The Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Exam (MPJE): To RIP or not to RIP

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this narrative review are [1] to discuss the utility of the Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination (MPJE) as licensure requirements and contrast advantages and disadvantages of its elimination; [2] to analyze the impact of alternative solutions to MPJE already implemented in different states. FINDINGS: The current utility of MPJE has been questioned by a variety of stakeholders. Currently, several states have either removed the law exam or adopted an alternative assessment to evaluate pharmacy law and regulation competencies. Proponents for removal of MPJE highlight the need for reducing barriers to licensure, challenge the utility of one single exam as measurement of life-long competency, and highlight the lack of evidence to demonstrate that a single exam preserves patient safety. Advocates for keeping the MPJE exam propose modifications of the current exam format and express their concern of eroding public trust with the removal of the exam. SUMMARY: This paper provides a comprehensive, multi-faceted analysis of the ongoing national debate surrounding the MPJE as a pharmacist licensure requirement, synthesizing perspectives from major stakeholder organizations and state-level policy changes. It advances the literature by proposing four concrete, evidence-based recommendations- reforming the MPJE, exploring alternative ongoing competency models, examining the outcomes in states with different assessment methods, and reducing licensure barriers- that offer suggestions for guiding future policy decisions.