Pharmacy: third-party logistics providers.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 2605 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 2605.
You're tracking AB 2605
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 2605 — Pharmacy: third-party logistics providers.
Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 507, Statutes of 2014.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Assembly
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 21, 2014. Enacted.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 7 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
(1) Under the Pharmacy Law, a violation of which is a crime, the California State Board of Pharmacy licenses and regulates the practice of pharmacy. Existing law restricts the purchase, trade, sale, or transfer of dangerous drugs or dangerous devices, as defined, to licensed wholesalers and other authorized persons. Under the Pharmacy Law, the board licenses and regulates entities, including third-party logistics providers, as wholesalers. The Pharmacy Law defines a "third-party logistics provider" or a "reverse third-party logistics provider" as an entity licensed as a wholesaler that contracts with a dangerous drug manufacturer to provide or coordinate warehousing, distribution, or other similar services on behalf of a manufacturer, but for which there is no change of ownership in the dangerous drugs. Existing law requires a wholesaler to have a pharmacist or designated representative on its premises and to be supervised or managed by a designated representative-in-charge. Existing law requires a separate license for each place of business owned or operated by a wholesaler. Existing law also requires a wholesaler to submit a surety bond of $100,000 payable to a specified fund of the board to secure payment of any administrative fine imposed by the board. Existing law, the federal Drug Supply Chain Security Act, prohibits a third-party logistics provider, as defined, from conducting any activities in a state unless each facility of the provider is licensed by the state from which drugs are distributed by the provider in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. This bill would revise the definition of the terms "third-party logistics provider" and "reverse third-party logistics provider" to conform to federal law, as specified, and would require a third-party logistics provider of a dangerous drug or dangerous device to be separately licensed by the board as a third-party logistics provider. The bill would require a third-party logistics provider to be supervised and managed by a responsible manager who would need to be licensed by the board as a designated representative-3PL. Under the bill, a designated representative-3PL and a responsible manager would be subject to similar requirements as those imposed on a designated representative and a designated representative-in-charge, respectively. The bill would limit a place of business to a single board-issued license, except for entities under common ownership that meet specified requirements, and would require that at least one designated representative, in the case of a wholesaler, or designated representative-3PL, in the case of a third-party logistics provider, be present during business hours for each licensed place of business. The bill would require a third-party logistics provider to submit a surety bond of $90,000 payable to a specified fund of the board to secure payment of any administrative fine imposed by the board. The bill would enact parallel requirements with respect to nonresident third-party logistics providers and would make related conforming changes and delete obsolete provisions. After specified federal regulations under the federal Drug Supply Chain Security Act are promulgated, the bill would require the board to act to identify any California laws governing interstate commerce in conflict with those regulations and act to remove the conflict. Existing law makes a wholesaler that uses the services of a carrier liable for the security and integrity of any dangerous drug or devices through that carrier until the drugs or devices are delivered to the transferee. This bill would extend that liability when the wholesaler uses the services of a third-party logistics provider and would require a third-party logistics provider that uses the services of a carrier to have in place and comply with specified written policies and procedures. (2) Existing law requires that all records of manufacture and of sale, acquisition, or disposition of dangerous drugs or dangerous devices be open to inspection by authorized officers of the law during business hours and be preserved for at least 3 years. This bill would make those requirements also applicable to records of receipt and shipment of dangerous drugs and dangerous devices. The bill would also require a manufacturer, wholesaler, third-party logistics provider, or pharmacy that has reasonable cause to believe that a dangerous drug or device that is or was in its possession, and has been sold or distributed in or through California, is counterfeit or the subject of a fraudulent transaction to notify the board within 72 hours of obtaining that knowledge. (3) Existing law sets the fees for the issuance and renewal of licenses for wholesalers and designated representatives at specified amounts and authorizes those fees to be increased to specified higher amounts. This bill would instead set the fees at the higher amounts. (4) Because a violation of the requirements described in paragraphs (1) and (2) above 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.
Bill Text
- Chaptered 09/20/14 - Chaptered Current pdf September 20, 2014
- Enrolled 09/03/14 - Enrolled pdf September 03, 2014
- Amended 08/22/14 - Amended Senate pdf August 22, 2014
- Amended 08/06/14 - Amended Senate pdf August 06, 2014
- Amended 06/17/14 - Amended Senate pdf June 17, 2014
- Amended 05/05/14 - Amended Assembly pdf May 05, 2014
- Amended 04/23/14 - Amended Assembly pdf April 23, 2014
- Amended 03/18/14 - Amended Assembly pdf March 18, 2014
- Introduced 02/21/14 - Introduced pdf February 21, 2014
- AB2605 View text html
Action History
-
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 507, Statutes of 2014.
-
Approved by the Governor.
