DEA number, and engage in a collaborative relationship with their SP/practice, and prescriptive rights are well-defined. 

As such, there is no need for this information to be required. Many EMRs used to submit these prescriptions don't include an easy way to do this (as they serve multiple states where this information isn't required), or require extra steps, slowing down workflow. There is no added safety with this requirement, as the requested info is readily available anyway.

This would be a big step forward in modernizing PA practice in Virginia, and increasing access for patients affected

Let’s remove this stumbling block.  
PAs have their own DEA number and with the SP agreement continuing to require this is duplicitous. Let’s do better by our patients. 

The Virginia Osteopathic Medical Association (VOMA) respectfully opposes the proposed removal of the requirement that the supervising or collaborating physician’s or podiatrist’s name appear on prescriptions issued by physician assistants for Schedule II–V medications.

This requirement serves as an important safeguard that reinforces the physician-led, team-based model of care and ensures transparency in prescribing practices—particularly for controlled substances. Removing the physician’s name from these prescriptions risks blurring the distinction between physician and non-physician prescribing, which may lead to confusion for patients, pharmacists, and regulators.

Moreover, physicians remain ultimately responsible and legally liable for the care delivered under their supervision. Eliminating this requirement creates a misalignment between accountability and visibility, whereby physicians retain liability without clear identification on the prescription itself.

At a time when the Commonwealth continues to address concerns related to controlled substance prescribing and patient safety, maintaining clear lines of authority and accountability is essential. Preserving the inclusion of the supervising physician’s name supports patient safety, reinforces appropriate oversight, and upholds the integrity of the physician-led care model.

For these reasons, VOMA strongly urges that this requirement remain in place.