California pharmacy new law will forever change the profession

Click here for the full text of the bill.

Governor Signs New Legislation - Effective Jan. 2004

An act to amend Sections 4001, 4002, 4003, 4008, 4062, 4200, 4202, 4312, 4400, and 4403 of, and to add Sections 4083, 4106, 4200.2, 4200.3, 4200.4, 4314, and 4315 to, the Business and Professions Code.

Legislative Counsel's Digest

SB 361, Figueroa. Pharmacy: administration and enforcement. Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, creates the California State Board of Pharmacy within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Under existing law, the board is authorized to appoint an executive director to exercise the powers and perform the duties delegated by the board. The law makes these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2004, and repeals them on January 1, 2005. Under existing law, the board consists of 11 members, 2 of whom are public members appointed by the Governor.

Adds more members to Board of Pharmacy

This bill would delete these inoperative and repeal dates and would extend the operation of these provisions to make them inoperative on July 1, 2008, and repeal them on January 1, 2009. The bill would also increase the board membership to 13 by adding 2 more public members appointed by the Governor. The bill would also specify that one of the pharmacist appointees be a member of a labor union representing pharmacists, that one practice in an independent community pharmacy setting, and that another practice in a chain community pharmacy setting.

Changes the requirements for Inspectors

Existing law authorizes the board to employ inspectors of pharmacy. These inspectors are required to be pharmacists if their principal duties are either inspecting or investigating pharmacies or pharmacists or supervising other inspectors of pharmacy. This bill would delete the requirement that certain inspectors of pharmacy must be pharmacists. The bill would authorize inspectors to issue a written order of correction and the executive officer, or his or her designee, to issue a letter of admonishment, directing a licensee to comply with the Pharmacy Law or related regulations.

The bill would require an order of correction or a letter of admonishment to contain certain information, including the process for a licensee to contest the order or letter. The bill would require a licensee to have readily available on the pharmacy premises a copy of any order of correction or letter of admonishment issued against it in the prior 3 years, and a related corrective plan of action. The bill would provide that an order of correction would not be a public record, except as specified. This bill would authorize the board to issue a citation for a violation of the Pharmacy Law or related regulations, with a fine of up to $2,500 and an order of abatement, which may require a person to demonstrate how future compliance will be accomplished.

Changes testing to NAPLEX; plus California section testing requirements

Existing law sets forth certain educational, training, and examination requirements that an applicant for a pharmacist license must meet. This bill would revise the examination requirements, as specified, and would require the board to develop a Multi-State Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination for California that meets certain guidelines and to review the examination process. The bill would prohibit an applicant who failed the national examination from retaking it for a designated time period.

Changes education requirements for pharmacy technicians

Existing law requires an applicant for a pharmacy technician certification to meet certain education requirements.

This bill would revise those education requirements.

The Pharmacy Law makes a violation of its provisions a crime.

Because this bill would create new requirements for licensees under that law, the violation of which is a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program.

Below is the text of the CPhA release on the subject:

SB 361- LICENSURE EXAMINATION REVISION

SB361, which is expected to be signed by Governor Davis, includes a provision to revise the licensure examination process. Replacing the existing California exam will be a two part exam -- part 1 is the NAPLEX; part 2 is a unique California jurisprudence exam. Under the bill, anyone taking the NAPLEX after Jan 1, 2004 can use the results of that test to satisfy part 1 of the new examination requirements. They will still have to take part 2, which, under the bill, is required to contain certain components, including a test of communications skills and application of knowledge to clinical situations in addition to testing knowledge of California and federal pharmacy law. The testing sections of SB361 described above were written in compliance with existing CPhA House of Delegates policy and CPhA supports their adoption.

This bill does NOT allow reciprocity, which we take to mean recognition of licensure in one state (e.g. Georgia) as a basis for licensure in California. All applicants for licensure in California are required to meet the examination requirements above. To clarify, if someone takes the NAPLEX in Jan 2004 in Georgia, the results can be used to meet that portion of the California requirement; if that person took the NAPLEX in 1999, they will have to take it again after Jan 1, 2004 for the results to be used in California. This is significant because the NAPLEX is being revised and the "new" version will be more challenging than the old. In any case, an applicant will still need to take part 2 of the exam, which is written by the California Board but will be administered by NABP.