Amended IN Senate April 22, 2019 Amended IN Senate March 26, 2019 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20192020 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 476Introduced by Senator StoneFebruary 21, 2019 An act to amend Section 4036.5 Sections 4302 and 4306.6 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to healing arts. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTSB 476, as amended, Stone. Pharmacist-in-charge: disciplinary proceedings.Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensing and regulation of pharmacists by the California State Board of Pharmacy in the Department of Consumer Affairs. The law requires each pharmacy to designate a pharmacist-in-charge, proposed by the pharmacy and approved by the board, who is responsible for the pharmacys compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations pertaining to the practice of pharmacy. Under the law, any pharmacy owner who commits any act that would subvert or tend to subvert the efforts of the pharmacist-in-charge to comply with the laws governing the operation of the pharmacy is guilty of a misdemeanor. The law requires the board to take disciplinary action against any holder of a license who is guilty of unprofessional conduct. The law requires the board, if it disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board that violation or suspected violation, to use the report as a mitigating factor if prescribed conditions are met. Existing law requires a pharmacist-in-charge to take reasonable actions to stop and remedy violations of these provisions.This bill would, in addition to criminal charges, subject any pharmacy owner or other person with management and control of the licensee, who commits any act that would subvert or tend to subvert the efforts of the pharmacist-in-charge to comply with the laws governing the operation of the pharmacy to a fine of up to $50,000. The bill would require a pharmacist-in-charge to take only those reasonable actions that are within their authority in order to stop and remedy a violation of these provisions.This bill would revise that mitigating factor provision to, instead, exempt a pharmacist-in-charge from disciplinary action by the board for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person of which the pharmacist-in-charge had no knowledge, or in which the pharmacist-in-charge did not knowingly participate, if prescribed conditions are met.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO Bill TextThe people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 4302 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:4302. (a) The board may deny, suspend, or revoke any license where conditions exist in relation to any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or where conditions exist in relation to any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the license that would constitute grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee.(b) Any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the licensee shall be subject to a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for usurping a pharmacist-in-charges authority or otherwise hindering the pharmacist-in-charges ability to carry out their duties under this chapter.SEC. 2. Section 4306.6 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:4306.6. If the board disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board that violation or suspected violation, the board shall use the report as a mitigating factor if all of the following conditions are met:(a) The pharmacist-in-charge did not engage, either directly or indirectly, in any conduct that violated any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(b) The pharmacist-in-charge did not permit, encourage, approve of, either tacitly or implicitly or through willful ignorance, any conduct committed by another person that violated state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(c) The pharmacist-in-charge reported the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy to the board as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.(d) The pharmacist-in-charge took all actions within their authority reasonably necessary to stop and remedy the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.SECTION 1.Section 4306.6 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:4306.6.A pharmacist-in-charge shall not be subject to disciplinary action by the board for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person of which the pharmacist-in-charge had no knowledge, or in which the pharmacist-in-charge did not knowingly participate, if all of the following conditions are met:(a)The pharmacist-in-charge did not knowingly engage, either directly or indirectly, in any conduct that violated any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(b)The pharmacist-in-charge did not permit, encourage, or approve of, through willful ignorance, any conduct committed by another person that violated state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(c)If the pharmacist-in-charge reported the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy to the board, the pharmacist-in-charge did so as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.(d)The pharmacist-in-charge took all actions within their authority reasonably necessary to stop and remedy the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.
