Committee hears bill to clarify pharmacists' authority to prescribe, expand patient care services

The House Labor and Commerce Committee on May 15 heard testimony on House Bill 195, which would clarify and codify pharmacists' authority to prescribe and administer certain medications and to provide other patient-care services within the limits of their education, training and experience.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Genevieve Mina, said HB 195 is a collaborative effort with the Alaska Board of Pharmacy and the Alaska Pharmacy Association to align state statute with pharmacists’ training and existing federal models. “This bill clarifies the intent of [2022 changes] in regard to independent prescribing and allowing pharmacists to practice at the top of their education, training and experience,” Mina said.

Supporters told the committee the change is intended to increase access to routine and preventive care—especially in rural communities where other providers are scarce—while preserving patient safety under a standard-of-care regulatory model. Ashley Shaver of the Alaska Board of Pharmacy described the bill as part of the board’s strategic plan and said the measure closes gaps between statute and practice. Brandy Cigna Martin, executive director of the Alaska Pharmacy Association, said pharmacists already provide testing, immunizations and chronic-care management and that the bill would allow established models such as test-and-treat for strep and influenza, smoking-cessation services, HIV preexposure prophylaxis counseling and support for medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.

Testimony to the committee outlined specific provisions that the bill would add or clarify. A staff sectional analysis summarized that the bill would require pharmacists who prescribe controlled substances to register with the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP); require specified pain-management education for pharmacists holding a DEA number when applying for licensure or renewing by examination or reciprocity; exempt pharmacists who do not practice pain management; clarify that pharmacists may not provide patient-care services under a collaborative agreement with another pharmacist; define “patient care services”; clarify that pharmacy practice includes providing patient care services independently or under collaborative practice; expand the statutory definition of “opioid”; repeal AS 08.83.37 to align the statutory scheme; and set an effective date of Jan. 1, 2026.

Committee members asked detailed questions about limits and safeguards. Representative Dan Sadler said he supports improving access but pressed witnesses on what pharmacists would not be permitted to do and how complex diagnoses would be identified and referred. “You are required to refer that patient to more appropriate care because it’s outside your education and training,” said Dr. Jen Adams, associate dean for academic programs at the UAA/ISU Doctor of Pharmacy program, describing the standard-of-care model and the regulatory sanctions that can follow practice outside one’s competence. Adams said pharmacy graduates complete extensive training and clinical hours—she referenced a 4-year professional curriculum that includes roughly 1,740 hours of direct patient-care experience—and that accreditation requires graduates be practice-ready.

Representatives also asked about controlled-substance scheduling language that differentiates state schedule designations (for example, “1A, 2A”) from federal schedules; Board of Pharmacy representatives recommended the committee defer to the board and Department of Law for statutory alignment. Ashley Safer, chair of the Alaska Board of Pharmacy, explained collaborative practice agreements—existing arrangements approved by the medical board that allow a licensed practitioner to delegate certain prescriptive authority to a pharmacist under defined conditions—and said the board has opted to require notification rather than prior approval for individual agreements.

Supporters pointed to evidence from other states and federal systems. Shaver and Martin cited federal precedents including the PREP Act and the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act and said pharmacy-delivered services in systems such as the Veterans Health Administration and Idaho have expanded access without compromising safety. Martin cited economic analyses showing lower per-episode costs for pharmacy-based care for minor illnesses, and Shaver said the bill is intended to encourage interdisciplinary engagement rather than replace other providers.

No formal action was taken on HB 195 during the hearing. Committee members indicated further work may be done in subcommittee or over the interim to refine scope, training or continuing-education requirements. The bill’s effective date is listed in the sectional analysis as Jan. 1, 2026.

The bill’s authors and supporters offered to provide additional sectional analyses and technical edits to address questions raised by committee members.