Texas Board of Pharmacy proposes CE-tracking rules, removes some special CE credits and debates vendor costs

Board staff presented a package of proposed amendments (c.2.2 series) to implement Senate Bill 912’s requirement that continuing education be reported through a state CE tracking system and to clarify record-retention and audit procedures for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.

The proposal requires pharmacists to complete and report 30 contact hours of approved CE during the prior license period (including any courses required under subsection d.1) and technicians to report 20 hours. The rules would require proof of course completion to be reported through the board’s CE tracking system as specified in the Texas Occupations Code (sec. 112.103). The proposal also clarifies that the board will use the tracking system to audit CE claims and that license renewals may be withheld until required CE and course completions are reported.

Staff also proposed removing several legacy or rarely used CE-credit categories from the rules. Examples listed for removal include: a 3‑hour certificate for attending a full public board business meeting, credit for participation in a board‑appointed task force, credit for programs approved by other state boards of pharmacy where proof was a non‑ACPE certificate, and credit for completion of ISMP medication‑safety self‑assessments. Staff and members said those categories have limited usage, are administratively burdensome to manage in the new tracking environment, and may not be ACPE‑accredited.

A lengthy discussion followed about vendor selection, integration with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) and existing systems, potential double‑entry burdens on licensees, and unbudgeted programming costs. Staff said the statute requires implementation by Sept. 1 and that the board has not yet procured a vendor; the NABP system does not meet all statutory requirements. Staff warned that adding non‑ACPE certificate types into the new tracking system will require additional programming and budget allocation, and that the agency has not received special funding for the work.

Board members asked whether certificates (for example, the board’s own meeting attendance certificate or human‑trafficking training) could be imported and whether vendor solutions could automate data import from NABP or PTCB. Staff replied they do not yet know which vendors will bid and that integration capabilities will be evaluated during procurement; they acknowledged potential double work for licensees until integrations are built. The board also agreed to revise the proposed documentation requirement showing a course was taught: the language that required a "dean" to sign will be broadened to allow an academic administrator (dean, program director, department head or equivalent) or submission of a syllabus in lieu of a dean’s letter; the board adopted this language change for proposal.

Board members voted to propose the CE‑tracking and CE‑rule amendments for public comment (motion carried). Staff said the proposal will solicit public feedback and that more details about vendor selection and costs may be available before final adoption.