Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discontinuance Of Business topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board advances changes to pharmacy discontinuance rules, clarifies notification and responsible party
Summary
The California State Board of Pharmacy voted to release modified text for a 15-day public comment period to amend Title 16, §1708.2 on discontinuance of business, adding a hospital exemption wording change, clarifying where and how patients must be notified, and shifting primary certification responsibility toward owners while retaining a role for the pharmacist-in-charge.
The California State Board of Pharmacy voted to release modified regulation text for a 15-day comment period to amend California Code of Regulations, Title 16, section 1708.2 governing pharmacy discontinuance-of-business requirements.
The board’s motion, approved at the meeting, directs staff to adopt edits discussed by members including (1) changing the exemption language from “inpatient hospital pharmacy” to “general acute care hospital pharmacy,” (2) clarifying that notice consistent with statutory language must be posted “in a conspicuous location at the entrance” of the pharmacy, (3) allowing notice to be provided electronically if it is a form of communication the patient has already elected to receive, and (4) adjusting the certification duty so the owner is primarily responsible while the pharmacist-in-charge (PIC) may certify compliance if available. The motion authorizes a 15-day notice period; if no adverse comments are received, the executive officer may complete the rulemaking.
Board members discussed several operational concerns before the vote. Member Jesse (board member) said he was concerned that relying on electronic notice alone would leave patients without smartphones or who opt out of electronic communications unaware of closures. He described encounters where “patients…show up to their pharmacy and everything’s boarded up, and there’s, like, no written notice…on the pharmacy of how they can get their prescriptions.” Board counsel noted that the statute requires a written posting at the pharmacy’s physical location and also permits written communications in whatever form the pharmacy normally uses to communicate with a given patient.
Members debated where legal responsibility should rest if a closure occurs while the PIC is no longer available. Several members said PICs are traditionally the accountable licensee in regulation language, but others noted that at chain pharmacies the PIC may lack the ability to control electronic notification systems and that a departing PIC might not be reasonably able to complete certification tasks. The board agreed to language that makes the owner the primary person responsible and preserves a role for the PIC to certify if they are available.
John Gray, a registered pharmacist with Kaiser Permanente, provided public comment backing a patient-preference approach: “they receive their bank statements, their bills, everything electronically and then can just kind of ignore their mail as it piles up,” Gray said, arguing organizations should be able to notify patients in the format the patient has elected to receive communications.
After discussion the board voted to proceed with the modified text for the 15-day public comment period and to authorize the executive officer to complete the rulemaking if no adverse comments are received and to make technical or nonsubstantive edits as needed. The board chair announced that the motion passed.
The board’s materials note that the prior 45-day comment period ran from Nov. 15, 2024, through Dec. 30, 2024, and staff provided written responses to comments submitted during that period. The regulation changes respond in part to that public input and to statutory provisions governing written notice and posting.
