Board of Pharmacy launches rulemaking to allow remote prescription processing
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The California State Board of Pharmacy voted to initiate rulemaking to change the definition of “pharmacist” and to create regulations for remote prescription processing; supporters said it modernizes practice while at least one member and commenters raised inspection and constitutional concerns.
The California State Board of Pharmacy voted to begin rulemaking to add regulations authorizing remote prescription processing and to amend the definition of “pharmacist” so that an active pharmacist licensee may practice "within or outside" a licensed pharmacy. Member Satinder moved the rulemaking package (as proposed) and the board authorized staff to submit the text for agency review and to complete the rulemaking if no hearing or adverse comments are received.
Supporters during the public-comment period said the change would modernize pharmacy practice and improve access. ‘‘I just wanted to say thank you to the Board of Pharmacy and everyone involved for making remote processing possible,’’ said Jackie Silver, a specialty pharmacist. Ines Anton, another specialty pharmacist, told the board remote teams do not perform final product verification and credited AB 1503 and related work for enabling the proposal.
Kaiser Permanente’s John Gray said his organization broadly supports common-sense regulations but said the proposed language raises legal and practical questions about inspection authority and privacy. ‘‘Common sense does not include regulations that would contravene an individual’s protection under the Fourth Amendment,’’ Gray said, and he asked the board to clarify inspectors’ authority to enter remote worksites under current statutory authority.
Board member Jesse said he remains a ‘‘pretty vocal opponent’’ of broad remote processing as currently written, citing instances where pharmacists verifying prescriptions for another pharmacy may do so without the pharmacist-in-charge’s knowledge. Staff legal counsel responded that inspection authority described in the proposal is investigatory rather than a license for proactive inspections, and that the rulemaking process will provide an opportunity to clarify ambiguous phrases such as whether ‘‘dispensing of a drug’’ refers to handing a drug to a patient or a step in the dispensing process.
The motion passed with a recorded vote (Jesse opposed). The board directed staff to proceed with the rulemaking packet and authorized the executive officer to make technical or non‑substantive changes before notice and hearing.