[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6566887,"mediaKeyId","3201182-91ce86c3276d237de202dd7ebaa31840","parentId",3201182,"title","Board sends proposed changes on 'common ownership' definitions back for redrafting after industry concerns","audioSeconds",1247,"startMs",3249000,"endMs",4496000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3201182-91ce86c3276d237de202dd7ebaa31840&start=3249&end=4496","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3201182-91ce86c3276d237de202dd7ebaa31840/thumbnail_3249000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6566887/Texas/Board-sends-proposed-changes-on-common-ownership-definitions-back-for-redrafting-after-industry-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566887-28ffffd0c2ded8e34807bdd9f5109cc4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770958940&Signature=RVXAizDskOdpWTcKYJn70TR0EWawrfxSnY5bW~TyRKmvQcdKa7DX0rl3QCQqse2dmOEyPK3ee0esQeuTNg5IKcrC0zKtCIGx-3UkjscOeiGjZSlE0xbpaeYKcr0rG5To722nRoVW5nH7lbcJgBrRNX9ilvoHOuFe77uBTRTNpwwE7gmbpQcapw4cFoTwk-ErI2enO7kGxG~SHCCKC6tm7mMqmr9D4NNX8khIX~0GgsLrII2Yf28YfdWuKQGcSDnp2w4jR9cjBw8udN~BtWzTf~dxfYmbJRaKubfOYtvBQz4-hIKWUZuH7LpAgnKLCMXcdkcU2rGs6npm56SbG-fYKw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Texas State Board of Pharmacy","date","2025-05-07T04:22:01Z","article","The Texas State Board of Pharmacy directed staff to return a proposed amendment that would define \"common ownership\" among pharmacies to the proposed stage for redrafting after hearing concerns from major health systems and chain pharmacy representatives.

John Griffith presented proposed definitions that would define \"common ownership\" as \"two or more pharmacies with an identical owner of record with the board\" and define \"owner of record\" as the direct owner listed on a pharmacy's license application. Several commenters raised the concern that this narrower definition could impose burdens by forcing pharmacies to list a corporate parent or otherwise create discrepancies between a pharmacy's board license application and other public filings (Secretary of State, Comptroller, IRS).

Janae (Janu) Philip, director of pharmacy affairs for Walgreens, told the board that the narrower drafting could create unintended burdens where ownership exists at different corporate levels and suggested clarifying language to include ownership by a legal parent, subsidiary or affiliate. She said the change should not create additional training or notification burdens for licensees that routinely operate under larger corporate structures. Texas Health Resources also submitted written concerns about the effect on hospital systems. The board instructed staff to revisit the language and return the rule to the proposed stage with alternative wording that captures parent/subsidiary/affiliate relationships without increasing licensee burdens.

Board staff were asked to consult the business code and other drafting conventions to find language that accomplishes the board’s intent while minimizing regulatory disruption; the item will be re‑proposed for public comment after staff redraft.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BOARD MEETING | May 6th, 2025 | Morning Session","oneSentenceSummary","The Texas State Board of Pharmacy sent a proposed rule defining \"common ownership\" of pharmacies back to staff for redrafting after stakeholders warned the wording could force inconsistent corporate filings and unintended compliance burdens.","taxTitle","Texas State Board of Pharmacy, Boards & Commissions, Executive, Texas","taxId",36447,"location","Texas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6566892,"Board proposes end to notarized controlled‑substance inventories, removes three‑day notarization requirement",352,5915000,6267000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3201182-91ce86c3276d237de202dd7ebaa31840&start=5915&end=6267","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3201182-91ce86c3276d237de202dd7ebaa31840/thumbnail_5915000.jpg","/articles/6566892/Texas/Board-proposes-end-to-notarized-controlledsubstance-inventories-removes-threeday-notarization-requirement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566892-fc97e479ab076fe0392ccfb318ed5638/orig.mp4?Expires=1770958940&Signature=cW2HJ-ZndAlv9PSpm6A-6rcEmhetXAuZvCTxEPs77heP8DiYou6bABe2B8s6DRB8rSqZa1uY5xjm5Wn-1O6gpMIfMic2wnDX23xVSkhGFcz24C-jtH2ltNXDP7ilN~tA9utYDmLa8RP2DqKpvX3Jqm03s7D3PQjqJRdjcWFsNVbM3gRvlIQGC99B8Z~RrvgAPC23-s1dZD7xb1L8xKoMWnnD2XF1jxaSXFPUV22KYwvq5BHfTEzNzCExgjUBPaKOWlGVoDGuuLwOc1wHE7trT2ivMrZ1wMcJNHhQRrHl4KAMSAm4IrVQJQUH4MV8foNweMxKF5ouGvq5Z8-S-D7xMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Texas State Board of Pharmacy voted to propose an amendment to inventory requirements that removes the requirement that the pharmacist‑in‑charge signature be notarized within three days after the inventory is completed.

John Griffith explained that the change removes a notarization requirement and that the amendment had been noted in the governor's March 2025 Small Business Freedom Council report. The existing rule already requires the persons taking the inventory and the pharmacist in charge to indicate the time and sign and date the inventory; the proposed change would simply eliminate the separate notarization step.

Board members noted the staff had discussed a possible cosigner requirement when the PIC is not available, and the existing rule already includes signatory requirements for those performing the inventory. Randy Martin moved to propose the change; Donnie Lewis seconded the motion. The board voted in favor; one member voted in opposition and the proposal advanced to the public‑comment stage.

The change, if adopted after notice and comment, will reduce an administrative notarization burden on licensees; staff said the board would return the draft to a future meeting after the public‑comment period.","The board proposed amending inventory rules to eliminate the requirement that a pharmacist in charge have their inventory signature notarized within three days; the change was presented as business‑friendly and was approved for proposal.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6566898,"Board approves lower supervision rule for central‑fill pharmacies, exempts non‑patient facing sites from technician ratio limits",278,2972000,3250000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3201182-91ce86c3276d237de202dd7ebaa31840&start=2972&end=3250","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3201182-91ce86c3276d237de202dd7ebaa31840/thumbnail_2972000.jpg","/articles/6566898/Texas/Board-approves-lower-supervision-rule-for-centralfill-pharmacies-exempts-nonpatient-facing-sites-from-technician-ratio-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566898-e814c8ae1202a184612ce9aa98dec164/orig.mp4?Expires=1770958940&Signature=HMFV0UJZYp9SfcOp62vmOJHBoUl6ChdDxm~ZSAml1ZdfJWlOJGxwGMzfshKs-ZdrTzGzWntwjYVIdQXph8qhEKJzsEFyTpvDDHPFsBJwrJ2dBh7kFDv5Z2ws5peHPmklHYtalUpb3-2hKNDbFi~2JGq08YOTo6ZoBdRzBCcI9M3kef48xHK~9l0i9VOvTzkeou02dNC2eFQAzyuuLUTsC9TuyWV1Np1z177oq~NaYTbI21aOl3QXBFhP6GkyX0Lmu-YkPNl00HjUH8Lo7udLjUOnJ~-MuEdcW~KrPM1ZT-PH~WQdtdGgaQIb2QtwgxOB--Pep7nL0OJsQ-lGtUDrOg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Texas State Board of Pharmacy adopted amendments to the community pharmacy personnel rule that exempt a central‑fill pharmacy (a central prescription dispenser with no patient‑facing contact) from the on‑site pharmacist‑to‑pharmacy‑technician ratio in certain circumstances.

John Griffith, staff presenter, told the board the change clarifies that the ratio limits in the rule do not apply to a central‑fill pharmacy that does not have patient‑facing activities. Support for the amendment came from the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and representatives of large pharmacy chains.

Janu Philip, director of pharmacy affairs for Walgreens, told the board that central‑fill pharmacies rely on automation and have minimal need for pharmacist oversight for non‑patient‑facing tasks and said, \"The board has has amply, I think, discussed this, and and we fully support the rule amendments as is.\" After brief discussion the board voted to adopt the amendments. A board member recorded one vote against, but the motion carried and the amendments were adopted.

The board indicated the amendment aligned the rule text with common central‑fill operations and would reduce regulatory friction for automated facilities that do not interact directly with patients.