-
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m.
-
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 70. Noes 3. Page 6590.).
-
Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Ayes 56. Noes 21. Page 6571.)
-
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 28 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
-
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 4860.).
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
-
Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 4).
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
-
Referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
-
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
-
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 74. Noes 1. Page 5165.)
-
Ordered to third reading.
-
From consent calendar.
-
Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.
-
From committee: Do pass. To consent calendar. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 14).
-
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Read second time and amended.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (April 29).
-
Re-referred to Com. on B.,P. & C.P.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B.,P. & C.P. Read second time and amended.
-
Re-referred to Com. on B.,P. & C.P.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B.,P. & C.P. Read second time and amended.
-
Referred to Com. on B.,P. & C.P.
-
Read first time.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
-
Introduced. To print.
Sponsors
- Bonilla · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Bonilla
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 32 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 34 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| % of votes cast | 85% | 0% | 0% | 15% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Anderson | — | Yea |
| Block | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Knight | — | Yea |
| Monning | — | Yea |
| Torres | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Correa | — | Yea |
| Wright | — | Not Voting |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Evans | — | Yea |
| Mitchell | — | Yea |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Galgiani | — | Yea |
| Cannella | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Huff | — | Yea |
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Lieu | — | Not Voting |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| Morrell | — | Not Voting |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Vidak | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Fuller | — | Yea |
| Yee | — | Not Voting |
| Hancock | — | Not Voting |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 63 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
| Democratic | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 70 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
| % of votes cast | 89% | 4% | 0% | 8% |
How each member voted (79)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Achadjian | — | Yea |
| Alejo | — | Yea |
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Brown | — | Yea |
| Buchanan | — | Yea |
| Linder | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Mansoor | — | Not Voting |
| Nazarian | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Rodriguez | — | Yea |
| Weber | — | Yea |
| Daly | — | Not Voting |
| Frazier | — | Yea |
| Gomez | — | Yea |
| Gordon | — | Yea |
| Allen | — | Yea |
| Lowenthal | — | Yea |
| Hagman | — | Yea |
| Garcia | — | Yea |
| Hall | — | Yea |
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Fong | — | Yea |
| Bonilla | — | Yea |
| Ammiano | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Dababneh | — | Yea |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Olsen | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Ridley-Thomas | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Waldron | — | Yea |
| Gatto | — | Nay |
| Bocanegra | — | Yea |
| Harkey | — | Not Voting |
| John A. Pérez | — | Yea |
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Levine | — | Yea |
| Logue | — | Not Voting |
| Medina | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Nestande | — | Yea |
| Campos | — | Yea |
| Perea | — | Yea |
| Rendon | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Chesbro | — | Yea |
| Chávez | — | Yea |
| Conway | — | Yea |
| Cooley | — | Yea |
| Donnelly | — | Nay |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| Wagner | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Not Voting |
| Williams | — | Yea |
| Dickinson | — | Yea |
| Fox | — | Nay |
| Yamada | — | Yea |
| Gorell | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Jim Patterson | — | Not Voting |
| Lorena Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Roger Hernández | — | Yea |
| V. Manuel Pérez | — | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Muratsuchi, Al | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Lara | — | Yea |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 89% | 0% | 0% | 11% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Block | — | Not Voting |
| Lieu | — | Yea |
| Torres | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Galgiani | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 68 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 74 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| % of votes cast | 94% | 1% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (79)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Achadjian | — | Yea |
| Alejo | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Brown | — | Yea |
| Levine | — | Yea |
| Mansoor | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Nazarian | — | Yea |
| Perea | — | Yea |
| Rendon | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| Weber | — | Yea |
| Williams | — | Yea |
| Fong | — | Yea |
| Campos | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Bonilla | — | Yea |
| Frazier | — | Yea |
| Gomez | — | Yea |
| Hall | — | Yea |
| Harkey | — | Yea |
| Bocanegra | — | Yea |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| John A. Pérez | — | Yea |
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Medina | — | Yea |
| Chesbro | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Nestande | — | Yea |
| Olsen | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Ammiano | — | Yea |
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Chávez | — | Yea |
| Conway | — | Yea |
| Cooley | — | Yea |
| Dickinson | — | Yea |
| Donnelly | — | Not Voting |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Rodriguez | — | Yea |
| Wagner | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Not Voting |
| Buchanan | — | Yea |
| Dababneh | — | Yea |
| Daly | — | Yea |
| Gorell | — | Yea |
| Linder | — | Yea |
| Logue | — | Yea |
| Ridley-Thomas | — | Yea |
| Waldron | — | Yea |
| Allen | — | Yea |
| Lowenthal | — | Yea |
| Garcia | — | Yea |
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Fox | — | Nay |
| Gatto | — | Yea |
| Yamada | — | Yea |
| Gordon | — | Yea |
| Hagman | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Jim Patterson | — | Not Voting |
| Lorena Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Roger Hernández | — | Yea |
| V. Manuel Pérez | — | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Muratsuchi, Al | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (17)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Weber | — | Yea |
| Campos | — | Yea |
| Bocanegra | — | Yea |
| Gatto | — | Yea |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Linder | — | Yea |
| Ridley-Thomas | — | Yea |
| Donnelly | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Wagner | — | Yea |
| Gomez | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 79% | 0% | 0% | 21% |
How each member voted (14)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Not Voting |
| Bocanegra | — | Yea |
| Hagman | — | Not Voting |
| Bonilla | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Campos | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| Dickinson | — | Yea |
| Gordon | — | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Not Voting |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 2605 do?
