Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to license and regulate various health facilities, including general acute care hospitals. Existing law requires the department to issue a special permit, in addition to a license, to a health facility to offer one or more special services, such as an emergency center, if specified requirements are met, including that the department finds that the standards of care and services are adequate and appropriate. Existing law requires the department to issue a special permit to allow a general acute care hospital to offer emergency stabilization services at a location that is neither inside nor contiguous to the applicant hospital if the hospital provides satisfactory evidence to the department that, among other things, the hospital has a written transfer agreement with the hospital closest to the location where emergency stabilization services will be provided and satisfactory evidence to the department that this location meets certain requirements, including that the location is in the town of Paradise within the County of Butte and serves the same area previously served by Feather River Hospital. This bill would require the department to issue a waiver, as specified, to a publicly owned and operated general acute care hospital, in collaboration with Del Puerto Health Care District, to operate one rural emergency stabilization care unit and waive designated general acute care hospital licensure requirements if specified conditions are met. The bill would limit the term of the waiver based on prescribed factors, including the completion of a hospital build within a 5-mile radius of the emergency stabilization care unit or within 10 years from the initial issuance of the waiver, except as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for Del Puerto Health Care District.
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is in part governed by, and funded pursuant to, federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law requires the department to implement an enhanced care management (ECM) benefit designed to address the clinical and nonclinical needs on a whole-person-care basis for certain target populations of Medi-Cal beneficiaries enrolled in Medi-Cal managed care plans. Under existing law, target populations include, among others, high utilizers with frequent hospital admissions, short-term skilled nursing facility stays, or emergency room visits, and individuals experiencing homelessness. Existing law authorizes a county, or an agency representing a county, to develop a peer support specialist certification program, subject to departmental approval. Under existing law, these specialists are individuals, at least 18 years of age, who self-identify as having lived experience with the process of recovery from mental illness, substance use disorder, or both, as specified. Existing law requires the department to seek any federal waivers that it deems necessary to establish a demonstration or pilot project for the provision of peer support services in counties that agree to participate. This bill would require the department to require, as a condition of providing ECM, that any ECM provider, whose caseload of members meets certain criteria, maintain an interdisciplinary care team that includes at least one peer support specialist or trainee, as defined, who is integrated into ECM service delivery and available to support ECM members. The bill would set forth the functions of a peer support specialist or trainee for ECM purposes. The bill would require the department to allow an ECM provider to satisfy the requirement through any combination of staffing models, as specified. The bill would require the department to ensure that Medi-Cal managed care plan contracts, policies, and guidance reflect the requirement and to establish monitoring and compliance mechanisms to ensure that ECM providers implement the requirement. The bill would require the department to recognize virtual, telephonic, and technology-enabled peer support service delivery as meeting the integration requirement. Under the bill, an ECM provider subject to these provisions would have until January 1, 2028, to achieve full compliance, as specified. The bill would prohibit the department, a county, a Medi-Cal managed care plan, or a Medi-Cal provider, as applicable, from disqualifying a peer support specialist solely or primarily on the basis of a criminal background check, fingerprint-based background check, or similar screening that is a condition of employment, contracting, certification, credentialing, enrollment, or participation in providing peer support services. Under the bill, this restriction would be implemented to the extent not in conflict with federal law, and the restriction would not prohibit background checks under specified circumstances. The bill would also authorize consideration of an individual's criminal record as part of their overall fitness for the position of peer support specialist if the criminal record has a nexus to that position or its duties. The bill would condition implementation of these provisions on receipt of any necessary federal approvals and the availability of federal financial participation.
