Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pharmacy Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances pharmacy modernization bill that removes technician plan requirement
Summary
House Bill 794 would modernize Montana pharmacy laws: it revises technician definitions, eliminates an old technician‑utilization plan and fee, clarifies authority on biosimilar substitution notices and updates terms for out‑of‑state mail order pharmacies. The Board of Pharmacy and multiple pharmacy stakeholders supported the changes.
Helena — The House Business and Labor Committee voted to advance a broadly negotiated bill to modernize pharmacy law that updates definitions and removes an obsolete technician‑utilization plan.
Representative Curtis Schomer sponsored House Bill 794, which Board of Pharmacy staff and industry stakeholders described as a collaborative cleanup effort. Marcy Bough, executive officer for the Board of Pharmacy, summarized the bill: it revises the definition of “pharmacy technician” to allow performance of delegated tasks that do not require independent professional judgment; repeals the technician utilization plan and an associated $75 fee; standardizes terminology across statutes; clarifies the board’s rulemaking authority; and removes a pharmacist’s requirement to notify a prescriber after substituting a less expensive biosimilar product (bringing biologics in line with generics practice).
Stakeholders that testified in support included the Montana Pharmacy Association, Montana Retail Association, Montana Primary Care Association (which represents federally qualified health centers) and independent pharmacists. Board member and independent owner Paul Brand said the changes align statute with contemporary practice and improve technician career paths without reducing public‑safety oversight.
An opponent appearing online, Tanya Sorrell O’Neil of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, testified that one section of the bill (related to mail order pricing and prior authorization for certain drugs) appeared to raise concerns about PBM authority and affordability; Board and bill supporters said that opposition testimony was likely targeted at a different bill and that HB 794 does not change PBM authorities in current law.
After hearing, the committee moved HB 794 forward during executive action. The Board and stakeholders said the bill reduces regulatory burdens, removes duplication and will help pharmacies better meet workforce needs while preserving inspection and safety functions.
Why it matters: The bill updates statutes that stakeholders said were inconsistent with current pharmacy practice, reduces licensing fees and paperwork for pharmacies, and clarifies the Board of Pharmacy’s rule authority; supporters said it helps expand technician career paths and reduces administrative burdens for licensees.
Next steps: The committee voted to pass the bill to the House floor.