- (1) Under the Pharmacy Law, a violation of which is a crime, the California State Board of Pharmacy licenses and regulates the practice of pharmacy. Existing law restricts the purchase, trade, sale, or transfer of dangerous drugs or dangerous devices, as defined, to licensed wholesalers and other authorized persons. Under the Pharmacy Law, the board licenses and regulates entities, including third-party logistics providers, as wholesalers. The Pharmacy Law defines a "third-party logistics provider" or a "reverse third-party logistics provider" as an entity licensed as a wholesaler that contracts with a dangerous drug manufacturer to provide or coordinate warehousing, distribution, or other similar services on behalf of a manufacturer, but for which there is no change of ownership in the dangerous drugs. Existing law requires a wholesaler to have a pharmacist or designated representative on its premises and to be supervised or managed by a designated representative-in-charge. Existing law requires a separate license for each place of business owned or operated by a wholesaler. Existing law also requires a wholesaler to submit a surety bond of $100,000 payable to a specified fund of the board to secure payment of any administrative fine imposed by the board. Existing law, the federal Drug Supply Chain Security Act, prohibits a third-party logistics provider, as defined, from conducting any activities in a state unless each facility of the provider is licensed by the state from which drugs are distributed by the provider in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. This bill would revise the definition of the terms "third-party logistics provider" and "reverse third-party logistics provider" to conform to federal law, as specified, and would require a third-party logistics provider of a dangerous drug or dangerous device to be separately licensed by the board as a third-party logistics provider. The bill would require a third-party logistics provider to be supervised and managed by a responsible manager who would need to be licensed by the board as a designated representative-3PL. Under the bill, a designated representative-3PL and a responsible manager would be subject to similar requirements as those imposed on a designated representative and a designated representative-in-charge, respectively. The bill would limit a place of business to a single board-issued license, except for entities under common ownership that meet specified requirements, and would require that at least one designated representative, in the case of a wholesaler, or designated representative-3PL, in the case of a third-party logistics provider, be present during business hours for each licensed place of business. The bill would require a third-party logistics provider to submit a surety bond of $90,000 payable to a specified fund of the board to secure payment of any administrative fine imposed by the board. The bill would enact parallel requirements with respect to nonresident third-party logistics providers and would make related conforming changes and delete obsolete provisions. After specified federal regulations under the federal Drug Supply Chain Security Act are promulgated, the bill would require the board to act to identify any California laws governing interstate commerce in conflict with those regulations and act to remove the conflict. Existing law makes a wholesaler that uses the services of a carrier liable for the security and integrity of any dangerous drug or devices through that carrier until the drugs or devices are delivered to the transferee. This bill would extend that liability when the wholesaler uses the services of a third-party logistics provider and would require a third-party logistics provider that uses the services of a carrier to have in place and comply with specified written policies and procedures. (2) Existing law requires that all records of manufacture and of sale, acquisition, or disposition of dangerous drugs or dangerous devices be open to inspection by authorized officers of the law during business hours and be preserved for at least 3 years. This bill would make those requirements also applicable to records of receipt and shipment of dangerous drugs and dangerous devices. The bill would also require a manufacturer, wholesaler, third-party logistics provider, or pharmacy that has reasonable cause to believe that a dangerous drug or device that is or was in its possession, and has been sold or distributed in or through California, is counterfeit or the subject of a fraudulent transaction to notify the board within 72 hours of obtaining that knowledge. (3) Existing law sets the fees for the issuance and renewal of licenses for wholesalers and designated representatives at specified amounts and authorizes those fees to be increased to specified higher amounts. This bill would instead set the fees at the higher amounts. (4) Because a violation of the requirements described in paragraphs (1) and (2) above 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.
- Who sponsors AB 2605?
- AB 2605 is sponsored by Bonilla.
- What is the current status of AB 2605?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 21, 2014. Enacted.
- Where can I track AB 2605?
- Track AB 2605 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 2605
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 2605
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →