Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission accepts settlements tied to closures, manager‑notification failures and delayed diversion reporting
Summary
The commission accepted settlements in four disciplinary matters involving repeated early/unscheduled closings, late manager notifications and delayed reporting of diverted controlled substances; one settlement included a $100,000 payment.
The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection’s Commission of Pharmacy voted to accept Drug Control‑recommended settlements in four separate pharmacy investigations, addressing chronic early closings, failures to notify the commission about manager changes and delayed reporting of diverted controlled substances.
Case 2023‑1725: Following a consumer complaint and an investigation, the commission found a pattern of unscheduled pharmacy closures (five incidents of two‑ to three‑day closures and about 20 closures over a 12‑month period) and two failures to report required closings to the Commission of Pharmacy. Drug Control proposed—and the board accepted—a settlement in which the respondent paid a voluntary monetary payment of $2,500; the transcript records staff saying the payment has been made.
Case 2023‑1512: This matter involved a pharmacy that failed to timely notify the commission after a manager change; for about seven months there was no manager of record and notifications were late. Drug Control proposed a voluntary payment of $1,000; the board accepted the proposed settlement and the transcript records that the payment has been paid.
Case 2023‑1048: Similar to 2023‑1512, the pharmacy failed to timely notify the commission after a manager departed, leaving a period of roughly six weeks without an interim manager and without the statutorily required notification. The board accepted Drug Control’s proposed settlement of $3,000.
Case 2024‑526: This investigation concerned suspected diversion of controlled substances. The transcript records delays in reporting to the Commissioner of Consumer Protection (reporting to Drug Control occurred about two months after the loss) and delayed submission of a signed statement of facts and a list of stolen controlled substances. Local law enforcement was eventually involved and a pharmacist case was also mentioned. Drug Control recommended a settlement with a voluntary payment of $100,000; the payment was recorded as having been made and the commission accepted the settlement.
Distinguishing discussion from decision: commissioners and staff discussed options such as changing posted hours as an advisory measure for frequent early closings, and pressed staff on whether acting managers were qualified and who is responsible for notifying the commission when a manager is absent. Those were discussion points; the formal action in each matter was the vote to accept the settlements described above.
Why it matters: the accepted settlements address patient‑safety‑adjacent issues—closure reliability, manager accountability and timely reporting of controlled‑substance losses—that affect continuity of care and the state’s ability to investigate potential diversion.
Ending: Staff said the cases will remain on record; where relevant, parallel cases against individual pharmacists remain open, and the commission urged pharmacies to report losses and manager changes promptly to avoid further enforcement.
