Alabama House Bill HB75

Alabama 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/11/22
• Refer: 1/11/22
• Engrossed: 2/8/22
• Refer: 2/9/22

Caption

Pharmacy Bd., pharmacist and permit holders, delivery of charges, election of board, delivery of ballots, Secs. 34-23-34, 34-23-90 am'd.

Impact

The legislative changes proposed by HB75 are intended to enhance transparency and fairness in the disciplinary process. By stipulating that charges must be served at least 30 days prior to a hearing, the bill provides sufficient time for affected parties to prepare a defense. This improvement potentially increases the accountability of the Board in its regulatory functions. Furthermore, entrusting a third party with election procedures is seen as a move to depoliticize the election process, making it more impartial and representative of the pharmacy community.

Summary

House Bill 75 focuses on the governance of the Alabama State Board of Pharmacy. It introduces amendments to existing regulations, particularly Section 34-23-34 and Section 34-23-90 of the Code of Alabama. The bill grants the Board the authority to determine how charges relating to disciplinary actions against licensed pharmacists and pharmacy permit holders are delivered. Additionally, it modifies the election process for Board members by allowing an independent third party to conduct the elections, thereby eliminating previous canvassing committee requirements.

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding HB75 appears positive among proponents who advocate for increased equity in the disciplinary procedure and a more transparent election process. Supporters include various pharmacy organizations that believe these changes will foster a more balanced regulatory environment. However, there might be concerns among some legislators regarding the autonomy of the Board and whether these changes could lead to decreased oversight on disciplinary matters, although these concerns do not seem to dominate the discussions.

Contention

One notable point of contention may arise from the extent to which these amendments adequately represent the interests of all pharmacy practitioners. The shift to a third-party election process for Board members has prompted discussions on its effectiveness versus traditional methods. Critics might argue that while accountability is essential, the involvement of an external entity could complicate the processes further or lead to unforeseen consequences in Board member selection. These dynamics will need to be monitored to ensure that the intended improvements do not compromise the representation within the pharmacy community.