Board citation numbers fall as fines rise; staff emphasize education and consistent internal review

The Enforcement and Compounding Committee received an annual briefing on the board’s citation and fine program on June 11, where staff described a decline in the number of citations issued alongside an increase in assessed fines.

Anne Sodergren, executive officer, told the committee the number of citations is “trending down” over a five‑year period but fines assessed have increased because of new, higher fine authorities available to the board. “Fines assessed is going up, but that is in part because of some of those higher fine authorities that are relatively new,” she said.

Sodergren described the enforcement spectrum: many matters are resolved with no further action or education, while others result in letters of admonishment, citations with or without fines, or formal discipline. She said the board evaluates the totality of circumstances before issuing a citation and that staff consider statutory factors when proposing fine amounts. She emphasized that higher statutory maximums do not mean the board invariably seeks the maximum fine.

The presentation covered the board’s citation authority under Business and Professions Code provisions referenced in the presentation (materials and slides included specific code references). Sodergren also described the appeals process: licensees may request an office conference and may subsequently appeal to the Office of the Attorney General; many citations are reduced or modified through office conferences.

Sodergren reviewed data showing the board issued fewer citations overall during the review period, with the majority of citations issued under the board’s general citation authority. She said a subset of citations used higher fine authority under Business and Professions Code provisions related to repeated violations by pharmacies under common ownership; the largest fine issued during the period was $50,000 and related to quotas.

The committee also heard about orders of abatement: the board may require continuing education or updated policies and procedures as a condition of resolving a citation. Sodergren said the board issued 53 orders of abatement and that abatement status can carry over across fiscal years because of timing of required documentation.

Public comment and a separate public speaker raised concerns about transparency in settlement terms between the board and community pharmacies. Vincent Shires asked that the board “consider…more transparent…how they come to a settlement,” saying he had been subpoenaed and believed a board settlement had included a penalty. Board counsel intervened to remind the public not to discuss open investigations; counsel advised that staff could present general information about the disciplinary process in a future disciplinary presentation.

Committee members asked Sodergren to clarify timing metrics: when an average number of days appears long (examples cited about 400 days), Sodergren explained the slide measured the time from complaint receipt through internal review to citation issuance, not from issuance to final appeal resolution. Members expressed support for office conferences and for using orders of abatement and educational requirements to facilitate compliance.

Ending: Staff will continue to use education and abatement requirements to resolve cases where appropriate and to provide clearer public information about where citation and fines fit on the enforcement spectrum.