BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:April 28, 2014 |Bill No:SB |
| |960 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Ted W. Lieu, Chair
Bill No: SB 960Author:Morrell
As Amended:April 22, 2014Fiscal: Yes
SUBJECT: Pharmacy.
SUMMARY: Authorizes the Board of Pharmacy to issue a letter of
admonishment to applicants for licensure.
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Pharmacy Law which provides for the licensure and
regulation of pharmacies, pharmacists and wholesalers of dangerous
drugs or devices by the Board of Pharmacy (Board) within the DCA.
2) Requires the Board, upon receipt of an application for licensure
and appropriate fee, to thoroughly investigate whether the
applicant is qualified for the license being sought, including all
matters directly related to the issuance of a license that may
affect the public welfare. (BPC § 4207 (a))
3) Provides that immediately upon the denial of any application for a
license the Board must notify the applicant in writing and
authorizes the applicant, within 10 days after the Board sends
notice of denial, to present a written petition for a license.
(BPC § 4310)
4) Authorizes the Board to issue a letter of admonishment to a
licensee for failing to comply with provisions of the BPC, Pharmacy
Law and regulations, directing the licensee to come into
compliance. Sets forth the requirements for issuance of a letter
of admonishment by the Board and options for a recipient related to
an office conference with Board staff, including: (BPC § 4315)
SB 960
Page 2
a) A requirement that the letter be in writing and describe in
detail the nature and facts of the violation, including a
reference to the statutes or regulations violated.
b) A requirement that a letter to be served upon a licensee
personally or by certified mail at the applicant's address of
record with the Board.
c) Provides that a letter inform the licensee that within 30
days of receipt of the letter, the licensee may either submit a
written request for an office conference to contest the letter
or may accept the letter without challenge.
d) Outlines requirements for the office conference, if requested
by a licensee, to specify that:
i) Within 30 days of receipt of a request for an
office conference, a representative of the Board such as
the executive office or his or her designee must hold an
office conference with the licensee and the licensee's
legal counsel or authorized representative, if any.
Specifies that unless authorized by the executive officer,
or his or her designee, any individual other than the
legal counsel or authorized representative of the licensee
from accompanying the licensee to the office conference.
ii) The licensee is authorized to submit
declarations and documents pertinent to the subject matter
of the letter.
iii) The office conference is intended to be an
informal proceeding that is not subject to the
Administrative Procedures Act.
iv) The Board representative may affirm, modify, or
withdraw the letter and within 14 calendar days from the
date of the office conference and that the Board
representative shall personally serve or send by certified
mail to the licensee's address of record written decision
which will be deemed the final administrative decision
concerning the letter.
v) Judicial review of the decision may be had by
filing a petition for a writ of mandate, in accordance
with the provisions of Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil
SB 960
Page 3
Procedure, within 30 days of the date the decision was
personally served or sent by certified mail. The judicial
review shall extend to the question of whether or not
there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion in the
issuance of the letter.
vi) Requires the licensee to maintain and have
available the letter and any corrective action plan for at
least three years from the date of issuance of the letter.
This bill:
1)Authorizes the Board to issue a license to an applicant who has
committed violations of the law that the Board deems, in its
discretion, do not merit the denial of a license or require
probationary status and concurrently issue a letter of admonishment
(letter).
2)Specifies that the procedures for issuance of a letter follow those
outlined under current law for letters as a disciplinary measure for
current licensees. Specifies that all of the procedures for appeals
and due process requirements for letters issued as a disciplinary
measure for current licensees also apply.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed "fiscal" by Legislative
Counsel.
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the Board of Pharmacy (Board).
According to the Author, before issuing a license, the Board
reviews the background of applicants which, in some instances, may
reveal past legal violations. When these matters are substantially
related to the duties of the licensee, the Board denies the license
but for some violations, despite their seriousness, licensure
denial may not be warranted. In those cases, the Board believes
that by issuing a letter of admonishment concurrent with a license,
the individual would receive the privilege of the license, while
the letter of admonishment serves to protect the public and provide
notice to an employer of facts and violations about the new
licensee. The Board also believes that a letter of admonishment
would allow the Board to document a licensee's history regarding an
event that may have happened many years ago, in the event it is
SB 960
Page 4
ever considering disciplinary action for misconduct during the
first three years of licensure.
2. Background. In Fiscal Year 2012-13, the Board received more than
15,000 applications for licensure. According to the Board, an
average of less than one percent of these applications were denied,
although for pharmacy technician license applicants, closer to 1.15
percent of licenses were denied. The Board currently has a process
similar to that proposed in this bill for issuing a letter of
admonishment in the event of disciplinary action. While DCA boards
are required to report certain licensee information and make public
disciplinary action, there are no boards that issue anything
similar to disciplinary action against a licensee for applicants or
concurrent with a license as proposed in this bill.
3. Related Legislation This Year. AB 1886 (Eggman) removes the
requirement that certain information be posted on the MBC Web site
for a period of 10 years, thereby requiring that information to be
posted indefinitely and deletes a provision under current law that
authorizes, rather than requires, MBC to disclose public letters of
reprimand. ( Status: The bill is pending in the Assembly Committee
on Business, Professions and Consumer Protection.)
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: None on file as of April 23, 2014.
Opposition: None on file as of April 23, 2014.
Consultant:Sarah Mason