(1) Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, authorizes the involuntary commitment and treatment of a person, when the person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to themselves or others, or is gravely disabled. For the purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "gravely disabled" as a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, a severe substance use disorder, or a co-occurring mental health disorder and a severe substance use disorder, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, personal safety, or necessary medical care. Existing law also authorizes a conservator of a person, estate, or person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled or impaired by chronic alcoholism, subject to specified procedures. Existing law provides the person for whom conservatorship is sought to have the right to demand a court or jury trial on the issue of whether the person is gravely disabled. Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent, and establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated. This bill would prohibit a court, for purposes of LPS conservatorship, from determining a person's ability to provide for their basic personal needs based solely on the fact that the person has temporary access to those basic personal needs while incarcerated. The bill would also authorize a district attorney to be present and represent public safety interests at any hearing to determine whether an individual is gravely disabled for purposes of the LPS Act. Existing law requires the court to determine the most appropriate placement for a conservatee who is gravely disabled, as defined. Existing law requires the officer providing conservatorship investigation to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship, as applicable, and to render to the court a comprehensive, written report of the investigation prior to the hearing, as specified. This bill would authorize the district attorney to review all filed documents regarding the investigation, initiation, termination, or modification of, and to be present and represent public safety interests at all hearings that consider, a conservatorship of a person who is gravely disabled, as defined by being found mentally incompetent and meeting the above-described conditions, to provide input to the court about appropriate placement or interim placement by the public conservator. The bill would require a copy of the conservatorship investigation report to be transmitted to the district attorney if the investigation was initiated as part of a determination of mental competence for trial. The bill would authorize the district attorney, if the individual has been appointed a conservator under specified provisions, to challenge the recommendation of the public conservator after the conservatorship investigation for an abuse of discretion in a contested hearing before a judge. The bill would prohibit the district attorney from using the information contained in these reports in subsequent criminal proceedings, except as specified. To the extent the bill imposes a higher level of service on county agencies that prepare and transmit conservatorship investigation reports and on a district attorney to receive those reports, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize a county with a population size of 750,000 or greater to consider prioritizing the placement of specified conservatees in a state hospital run by the State Department of State Hospitals if at least 40 of those conservatees are waiting for placement in a state hospital. The bill would also authorize the placement to be on an interim basis at a county detention facility pending acceptance into a facility that achieves the purposes of treatment of the conservatee and protection of the public. The bill would require the conservatee to receive treatment services in accordance with the conservatorship plan within the detention facility pending permanent placement and would require the court to review the conservator's placement efforts every 60 calendar days. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of health facilities, including general acute care hospitals, by the State Department of Public Health. Existing law authorizes a general acute care hospital to be approved to offer special services, including, among others, cardiac surgery. Existing regulation requires, when a general acute care hospital is providing cardiovascular operative service, that a minimum of 3 surgeons constitute a surgical team if the procedure requires extracorporeal bypass. This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2030, to update that regulation to reflect current professional standards of care relating to extracorporeal bypass surgery.
(1) Existing law provides for the licensing and regulation of health facilities, including, but not limited to, long-term health care facilities, as defined, by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law requires a contract for admission to a long-term care facility to state that a resident shall not be involuntarily transferred within, or discharged from, a long-term health care facility unless the resident is given reasonable notice in writing, and transfer or discharge planning, as specified. Willful or repeated violations of the provisions relating to long-term health care facilities is a misdemeanor. This bill would require long-term health care facilities to provide residents with a notice of a facility-initiated transfer or discharge at least 30 days before a resident is transferred or discharged, unless an exception applies. The bill would require the notice of transfer or discharge to be acknowledged by the signature of the resident or, if applicable, the resident's representative. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a class "B" violation and would make knowingly making a false verification regarding the delivery of a notice of transfer or discharge a willful violation for purposes of the criminal provision described above. The bill would require a notice of discharge or transfer to be provided to a resident and, if applicable, the resident's representative in a translated or accessible format at the same time as the written notice in English if the resident's primary language is not English or if the resident is vision impaired or blind, as specified. The bill would also require the translated or accessible-format notices to be made available to the local long-term care ombudsman upon request. The bill would require the translator to attest, under penalty of perjury, to the accuracy of the translation, thereby expanding the crime of perjury. The bill would require a resident's primary language or sensory impairments to be included in the minimum dataset maintained by the facility. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a class "B" violation. Existing law requires that a copy of the notice of transfer or discharge be sent to the local long-term care ombudsman at the same time notice is provided to the resident or the resident's representative by facsimile machine, email, or first-class mail, as specified. Existing law requires, if a resident is subject to a facility-initiated transfer to a general acute care hospital on an emergency basis, the notice to be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman as soon as practicable. This bill would instead require the notices described above to be sent to the long-term care ombudsman by facsimile, email, or other electronic means. For emergency transfer notices, the bill would require a copy of the notice to be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman as soon as practicable, but in no event later than 24 hours after the transfer. Because a willful or repeated violation of long-term care facilities provisions is a crime and because the crime of perjury is expanded, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish an inspection and reporting system to ensure that long-term health care facilities are in compliance with state statutes and regulations. Existing law, the Medi-Cal Long-Term Care Reimbursement Act, requires, among other things, that long-term health care facilities timely comply with hearing decisions issued by the department's Office of Administrative Hearings and Appeals for improperly transferring, discharging, or refusing to readmit a resident. Existing law authorizes the department to assess a penalty of $750 for each calendar day a facility fails to comply with the hearing decision and caps aggregate penalties for each individual hearing decision at $75,000. The bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health to prohibit the admission of new residents to a long-term health care facility upon notification that a facility has failed to timely comply with a hearing decision. The bill would require the prohibition to remain in effect until the facility has achieved compliance, the maximum aggregate of penalties have been collected, or the facility has formally sought judicial review of the hearing decision. The bill would increase the daily penalty described above to $1,000 for each calendar day and increase the maximum aggregate penalty amount to $100,000. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, establishes the Medical Board of California to license and regulate the practice of medicine. Existing law establishes within the act the Licensed Physicians from Mexico Program, which authorizes the board to issue a limited number of nonrenewable 3-year physician's and surgeon's licenses to physicians from Mexico who are licensed, certified, or recertified and in good standing in their medical specialty in Mexico and who meet specified other requirements. This bill would establish the Doctors from El Salvador Program for the purpose of permitting licensed physicians from El Salvador to practice medicine in California for up to 3 years. The bill would require the program to be developed in consultation with representatives from a community health clinic in California that has an established partnership and framework with specified universities in El Salvador and would require the program to, among other things, recruit and vet candidates and assist candidates for the program in El Salvador to meet all program requirements. The bill would require the board to issue a nonrenewable 3-year physician and surgeon's license to a person who is licensed, certified, or recertified, and in good standing in the applicable medical specialty in El Salvador and who meets other requirements of the program. This bill would require a licensee in the program to practice only in the nonprofit community health center that offered the licensee employment and the corresponding hospital. The bill would require a federally qualified health center employing a licensee in the program to take certain actions, including creating and maintaining medical quality assurance protocols for those licensees. The bill would also require the federally qualified health centers to work with a California medical school or residency program to conduct 10 secondary reviews of randomly selected patient encounters with each of those licensees every 6 months, as specified. The bill would also require the faculty from the medical school or residency program and federally qualified health center chief medical officers to jointly develop 2 quality assurance seminars to be attended by the licensees. This bill would require an evaluation of the program to be conducted 12 months after the program has commenced by one of specified universities in El Salvador and an unspecified medical school in southern California, except that if the evaluation does not begin within 18 months of commencement of the program, the bill would require the Director of Consumer Affairs to select an independent consultant to conduct the evaluation. The bill would require progress reports to be provided to the Legislature on achievable time intervals beginning in the 2nd year of implementation of the program. The bill would require the board to coordinate with the community health center, as specified, to ensure that the number of program participants that are issued a license does not exceed a certain number of licensees, based on the year in which the applicant applies. The bill would establish various fees to be deposited in the Contingent Fund of the Medical Board of California or the CURES Fund, as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute.
This bill is a House Resolution that formally recognizes the value of "food as medicine" in improving public health and reducing healthcare costs in California. It highlights how providing medically tailored meals, produce prescriptions, and other nutrition services helps prevent and manage diet-related conditions, particularly for communities of color. The text cites evidence that these programs lower emergency room visits and hospitalizations while noting that they are currently optional under existing state healthcare initiatives. By documenting these successes and the role of local providers, the resolution aims to encourage broader adoption of these services to support patient health and economic stability.