Amended IN Senate April 22, 2019 Amended IN Senate March 26, 2019 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20192020 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 476Introduced by Senator StoneFebruary 21, 2019 An act to amend Section 4036.5 Sections 4302 and 4306.6 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to healing arts. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTSB 476, as amended, Stone. Pharmacist-in-charge: disciplinary proceedings.Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensing and regulation of pharmacists by the California State Board of Pharmacy in the Department of Consumer Affairs. The law requires each pharmacy to designate a pharmacist-in-charge, proposed by the pharmacy and approved by the board, who is responsible for the pharmacys compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations pertaining to the practice of pharmacy. Under the law, any pharmacy owner who commits any act that would subvert or tend to subvert the efforts of the pharmacist-in-charge to comply with the laws governing the operation of the pharmacy is guilty of a misdemeanor. The law requires the board to take disciplinary action against any holder of a license who is guilty of unprofessional conduct. The law requires the board, if it disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board that violation or suspected violation, to use the report as a mitigating factor if prescribed conditions are met. Existing law requires a pharmacist-in-charge to take reasonable actions to stop and remedy violations of these provisions.This bill would, in addition to criminal charges, subject any pharmacy owner or other person with management and control of the licensee, who commits any act that would subvert or tend to subvert the efforts of the pharmacist-in-charge to comply with the laws governing the operation of the pharmacy to a fine of up to $50,000. The bill would require a pharmacist-in-charge to take only those reasonable actions that are within their authority in order to stop and remedy a violation of these provisions.This bill would revise that mitigating factor provision to, instead, exempt a pharmacist-in-charge from disciplinary action by the board for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person of which the pharmacist-in-charge had no knowledge, or in which the pharmacist-in-charge did not knowingly participate, if prescribed conditions are met.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO
Amended IN Senate April 22, 2019 Amended IN Senate March 26, 2019
Amended IN Senate April 22, 2019
Amended IN Senate March 26, 2019
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20192020 REGULAR SESSION
Senate Bill No. 476
Introduced by Senator StoneFebruary 21, 2019
Introduced by Senator Stone
February 21, 2019
An act to amend Section 4036.5 Sections 4302 and 4306.6 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to healing arts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
## LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 476, as amended, Stone. Pharmacist-in-charge: disciplinary proceedings.
Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensing and regulation of pharmacists by the California State Board of Pharmacy in the Department of Consumer Affairs. The law requires each pharmacy to designate a pharmacist-in-charge, proposed by the pharmacy and approved by the board, who is responsible for the pharmacys compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations pertaining to the practice of pharmacy. Under the law, any pharmacy owner who commits any act that would subvert or tend to subvert the efforts of the pharmacist-in-charge to comply with the laws governing the operation of the pharmacy is guilty of a misdemeanor. The law requires the board to take disciplinary action against any holder of a license who is guilty of unprofessional conduct. The law requires the board, if it disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board that violation or suspected violation, to use the report as a mitigating factor if prescribed conditions are met. Existing law requires a pharmacist-in-charge to take reasonable actions to stop and remedy violations of these provisions.This bill would, in addition to criminal charges, subject any pharmacy owner or other person with management and control of the licensee, who commits any act that would subvert or tend to subvert the efforts of the pharmacist-in-charge to comply with the laws governing the operation of the pharmacy to a fine of up to $50,000. The bill would require a pharmacist-in-charge to take only those reasonable actions that are within their authority in order to stop and remedy a violation of these provisions.This bill would revise that mitigating factor provision to, instead, exempt a pharmacist-in-charge from disciplinary action by the board for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person of which the pharmacist-in-charge had no knowledge, or in which the pharmacist-in-charge did not knowingly participate, if prescribed conditions are met.
Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensing and regulation of pharmacists by the California State Board of Pharmacy in the Department of Consumer Affairs. The law requires each pharmacy to designate a pharmacist-in-charge, proposed by the pharmacy and approved by the board, who is responsible for the pharmacys compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations pertaining to the practice of pharmacy. Under the law, any pharmacy owner who commits any act that would subvert or tend to subvert the efforts of the pharmacist-in-charge to comply with the laws governing the operation of the pharmacy is guilty of a misdemeanor. The law requires the board to take disciplinary action against any holder of a license who is guilty of unprofessional conduct. The law requires the board, if it disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board that violation or suspected violation, to use the report as a mitigating factor if prescribed conditions are met. Existing law requires a pharmacist-in-charge to take reasonable actions to stop and remedy violations of these provisions.
