Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rule Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board proposes multiple rule cleanups and a new definition of common ownership for pharmacies
Summary
The Texas State Board of Pharmacy voted to propose several rule amendments that update statutory citations, clarify 'owner of record' and add a definition of 'common ownership' to limit use of parent‑company arguments in inter‑pharmacy transfers.
The Texas State Board of Pharmacy voted to propose a series of rule amendments that the agency described as cleanup and clarification, including updates to statutory citations and a new definition to clarify "common ownership" among pharmacies.
Staff told the board that several sections of Texas Pharmacy Act citations in board rules needed revision following a statutory repeal and other code reorganizations. One change amends references to the Texas Pharmacy Act to include chapters 551 through 569 of the Texas Occupations Code. Another amendment removes a now‑repealed cross reference in the Texas Controlled Substances Act (section 481.074), which board staff said no longer exists and therefore cannot be cited in rule text.
The board also heard discussion and questions about proposed language to define "common ownership" and "owner of record." The draft defines common ownership as "two or more pharmacies with an identical owner of record with the board," and defines owner of record as the direct owner listed on the pharmacy application or the most recent approved change‑of‑ownership form. Board staff said the intent is to stop parties from claiming that an upstream parent or an owner‑of‑the‑owner creates common ownership for the purposes of transfers of repackaged drugs.
Board members asked how the definition would affect health systems that operate multiple hospitals or pharmacies under different business entities with separate tax IDs. Staff and board members discussed the practical consequence that hospitals within a health system may have separate business entities and tax IDs while still sharing operational connections; one board member said the change could unintentionally prevent appropriate transfers of repackaged drugs among facilities within the same health system.
Because of those concerns, the board directed staff to examine consistency across pharmacy classes (A, B, C) and to return with potential language changes. Nevertheless, the board voted to propose the definitions and the rule cleanup for public comment, and staff emphasized that any final decision would follow the public comment period.
Ending: The board agreed to publish the proposed rule changes for public comment; staff will return with public comment summaries and any recommended revisions before final adoption.
