State regulators back advertising and delegation provisions, press for edits and pharmacy implementation help in S.28

The Secretary of State's Office and the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) told the House Committee on Health Care they support several changes in S.28 that target deceptive advertising, strengthen oversight of delegated clinical tasks and alter certain pharmacy labeling and prescriber‑naming requirements — but asked lawmakers for precise drafting edits and for more information from pharmacy organizations before finalizing some operational changes.

For the record, Lauren Hibbert, deputy secretary of state, and Jen Collett, general counsel at OPR, testified section‑by‑section. "We strongly support this section of the law being changed" on public‑records exemptions for licensee contact information, Hibbert said, explaining OPR routinely receives commercial requests for lists that include email addresses.

Why it matters: S.28 would add false or misleading advertising about health care services to the unprofessional‑conduct statute, tighten language around delegation and supervisory responsibility for delegated tasks, allow certain prescribing by adaptive questionnaire in limited circumstances, and permit a prescriber to request limited dispensing label information be omitted from pharmacy labels. Regulators argue the changes protect patients but asked for narrower drafting in places to avoid unintended legal defenses or enforcement gaps.

Major regulator requests and concerns

- Public records and licensee safety: OPR supports removing some licensee contact fields from public disclosure so that the office need not publish licensees' email addresses and other contact details that have been used for unsolicited commercial outreach.

- Advertising and delegation: OPR supports adding "advertising about healthcare services that is intended or has a tendency to deceive or mislead" to the unprofessional‑conduct list. It also proposed removing the phrase "any combination of" from a proposed delegation clause because OPR said that wording could allow unlicensed providers to assert sufficiency of training alone as a defense. OPR asked that the statute expressly state that delegation "may not expand the scope of practice for a licensed professional" and that delegating licensees be liable for acts of those to whom they delegate.

- Delegation and preceptorships: Committee members asked how the delegation language would apply to supervised trainees or preceptors; OPR replied the statute language is intended to defer to profession‑specific rules: "if you're required to hold a license while you're receiving that supervised training or preceptorship, then that person has to have it in order for the preceptor to be doing their work," Collett said. OPR recommended retaining the clause that ties supervision requirements to what individual professions already require.

- Adaptive questionnaires and certain prescribing: OPR signaled narrow support for use of an adaptive questionnaire to screen for eligibility to prescribe medication to terminate a pregnancy in limited, specified circumstances and asked that the statute say the questionnaire be "prescriber approved" so prescribers have clinical input on how it operates.

- Pharmacy labeling and prescriber anonymity: OPR supports limited statutory changes that would allow, in narrow circumstances, a prescriber to request that a pharmacist not include the prescriber's name on a medication label. But OPR urged the committee to consult pharmacy groups such as the National Association of Chain Drugstores and the Vermont Pharmacists Association to assess feasibility and federal requirements. OPR also suggested changing wording from "to the extent not expressly prohibited under federal law" to "to the extent not expressly required under federal law" and recommended using the term "pharmacy professional" rather than only "pharmacist," because technicians and interns perform many labeling tasks.

Committee discussion and operational questions

Committee members sought clarification about whether cooperative agreements or collaborative practice agreements could address supervision issues in settings where delegation is routine; OPR said such agreements are helpful in some professions but that requiring them across all professions could be burdensome.

On the labeling provisions, Collett said OPR's pending pharmacy rules have anticipated some of the bill's changes but counseled the committee to get practical input from practicing pharmacists and national pharmacy organizations before finalizing statutory language.

The committee did not take votes on S.28 during the hearing. OPR said it will submit suggested drafting language and spelling edits to address the delegation and advertising clauses and recommended the committee seek operational input from pharmacy organizations about label changes before final passage.