Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel hears cleanup bill to modernize pharmacy laws and remove outdated technician plan requirements
Summary
House Bill 794 would update Montana pharmacy statutes — clarifying technician definitions, removing an obsolete 'utilization plan' requirement and fee, and aligning standards with FDA references; the pharmacy board and industry groups supported the measure as noncontroversial.
Representative Curtis Schomer opened a hearing on House Bill 794, a 35‑page statutory modernization and cleanup of Montana pharmacy law that the Department of Labor and Industry and the Board of Pharmacy supported.
Marcy (executive officer for the Board of Pharmacy) testified for the board and said the bill replaces an outdated "utilization plan" requirement for pharmacy technicians, updates definitions and statutory cross‑references to other titles (for example, controlled substances and devices), and removes an obsolete $75 pharmacy fee tied to the utilization plan. The board said utilization plans are an outlier — Montana was one of only three states with a similar requirement — and that supervising technicians by experience and competency is preferable to submitting a utilization plan to the board.
Industry witnesses including Mike Alcaterra (medical equipment providers), Tony King (Montana Pharmacy Association), Christie Munson (Montana Family Pharmacies) and Paul Brand (independent pharmacist and Board of Pharmacy member) testified in support, describing the bill as a collaborative effort to clarify licensing, update references (including to the FDA), simplify wholesale distributor language and modernize terminology for out‑of‑state mail pharmacies.
The bill also removes an administrative sign requirement that pharmacies post notice about cheaper therapeutic substitutes; proponents said pharmacy practice and payer requirements already encourage selection of less expensive therapeutically equivalent drugs where appropriate.
No opponents registered at the hearing. Committee members asked no substantive questions during the session, and the sponsor urged a do‑pass recommendation.
