Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outsourcing Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Pharmacy authorizes staff to seek technical amendments to outsourcing facility statutes
Summary
The California State Board of Pharmacy voted to authorize staff to pursue technical statutory amendments to align state outsourcing‑facility language with federal definitions; a public commenter urged adding notice requirements to protect patients if an outsourcing facility stops serving California.
The California State Board of Pharmacy on Jan. 7 authorized staff to work with legislators to secure technical amendments to state law that would harmonize California’s outsourcing‑facility language with federal definitions and related Business and Professions Code provisions.
Chair Maria Serpa, presenting the Enforcement and Compounding Committee recommendation, said staff had prepared draft amendments “to better align the referenced Business and Professions Code sections with federal definition of outsourcing facility and to harmonize the provisions with other related BPC language.” The committee asked the board to authorize staff to proceed; President Sang Oh moved the motion and Renee Barker seconded it.
During public comment Webex participant Steven Gray urged the board to consider a supplemental change requiring outsourcing facilities to notify California patients if the facility plans to stop providing services, arguing that sudden stoppages could put patients who rely on hard‑to‑source sterile products at risk. “When these facilities … would suddenly have to stop … those members may be at significant health risk, without receiving notice,” Gray said.
Chair Serpa replied that the committee’s current recommendation focused on technical, statutory clean‑up and that a separate committee discussion would be appropriate for broader policy changes that could require more extensive statutory work. The board voted to approve the committee’s recommendation to authorize staff to pursue the technical amendments.
The proposal passed with the board moving the item back to the committee for drafting and legislative outreach; no sponsor legislation language was presented for adoption at the meeting.
What happens next: Staff will prepare legislative language and coordinate with legislative offices; committee members suggested separating any broader policy proposals (for example, patient notification requirements) for separate committee consideration.
Sources: Presentation and motion on behalf of the Enforcement and Compounding Committee; public comment by Steven Gray.