Existing law establishes the Department of Health Care Access and Information to oversee and administer various health programs, including, among others, the California Reproductive Health Equity Program. Under existing law, this program provides grant funding to safety net providers of abortion and contraception services to offset the costs of providing uncompensated care to patients with low incomes who would otherwise lack access to care. Existing law establishes the California Reproductive Health Equity Fund, and, within the limits of funds available, authorizes the department to award grants that, in the department's judgment, best promote the purposes of the program. This bill would establish the Safe Delivery Fund Pilot Program, until January 1, 2030, which would be administered by the department to provide funding to hospitals to offset uncompensated standby costs associated with maintaining specialty physician coverage, advanced practice provider coverage, and hospital staffing necessary to safely provide deliveries and related inpatient specialty services. The bill would require a hospital to meet specified requirements to qualify for the program, including, among other things, that the hospital can demonstrate that the hospital serves a geographically isolated population and that loss of obstetric services would significantly impact access to maternity care. This bill would establish the Safe Delivery Fund, and would require moneys in the fund to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the department for the purposes of the program. The bill would require the hospital to use the funds from the program for salaries, benefits, insurance, contracted physician compensation, contracted advanced practice provider compensation, or other expenses attributable to maintaining standby clinical capacity. The bill would require the program to reimburse a hospital quarterly based on the number of deliveries performed per day using a specified schedule. The bill would prohibit the department from awarding a hospital more than $5,000,000 per year. This bill would require a participating hospital, by April 1, 2027, and quarterly thereafter, to submit to the department specified data, including, among other things, maintenance of specialty staffing and service availability. The bill would authorize the department to conduct annual audits or program reviews, as specified. The bill would require a hospital to meet all of the program requirements for continued participation in the program.
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires a health care service plan contract issued, amended, delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2000, or an individual or group policy of disability insurance or self-insured employee welfare benefit plan to provide coverage for mammography for screening or diagnostic purposes upon referral by specified professionals. Under existing law, mammography performed pursuant to those requirements or that meets the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force is provided to an enrollee or an insured without cost sharing. This bill would require a health care service plan contract, a health insurance policy, or a self-insured employee welfare benefit plan issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2028, to provide coverage without imposing cost sharing for, among other things, screening mammography and medically necessary diagnostic breast imaging, including diagnostic breast imaging following an abnormal mammography result and for an enrollee or insured indicated to have a risk factor associated with breast cancer, except as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, requires the California State Board of Pharmacy within the Department of Consumer Affairs to license and regulate the practice of pharmacy, including pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and pharmacies. Existing law authorizes the board, with the approval of the Director of Consumer Affairs, to appoint an executive officer to exercise certain powers and to perform certain duties delegated by the board, as specified. Existing law repeals the provisions establishing the board and authorizing the appointment of an executive officer on January 1, 2026, rendering the board subject to review by the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. This bill would provide that the board has exclusive authority to administer and enforce the Pharmacy Law related to the practice of pharmacy and the licensing of pharmacists and pharmacies, and would specify that its provisions do not prohibit the board from evaluating or acting regarding unlicensed activity, as provided. The bill would extend the repeal date of the above-described provisions to January 1, 2030. The bill would additionally require the board to establish a Pharmacy Technician Advisory Committee to advise and make recommendations to the board, as specified. Existing law specifies the fees for issuance or renewal of licenses issued pursuant to the Pharmacy Law, including, among others, pharmacy licenses. This bill would require the board to waive the application fee for a pharmacy operating a physical location in a medically underserved area, as defined, and would authorize the board to waive the fee for the annual renewal of a license if the licensee provides the board with certification of continued operation in the medically underserved area. (2) Existing law authorizes a pharmacist to perform various procedures and functions, including those related to dispensing or furnishing drugs or devices, as specified. Existing law generally requires a pharmacist's dispensing or furnishing drugs to be done pursuant to a valid prescription, except as provided in specified circumstances. Those exceptions include furnishing an FDA-approved opioid antagonist, emergency contraception drug therapy, self-administered hormonal contraceptives, nicotine replacement products, certain medications for individuals traveling outside of the United States, and certain HIV medications, as specified. Existing law requires certain conditions to be