Therapy Management Weekly · 2026-W38
Where the collaborating physician has to stand: four states, two answers
This week's issue turns on physician proximity inside a collaborative drug therapy management agreement. Louisiana and New York write on-site presence into the arrangement; Indiana and Texas accept a physician who is reachable from elsewhere.
Strictest and loosest: where the physician must be, for pharmacists
2 jurisdictions codify a physical-presence or radius rule; 2 accept remote availability or set no rule.
Louisiana: on-site presence required
Louisiana is on the strict end of the proximity question: the collaborating physician's presence is tied to the site where the pharmacist manages therapy. A pharmacist practicing under an agreement here plans coverage around that physical requirement, not around phone or video reachability.
New York: on-site presence required
New York likewise codifies physical presence rather than availability, so the physician's location is a condition of the pharmacist's therapy-management activity. Remote consultation does not substitute for it.
Indiana: available remotely
Indiana accepts a collaborating physician who is available remotely, which means the pharmacist may manage therapy under the agreement without the physician on the premises. The obligation is reachability, not co-location.
Texas: available remotely
Texas sits with Indiana on the loose end: remote availability of the collaborating physician satisfies the arrangement. For a pharmacist covering multiple sites, that is the difference between one physician supporting several practice locations and one physician per location.
Every outside claim carries the source it was read from this week. Our own research dates are on each state page. Published 2026-09-14.