Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Remote Processing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves 15‑day comment step for remote‑processing regulation after heated debate
Summary
The California State Board of Pharmacy voted to initiate a 15‑day comment period on proposed CCR §17.17.11 governing remote processing of prescriptions, adopting staff recommended changes. The item drew opposing testimony from unions and retail pharmacists and support from health systems and academic pharmacists over staffing and safety safeguards.
The California State Board of Pharmacy on March 18 voted to begin a 15‑day comment period on a proposed regulation to allow specified remote processing of prescriptions by pharmacists outside a licensed facility (proposed CCR §17.17.11), adopting staff‑recommended modified text and responses to prior 45‑day comments.
Board staff told members the proposal clarifies conditions for pharmacists to perform remote prescription processing in community settings and is separate from statutory hospital‑order entry provisions (BPC §4071.1). Staff said emergency waivers granted during the COVID‑19 pandemic had previously permitted remote processing in many settings and sometimes after disasters, but they had not included systematic inspection of remote home worksites.
The rule package prompted an extended debate. Retail pharmacists and union representatives warned the change could be used by employers to replace in‑store staff and worsen already strained staffing levels. Jesse, a pharmacist‑board member, said the regulation, if applied broadly to retail chains, could be premature and risk further burnout for in‑store pharmacists. Amber Parrish of the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council said UFCW opposes remote processing and urged stronger staffing requirements instead.
Health‑system and university pharmacists and other commenters argued the rule modernizes practice and can safely support clinical work that does not require physical presence. Noelle Chapman of UCSF said remote verification technologies now exist that can preserve final‑product accountability and urged the board to allow remote final verification where validated systems exist. Several commenters asked the board to permit existing employer documentation (remote‑work agreements, IT/HIPAA controls) to satisfy proposed written‑agreement requirements to avoid duplicative paperwork for health systems.
The motion, moved by Maria Serpa, directed staff recommended responses and the modified text and started a 15‑day comment period; if no adverse comments are received, the executive officer was authorized to adopt the regulation. The motion passed after roll call (two members voted No). The board flagged several implementation issues for staff to clarify in forthcoming materials, including inspection authority, which remote technology would be allowed for final verification, and sample FAQs to guide licensees and PICs.