met for a pharmacist to authorize the initiation of a prescription under certain of those exceptions or to otherwise provide clinical advice, services, information, or patient consultation. This bill would revise and recast the above-described provisions to authorize a pharmacist to, among other things, furnish dangerous devices, to furnish FDA-approved or authorized medications as part of preventative health care services that do not require a diagnosis, as specified, and to complete missing information on a prescription for a noncontrolled medication if there is evidence to support the change. The bill would require that a pharmacist provide those and other specified services or activities consistent with the accepted standard of care, defined to mean the degree of care a prudent and reasonable pharmacist licensed under the Pharmacy Law, with similar education, training, experience, resources, and setting, would use in a similar situation. The bill would make nonsubstantive, conforming changes. Existing law requires the clinical advice, services, information, or patient consultation that a pharmacist provides to be provided to a health care professional or to a patient. This bill would authorize a pharmacist to provide the clinical advice, services, information, or patient consultation to a patient's agent. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, authorizes a pharmacist to furnish COVID-19 oral therapeutics, as defined, following a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in accordance with specified requirements. This bill would delete the January 1, 2026, repeal date, thereby extending this authorization indefinitely. Existing law prohibits a dangerous drug from being refilled without the authorization of the prescriber, except under specified circumstances. Under those circumstances, existing law requires a pharmacist to make every reasonable effort to contact the prescriber. This bill would remove the above-described requirement that the pharmacist make every reasonable effort to contact the prescriber. Existing law authorizes a pharmacist to dispense not more than a 90-day supply of a dangerous drug other than a controlled substance pursuant to a valid prescription that specifies an initial quantity of less than a 90-day supply followed by periodic refills of that amount if certain requirements are met. Existing law prohibits a pharmacist from dispensing a greater supply pursuant to that provision if the prescriber indicates that there is to be no change to the quantity of the refill, as specified. This bill would remove that prohibition. Existing law authorizes a pharmacy to dispense epinephrine auto-injectors to a prehospital emergency medical care person or lay rescuer for the purpose of rendering emergency care, as specified. This bill would remove the above-described authorization. (3) Existing law authorizes a licensed pharmacist to perform additional functions if the licensee is recognized by the board as "an advanced practice pharmacist" by meeting certain requirements. Those additional functions include, among others, performing patient assessments, ordering and interpreting drug therapy-related tests, and initiating, adjusting, or discontinuing drug therapy, as specified. The requirements for recognition as an advanced practice pharmacist include having completed a combination of specified certifications, postgraduate residencies, or experience under a collaborative practice agreement or protocol with a physician. Existing law also requires an advanced practice pharmacist to complete 10 hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education otherwise required at the time of a second or subsequent license renewal. This bill would revise those and other related provisions to refer to those licensees as "advanced pharmacist practitioners," instead of as "advanced practice pharmacists." (4) Existing law prohibits any person from furnishing or dispensing any dangerous drug or device on the internet for delivery to any person in California without a prescription issued pursuant to a "good faith prior examination," as provided. This bill would instead refer to that examination as an "appropriate prior examination." (5) Existing law authorizes the board to issue citations containing fines and orders of abatement for violations of specified law, as provided. Existing law authorizes the board to bring an action against a chain community pharmacy under common ownership or management for fines for a violation of the Pharmacy Law that was expressly encouraged by the common owner or manager, as provided. This bill would instead apply those fines for a violation that was expressly encouraged by any owner or manager of the chain community pharmacy. Existing law authorizes the board to bring an action for fines for repeated violations of materially similar provisions of the Pharmacy Law within 5 years by 3 or more pharmacies operating under common ownership or management within a chain community pharmacy, as specified. Existing law provides a pharmacy with a defense if it establishes that the violation was contrary to a written policy that was communicated by the common owner or manager to all employees where the violation occurred. Existing law also provides a defense if the pharmacy establishes that, within 6 months after the violation, the common owner or manager corrected all unlawful policies, communicated the change in policies, and provided the board with proof of abatement of the violation, as specified. This bill would, for the defense that the violation was contrary to a written policy, also require the entity to establish that it has complied with the policy. The bill would revise the above-described corrective-actions defense by allowing those actions to be undertaken by any owner or manager of the pharmacy. The bill would additionally authorize the board to bring an action for fines for repeated violations of materially similar provisions of the Pharmacy Law against a mail order pharmacy, defined as a nonresident pharmacy that dispenses medications and ships them to patients via the postal service