This bill would, in addition to criminal charges, subject any pharmacy owner or other person with management and control of the licensee, who commits any act that would subvert or tend to subvert the efforts of the pharmacist-in-charge to comply with the laws governing the operation of the pharmacy to a fine of up to $50,000. The bill would require a pharmacist-in-charge to take only those reasonable actions that are within their authority in order to stop and remedy a violation of these provisions.
This bill would revise that mitigating factor provision to, instead, exempt a pharmacist-in-charge from disciplinary action by the board for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person of which the pharmacist-in-charge had no knowledge, or in which the pharmacist-in-charge did not knowingly participate, if prescribed conditions are met.
## Digest Key
## Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 4302 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:4302. (a) The board may deny, suspend, or revoke any license where conditions exist in relation to any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or where conditions exist in relation to any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the license that would constitute grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee.(b) Any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the licensee shall be subject to a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for usurping a pharmacist-in-charges authority or otherwise hindering the pharmacist-in-charges ability to carry out their duties under this chapter.SEC. 2. Section 4306.6 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:4306.6. If the board disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board that violation or suspected violation, the board shall use the report as a mitigating factor if all of the following conditions are met:(a) The pharmacist-in-charge did not engage, either directly or indirectly, in any conduct that violated any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(b) The pharmacist-in-charge did not permit, encourage, approve of, either tacitly or implicitly or through willful ignorance, any conduct committed by another person that violated state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(c) The pharmacist-in-charge reported the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy to the board as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.(d) The pharmacist-in-charge took all actions within their authority reasonably necessary to stop and remedy the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.SECTION 1.Section 4306.6 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:4306.6.A pharmacist-in-charge shall not be subject to disciplinary action by the board for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person of which the pharmacist-in-charge had no knowledge, or in which the pharmacist-in-charge did not knowingly participate, if all of the following conditions are met:(a)The pharmacist-in-charge did not knowingly engage, either directly or indirectly, in any conduct that violated any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(b)The pharmacist-in-charge did not permit, encourage, or approve of, through willful ignorance, any conduct committed by another person that violated state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(c)If the pharmacist-in-charge reported the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy to the board, the pharmacist-in-charge did so as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.(d)The pharmacist-in-charge took all actions within their authority reasonably necessary to stop and remedy the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
## The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 4302 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:4302. (a) The board may deny, suspend, or revoke any license where conditions exist in relation to any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or where conditions exist in relation to any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the license that would constitute grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee.(b) Any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the licensee shall be subject to a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for usurping a pharmacist-in-charges authority or otherwise hindering the pharmacist-in-charges ability to carry out their duties under this chapter.
SECTION 1. Section 4302 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:
### SECTION 1.
4302. (a) The board may deny, suspend, or revoke any license where conditions exist in relation to any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or where conditions exist in relation to any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the license that would constitute grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee.(b) Any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the licensee shall be subject to a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for usurping a pharmacist-in-charges authority or otherwise hindering the pharmacist-in-charges ability to carry out their duties under this chapter.
4302. (a) The board may deny, suspend, or revoke any license where conditions exist in relation to any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or where conditions exist in relation to any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the license that would constitute grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee.(b) Any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the licensee shall be subject to a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for usurping a pharmacist-in-charges authority or otherwise hindering the pharmacist-in-charges ability to carry out their duties under this chapter.
4302. (a) The board may deny, suspend, or revoke any license where conditions exist in relation to any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or where conditions exist in relation to any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the license that would constitute grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee.(b) Any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the licensee shall be subject to a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for usurping a pharmacist-in-charges authority or otherwise hindering the pharmacist-in-charges ability to carry out their duties under this chapter.
4302. (a) The board may deny, suspend, or revoke any license where conditions exist in relation to any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or where conditions exist in relation to any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the license that would constitute grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee.