A formal motion to adopt was made and seconded on the record; the motion carried with one recorded vote in opposition.","The Texas State Board of Pharmacy voted to adopt amendments that exempt central‑fill pharmacies with no patient‑facing contact from on‑site pharmacist/technician ratio requirements after stakeholder support from major chains.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6566905,"Texas Pharmacy Board reopens drone-delivery rule after debate on cold‑chain, delivery locations and provider responsibility",2526,522000,3048000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3201182-91ce86c3276d237de202dd7ebaa31840&start=522&end=3048","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3201182-91ce86c3276d237de202dd7ebaa31840/thumbnail_522000.jpg","/articles/6566905/Texas/Texas-Pharmacy-Board-reopens-drone-delivery-rule-after-debate-on-coldchain-delivery-locations-and-provider-responsibility","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566905-576fe8f8763249610ba97d1b191fa291/orig.mp4?Expires=1770958940&Signature=J8U3WKbEIn3fry4WOta1md6xPnQZuqBCmEW7gpAFFWfSAQJrxxgO9QCAOhUVa3Igt4nt4WeaMuRz6aDEWFm8lCvtCxdQZU7nOUULCjJ22fCp4UEZ97FwjEdIy1OdSfBM90va0mOfeD4qMi2L08yodDwdER3InJr2YhBQXyxvGxpvq-8qilIL6dwB9N4BtStH-RNM9oDMgzTTnauROXwpMybOUk5j1A6BW~RUd1PRCYHXXoQ3jh6vQHfv~3qtZd5mSqdDn62~MJf-A0pLq3NeyB2eLMPw~ULv4--w3lcGEqQte30iVQWlI1BF1d5Ppa9iw~i2dgAOc3rC5r-s5GcNmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Texas State Board of Pharmacy spent extensive time debating an amendment to its prescription delivery rules that would explicitly allow pharmacies to use unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or drones) to deliver certain prescription drugs.

The board considered language that would allow a pharmacy to deliver prescription drugs \"by use of unmanned aircraft systems, i.e., drones, at the request of a patient or patient's agent\" but— as drafted—would exclude controlled substances, sterile compounded preparations and \"drugs requiring storage below a cool temperature as defined by 291.15 of this title.\" The issue drew public comment from health systems and drone providers and prompted repeated questions from board members about who should verify a patient’s presence and where goods may be delivered.

Board members heard support and suggested edits from hospital and vendor representatives. Freddy Warner, chief government relations officer for Memorial Hermann Health System, said his system has pursued drone partnerships to expand access and lower costs and introduced Benita Patel, vice president of pharmacy services, to explain the system's suggestions. Patel told the board, \"It helps with the helps us with access affordability and adherence to medications,\" and urged removal of the exclusion for drugs requiring cold storage so hospitals could use UAS for more medications. Zipline representatives also supported the rule as drafted while asking three specific refinements: shift the responsibility to confirm a recipient's presence to the UAS operator when appropriate, allow pharmacist discretion to deliver certain cold‑chain products, and broaden approved delivery locations beyond patients' homes. Kala Patel, Zipline general counsel, said, \"Zipline is fully supportive of the proposed rule\" and described Zipline's delivery performance, adding that \"the max time for a drone delivery, for Zipline is 10 minutes\" and that many flights average around three and a half minutes.

Board members questioned how to balance patient safety, chain‑of‑custody and practical delivery locations. Jenny Yocom pressed staff for a technical clarification on temperature thresholds, asking, \"So it would be anything less than 36 degrees Fahrenheit or 2 degrees Celsius. Correct?\" Staff confirmed that the phrase \"below a cool temperature\" was drafted to mean temperatures below the cool threshold defined in rule 291.15. Board members debated replacing the residence‑only delivery restriction with a broader \"selected delivery location\" approach. One board member summarized a compromise motion to allow delivery to a \"selected delivery location mutually agreed upon by the pharmacist and the patient using the pharmacist's professional judgment.\" After discussion the board voted to change the pending final adoption to a proposed rule so that the new location language and temperature changes could be circulated for public comment.

The board also directed staff to remove the specific exclusion for drugs requiring storage \"below a cool temperature\" and to add temperature‑maintenance and packaging standards from the general delivery requirements into the UAS‑specific subsection (so temperature‑control methods such as insulated packaging, ice packs, or time‑temperature indicators would be required where appropriate). That motion — to strike the exclusion and carry the temperature‑control requirements into the drone delivery subsection and return the item to proposed status — passed on board vote.

What happens next: the board will circulate the revised proposed rule for public comment and return the item for a future meeting. The transcript shows the board received detailed operational testimony from multiple stakeholders, and the staff will draft the agreed language for a subsequent proposal and a new public‑comment period.

Quoted testimony in this report is taken directly from the board transcript and attributed to speakers who identified their names and roles for the record.","The Texas State Board of Pharmacy debated amendments to allow unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to deliver prescriptions, heard hospital and provider testimony urging removal of a cold‑chain exclusion and changes to who confirms delivery, and voted to return the rule to the proposed stage for further edits and public comment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board sends proposed changes on 'common ownership' definitions back for redrafting after industry concerns

Board proposes end to notarized controlled‑substance inventories, removes three‑day notarization requirement

Board approves lower supervision rule for central‑fill pharmacies, exempts non‑patient facing sites from technician ratio limits

Texas Pharmacy Board reopens drone-delivery rule after debate on cold‑chain, delivery locations and provider responsibility