Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee backs bill authorizing physician‑pharmacist collaborative practice agreements
Loading...
Summary
A Medical Affairs Subcommittee voted to report S.449 favorably after testimony from pharmacists and clinicians who said collaborative practice agreements would formalize existing collaborative care, expand access in rural areas, and provide a regulatory basis for delegated medication management tasks.
The Medical Affairs Subcommittee reported S.449 favorably after testimony that the bill would authorize written collaborative practice agreements between licensed pharmacists and physicians that delegate evidence‑based medication management and related patient care tasks.
Proponents told the committee the bill is permissive and intended to create statutory authority so the Board of Pharmacy and the State Board of Medical Examiners can promulgate regulations defining what tasks may be delegated. "This legislation is crucial to ensuring patients continue to receive high quality coordinated care," South Carolina Pharmacy Association CEO Bridal Clark said in testimony, adding that the measure would restore an authority that had been removed when a prior board policy was rescinded.
The bill defines a collaborative practice agreement as a written agreement between a licensed pharmacist and a physician practicing in the state that creates a plan to provide evidence‑based medication management and related patient care services, including monitoring, education and assessments for specifically identified patients. Sections of the draft statute mirror existing chapters described to the committee as chapter 43 (pharmacists) and chapter 47 (physicians). Section 5 requires the Board of Pharmacy and the State Board of Medical Examiners to promulgate regulations governing use of collaborative practice agreements; committee discussion repeatedly emphasized that those regulations must be in place before the authority becomes operational.
Pharmacists and clinic staff described how collaborative practice agreements are used in hospitals, nursing homes and some clinic settings. "We're doing it now — we're just trying to make it legal to do it," Bridal Clark said, explaining that absence of explicit statutory authority can lead third‑party payers to deny payment for pharmacist‑provided services. Whitney Pence, a pharmacist who testified she practices under collaborative agreements in Greenwood County, described a clinic population "about 8,000 patients" served by roughly "550 different providers" across 17 counties and offered a patient example illustrating medication access, prior authorization and device‑use assistance performed under collaborative arrangements.
Committee members asked whether the bill mandates agreements (it does not), whether agreements would allow pharmacists to perform tasks beyond existing statutory scope (witnesses said the agreements would operate within statutory limits but would clarify delegation and payment), and whether the measure changes malpractice or liability exposure (witnesses deferred legal questions to attorneys but suggested regulatory clarity could affect liability determinations).
After testimony and questions the committee moved and seconded a favorable report. The committee conducted a voice vote; members said "aye" and the committee reported the bill favorably. The committee chair then opened the next agenda item.
The measure was presented as enabling legislation; supporters stressed that regulatory definitions by the Board of Pharmacy and the State Board of Medical Examiners will determine the specific duties pharmacists may carry out under an agreement and that the law is permissive rather than mandatory.