(b) Any person holding 10 percent or more of the ownership interest or any officer, director, or other person with management or control of the licensee shall be subject to a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for usurping a pharmacist-in-charges authority or otherwise hindering the pharmacist-in-charges ability to carry out their duties under this chapter.
SEC. 2. Section 4306.6 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:4306.6. If the board disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board that violation or suspected violation, the board shall use the report as a mitigating factor if all of the following conditions are met:(a) The pharmacist-in-charge did not engage, either directly or indirectly, in any conduct that violated any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(b) The pharmacist-in-charge did not permit, encourage, approve of, either tacitly or implicitly or through willful ignorance, any conduct committed by another person that violated state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(c) The pharmacist-in-charge reported the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy to the board as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.(d) The pharmacist-in-charge took all actions within their authority reasonably necessary to stop and remedy the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.
SEC. 2. Section 4306.6 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:
### SEC. 2.
4306.6. If the board disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board that violation or suspected violation, the board shall use the report as a mitigating factor if all of the following conditions are met:(a) The pharmacist-in-charge did not engage, either directly or indirectly, in any conduct that violated any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(b) The pharmacist-in-charge did not permit, encourage, approve of, either tacitly or implicitly or through willful ignorance, any conduct committed by another person that violated state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(c) The pharmacist-in-charge reported the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy to the board as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.(d) The pharmacist-in-charge took all actions within their authority reasonably necessary to stop and remedy the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.
4306.6. If the board disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board that violation or suspected violation, the board shall use the report as a mitigating factor if all of the following conditions are met:(a) The pharmacist-in-charge did not engage, either directly or indirectly, in any conduct that violated any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(b) The pharmacist-in-charge did not permit, encourage, approve of, either tacitly or implicitly or through willful ignorance, any conduct committed by another person that violated state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(c) The pharmacist-in-charge reported the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy to the board as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.(d) The pharmacist-in-charge took all actions within their authority reasonably necessary to stop and remedy the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.
4306.6. If the board disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board that violation or suspected violation, the board shall use the report as a mitigating factor if all of the following conditions are met:(a) The pharmacist-in-charge did not engage, either directly or indirectly, in any conduct that violated any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(b) The pharmacist-in-charge did not permit, encourage, approve of, either tacitly or implicitly or through willful ignorance, any conduct committed by another person that violated state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.(c) The pharmacist-in-charge reported the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy to the board as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.(d) The pharmacist-in-charge took all actions within their authority reasonably necessary to stop and remedy the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.
4306.6. If the board disciplines a pharmacist-in-charge for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person and the pharmacist-in-charge reported to the board that violation or suspected violation, the board shall use the report as a mitigating factor if all of the following conditions are met:
(a) The pharmacist-in-charge did not engage, either directly or indirectly, in any conduct that violated any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.
(b) The pharmacist-in-charge did not permit, encourage, approve of, either tacitly or implicitly or through willful ignorance, any conduct committed by another person that violated state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.
(c) The pharmacist-in-charge reported the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy to the board as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.
(d) The pharmacist-in-charge took all actions within their authority reasonably necessary to stop and remedy the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.
A pharmacist-in-charge shall not be subject to disciplinary action by the board for the violation of a state or federal law or regulation committed by another person of which the pharmacist-in-charge had no knowledge, or in which the pharmacist-in-charge did not knowingly participate, if all of the following conditions are met:
(a)The pharmacist-in-charge did not knowingly engage, either directly or indirectly, in any conduct that violated any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.
(b)The pharmacist-in-charge did not permit, encourage, or approve of, through willful ignorance, any conduct committed by another person that violated state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy.
(c)If the pharmacist-in-charge reported the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy to the board, the pharmacist-in-charge did so as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.
(d)The pharmacist-in-charge took all actions within their authority reasonably necessary to stop and remedy the violation, or suspected violation, of any state or federal law or regulation pertaining to the practice of pharmacy as soon as reasonably possible following the discovery of the violation.