Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compounding Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee opposes AB1990 unless amended after intense public comment on compounding rules
Summary
After extensive public comment from compounding pharmacists and pharmacy associations, the committee voted to recommend opposing AB1990 unless amended; commenters warned the bill would duplicate federal standards, impose costly testing, and strip board enforcement discretion.
The Legislation & Regulation Committee of the California State Board of Pharmacy on June 11, 2026 voted to recommend an oppose-unless-amended position on Assembly Bill 1990, a measure that would tighten requirements for compounding pharmacies and suppliers — a move that follows lengthy public testimony from pharmacists and trade groups.
The bill, introduced to address concerns about illicit or unsafe active pharmaceutical ingredients in compounded products (including some GLP-1 weight-management compounds), would require bulk substances to be pharmaceutical-grade, impose additional testing and recordkeeping, expand board inspection authority, and create penalties (including fines and license revocation) tied to sales or distribution of noncompliant products.
Those provisions drew sustained opposition from industry witnesses and several committee members. "I respectfully urge you to change your position on AB1990 from watch to oppose and I hope that you'll actually read the text of the bill," said Marie Cotman, a compounding pharmacist and former owner of Pacific Compounding Pharmacy, who urged the board to oppose the bill as written and argued it would burden compliant pharmacies while leaving physician offices and medical spas outside the bill's scope.
Michelle Rivas of the California Pharmacists Association told the committee: "AB1990 does not target bad actors. Instead, it imposes sweeping new manufacturer-level requirements on California's licensed and highly regulated compounding pharmacies," and warned the measure could erode patient access to needed therapies and undermine public confidence in compounding.
Representatives of the California Society of Health-System Pharmacists also urged opposition, arguing that duplicative laboratory testing and mandatory penalties would be infeasible for many pharmacies and could eliminate compounding access in the state.
Committee members said they were troubled by several aspects of the bill: singling out a drug class rather than regulating compounding practice uniformly; statutory requirements that duplicate federal law, USP standards or existing board regulations; and provisions that would sharply limit the board's enforcement discretion. Member Maria Serpa said the board should "take a really strong leadership role" and be vocal if outside groups were suggesting the board was failing in its consumer-protection duties.
After public comment and internal discussion, Member Nicole Tibo moved that the committee recommend opposing AB1990 unless amended consistent with the committee's discussion; Member Maria Serpa seconded. The motion passed on a roll-call vote with Nicole Tibo, KK, Maria Serpa and Chair Jesse Crowley voting yes. The committee will forward the recommendation to the full board for consideration.
The committee did not adopt statutory language or amendments today; members asked staff to continue discussions with the bill's author and to prepare proposed amendment language that would retain consumer protections while avoiding duplication and unworkable enforcement mandates.
Next steps: the committee's recommendation will be reported to the full board; staff will continue outreach with the author's office and stakeholders to identify acceptable amendments.