or other mail delivery method, as provided. The bill would require the board, in determining the amount of the fine, to consider mitigating and aggregating factors, as specified. (6) Existing law prohibits the board from issuing a pharmacy license to a person who has a shared community or financial interest with a person authorized to prescribe or write a prescription, as provided. This bill would establish an exception to the above-described prohibition under which the applicant and the prescriber would be required to provide statements that the prescriber disavows any community or financial interest in the license and to transmute any interest in the license that is shared community property into the separate property of the applicant, as provided. The bill would prohibit a pharmacy granted a license pursuant to this exception from filling any prescriptions issued or prescribed by a person who shares a community or other financial interest with the licensee or a prescriber at the same place of business as that person if the prescriber owns an interest greater than 10% in the practice issuing the prescription. Existing law authorizes the board to issue a retired license to a licensed pharmacist, as specified. Existing law authorizes the holder of a retired license to restore their license to active status by passing the examination that is required for initial licensure with the board. This bill would instead authorize the holder of a retired license to request to restore their license to active status within 3 years of issuance of the retired license by paying a renewal fee and successfully completing certain continuing education within the 2 years preceding the request, as specified. If more than 3 years have elapsed since the issuance of the retired license, the bill would require the holder of the retired license to reapply for licensure as a pharmacist, as specified. Existing law authorizes the board to deny a license application if the applicant has been convicted of a crime or subjected to formal discipline that would be grounds for denial of a federal registration to distribute controlled substances. This bill would also authorize the board to deny a license application if the applicant has been convicted of a crime involving fraud in violation of state or federal laws related to health care or involving financial identity theft. Existing law requires certain licensed facilities to perform a self-assessment evaluating compliance with specified provisions of the Pharmacy Law, as provided. This bill would require all licensed facilities to complete a self-assessment every odd-numbered year and within 30 days of certain changes to the license, management personnel, and location, as provided. The bill would require this self-assessment to be signed under penalty of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by expanding the crime of perjury. (7) Existing law requires a pharmacy to designate a pharmacist-in-charge and notify the board within 30 days of that designation, as specified. Existing law authorizes the pharmacist-in-charge to, among other things, make staffing decisions and notify store management of dangerous conditions, as specified. This bill would require the pharmacist-in-charge to determine the appropriate pharmacist-to-technician ratio, within prescribed limits, and prohibit anyone else from interfering with the exercise of the pharmacist-in-charge's independent professional judgment in setting this ratio. The bill would additionally require the pharmacist-in-charge to notify the owner or hospital administrator of dangerous conditions, as specified. Existing law provides for the licensing of nonresident pharmacies, as specified. Existing law prohibits a pharmacist at a nonresident pharmacy whose license has been revoked from prescribing a dangerous drug or providing other pharmacy-related services, as specified. This bill would, beginning July 1, 2026, require a nonresident pharmacy, as a prerequisite to registering with the board and ongoing licensure, to identify a California-licensed pharmacist employed and working at the nonresident pharmacy to be proposed to serve as the pharmacist-in-charge. The bill would also require the nonresident pharmacy, within 90 days of designating a pharmacist-in-charge, to notify the board of the identity and license number of that pharmacist and the date they were designated, as specified. The bill would require the nonresident pharmacy, within 90 days, to notify the board of a pharmacist-in-charge ceasing to act as the pharmacist-in-charge and to propose another pharmacist to take over as the pharmacist-in-charge. The bill would additionally, beginning July 1, 2026, prohibit a nonresident pharmacy from permitting a pharmacist-in-charge who is not licensed in California from working at a nonresident pharmacy. The bill would authorize the board to inspect a nonresident pharmacy. The bill would require a nonresident pharmacy to deposit a reasonable amount, as determined by the board, necessary to cover the board's estimated reasonable costs of performing the inspection, as specified. (8) Existing law limits a pharmacy with only one pharmacist to one pharmacy technician performing packaging, manipulative, repetitive, or other nondiscretionary tasks. This bill would increase this limit to 3 pharmacy technicians performing those tasks. (9) Existing law requires a pharmacy to preserve certain records, as provided. This bill would require a pharmacy to additionally maintain records related to prescribed policies and procedures in a readily retrievable format. The bill would also impose requirements related to electronically maintained records. (10) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4064.5 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by SB 418 to be operative only if this bill and SB 418 is enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4076 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 260 to be operative only if this bill and AB 260 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (11) Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
