Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pharmacy Scope topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ohio bill would let pharmacists test and treat common respiratory illnesses, sponsors say
Summary
Senate Bill 230 would authorize pharmacists under a statewide protocol to screen, test and treat influenza, strep, COVID‑19 and RSV; proponents said it expands access and builds on pandemic-era pharmacy roles, while physicians on the committee raised questions about age limits, exam skills and medical-record integration.
Senate Bill 230 would allow pharmacists, operating under a statewide written protocol adopted by the State Board of Pharmacy, to screen for, test and treat common respiratory conditions including influenza, streptococcal pharyngitis, COVID‑19 and respiratory syncytial virus.
Sponsor testimony framed the proposal as an access measure. “This bill focuses on putting patients first,” the sponsor said, arguing the change would let Ohioans get prompt, in‑person testing and treatment ‘‘in their own neighborhoods during evenings, weekends and holidays’’ and reduce unnecessary emergency‑room visits. The sponsor cited pandemic experience, saying pharmacies administered “over 14,000,000 vaccines to Ohioans, including 756,000 to children” as evidence pharmacists can expand timely care.
The bill requires pharmacists to work pursuant to a statewide written protocol; sponsor testimony emphasized the use of CLIA‑waived tests appropriate for a pharmacy setting and said pharmacists would remain responsible for clinical decision making while delegating only technical tasks to interns or technicians under direct supervision. Sponsor testimony also said insurers and Medicaid would reimburse pharmacists “in the same manner as equivalent services provided by other qualified health care professionals,” allowing independent pharmacies in particular to offer services sustainably.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on operational details. One lawmaker asked about minimum ages for testing and treatment; the sponsor replied that “the bill is silent on age” and that he was “absolutely open to considering some sort of age requirement or minimum age.” Lawmakers also questioned how pharmacists’ encounters would be documented and integrated into primary‑care medical records; the sponsor acknowledged existing documentation challenges for vaccination and similar services and said record integration would need to be addressed in the bill or accompanying rules.
A physician‑legislator raised concerns about relying on protocolized decision trees instead of hands‑on examination, saying that some conditions (for example, pneumonia or coexisting bacterial infections) require physical assessment. The sponsor responded that the statewide protocol would require clinical screening and referral when appropriate and that he was willing to work with the committee on training and scope to protect patient safety.
The committee closed the first sponsored testimony on SB230; the hearing produced detailed technical questions but no formal votes. The committee did not adopt amendments or set a date for a final vote during this session.
