Michigan Senate Bill SB0403

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/11/25
• Refer: 6/11/25
• Report Pass: 6/26/25
• Refer: 6/26/25
• Report Pass: 7/1/25
• Engrossed: 7/1/25
• Refer: 7/1/25

Caption

Health occupations: pharmacists; dispensing certain addiction medications without undue delay; require. Amends 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.1101 - 333.25211) by adding sec. 7333c.

Impact

The introduction of SB 403 is expected to have significant implications for state health policy. By enforcing these regulations, the bill seeks to streamline the process of obtaining addiction medications and facilitate quicker responses to prescriptions. This aligns with broader public health efforts to combat the opioid crisis and improve the lives of individuals suffering from substance use disorders. However, it also places added operational requirements on pharmacies, which may need to adjust their inventory and dispensing processes accordingly to comply with the new standards.

Summary

Senate Bill 403 aims to amend the Public Health Code by introducing new provisions concerning the dispensing of addiction medications by pharmacists. Specifically, the bill mandates that a pharmacist must dispense addiction medications, as prescribed, without undue delay. The legislation emphasizes the importance of rapid access to these medications for individuals dealing with opioid use disorders, thereby addressing a critical aspect of public health. Additionally, the bill requires pharmacies to maintain a minimum two-week stock of addiction medication to ensure availability at all times, thereby reducing the risk of shortages when patient needs arise.

Contention

Despite its aim to improve access to addiction treatment, SB 403 may spark debates regarding the practicality and feasibility of its provisions. Critics could argue that the requirement for pharmacies to always maintain a two-week supply may not be realistic for all entities, especially smaller or independent pharmacies. There is also the potential concern regarding the definition of 'undue delay', which might lead to varying interpretations and possible disputes between pharmacists and prescribers. Furthermore, there might be discussions about whether the state is adequately supporting pharmacies in fulfilling these new requirements without overextending their operational capacities.