California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 1533 — Pharmacy.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 629, Statutes of 2021.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 19, 2021. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How 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 11 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) Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of the practice of pharmacy by the 13-member California State Board of Pharmacy, which is within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law requires the Governor to appoint 7 competent pharmacists who reside in different parts of the state to serve as members of the board. Existing law requires the membership of the board to include at least one pharmacist representative from each of specified practice settings. Existing law authorizes the appointment of 6 public members, 4 of whom are appointed by the Governor, and the Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly each appoint a public member, as prescribed. These provisions are repealed as of January 1, 2022. Under other existing law with respect to the department and its constituent boards, an appointing authority has power to remove from office at any time any member of any board appointed by the appointing authority for continued neglect of duties required by law, or for incompetence, or unprofessional or dishonorable conduct. This bill would require, in lieu of competence, that the Governor's pharmacist appointees to the board be licensees in good standing. The bill would specify that each appointing authority for the board has power to remove from office at any time any member of the board appointed by that authority for the reasons specified above. The bill, with regard to the practice settings represented on the board, would require at least one pharmacist representative from a compounding pharmacy specializing in human drug preparations. The bill would extend the repeal of those provisions to January 1, 2026. Existing law requires the principal office of the board to be located in Sacramento and requires the board to hold a meeting at least once in every 4 months. This bill would authorize members of the board to meet by teleconference, as prescribed. Existing law, until January 1, 2022, authorizes the board, with the approval of the Director of Consumer Affairs, to appoint a person exempt from civil service to be designated as an executive officer and to exercise the powers and perform the duties delegated by the board and vested in them by existing law. Under existing law, the board determines whether the executive officer is a member of the board. This bill would prohibit the executive officer from being a member of the board. The bill would extend the repeal of the board's executive officer provisions to January 1, 2026. (2) Existing law generally authorizes a pharmacist to dispense or furnish drugs only pursuant to a valid prescription, except as provided, such as existing authority to initiate and administer COVID-19 vaccinations and initiate and furnish HIV prophylaxis, as specified. This bill would authorize a pharmacist to initiate, adjust, or discontinue drug therapy for a patient under a collaborative practice agreement with any health care provider with prescriptive authority, as specified. The bill would authorize a pharmacist to provide medication-assisted treatment pursuant to a state protocol, to the extent authorized by federal law. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a pharmacist recognized by the board as an advanced practice pharmacist to take certain actions, including initiating, adjusting, or discontinuing therapy in a specified manner. This bill would authorize an advanced practice pharmacist to initiate, adjust, or discontinue drug therapy without specifying the manner of such actions. (3) Existing law generally makes it unlawful for any person to manufacture, compound, furnish, sell, or dispense a dangerous drug or dangerous device, or to dispense or compound a prescription of a prescriber unless the person is a licensed pharmacist. Existing law authorizes the board to issue certain other licenses for activities relating to pharmacy, including a designated representative to provide sufficient and qualified supervision in a wholesaler or veterinary food-animal drug retailer, a designated representative-3PL to provide sufficient and qualified supervision of a third-party logistics provider's place of business, and a designated representative-reverse distributor to provide sufficient and qualified supervision over a licensed wholesaler that only acts as a reverse distributor. Existing law requires as a condition of licensure for each of these other licenses that the applicant be a high school graduate or possess a general education development certificate equivalent. This bill, with regard to that education requirement, would alternatively permit the applicant to have earned a degree from an accredited postsecondary institution. (4) Existing law authorizes a pharmacy to provide pharmacy services to specified licensed health facilities through the use of an automated drug delivery system (ADDS) , as defined, owned and operated by the pharmacy that need not be located at the same location as the pharmacy. Existing law prohibits the installation or operation of an ADDS unless the ADDS meets prescribed requirements, including that an ADDS be placed and operated in one of prescribed locations inside an enclosed building, as approved by the board. Existing law also authorizes specified licensed health clinics, including nonprofit and free clinics, to use an ADDS, operated under the authorization of a pharmacist, and under which the clinic is responsible for the safety and security of the drugs in the system. Existing law requires a pharmacy holding an ADDS license to complete an annual self-assessment, performed pursuant to specified regulations, evaluating the pharmacy's compliance with pharmacy law relating to the use of the ADDS. Existing law defines an "automated unit dose system" (AUDS) as an ADDS for storage and retrieval of unit doses of drugs for administration to patients by persons authorized to perform these functions. Existing law also provides a program to authorize a pharmacy located in the state to provide pharmacy services to the patients of covered entities, as defined, that are eligible for discount drug programs under federal law, as specified, through the use of an automated patient dispensing system (APDS) , as defined. Existing law requires a pharmacy holding an APDS license to complete an annual self-assessment, performed pursuant to specified regulations, evaluating the pharmacy's compliance with pharmacy law relating to the use of the APDS. This bill would authorize the location and operation of an AUDS in those locations authorized for an ADDS and, additionally, in a state-licensed facility with the statutory authority to provide pharmaceutical services or in a jail, youth detention facility, or other correctional facility where drugs are administered within the facility under the authority of the medical director. The bill would impose requirements for the operation of an AUDS. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would remove the requirements that the ADDS and APDS license self-assessments be annual. (5) Existing law requires a pharmacy that compounds sterile drug products to possess a sterile compounding pharmacy license, as provided. Existing law establishes procedures for the issuance of a cease and desist order to such a pharmacy that poses an immediate threat to the public health or safety. Those procedures authorize the owner to request a hearing to contest the order. Existing law requires such a hearing to be held no later than 5 days from the date the request of the owner is received by the board and requires the president of the board to render a written decision within 5 days of the hearing. Existing law establishes similar cease and desist order provisions for an outsourcing facility compounding sterile drug products or nonsterile drug products. Existing law also establishes similar cease and desist order provisions for unlicensed facilities. This bill would modify those hearing and decision deadlines to be 5 business days. (6) Existing law requires the board to license an outsourcing facility, as defined. Existing law requires an outsourcing facility to be licensed with the board before doing business within or into the state. Existing law prohibits an outsourcing facility from performing the duties of a pharmacy, such as filling individual prescriptions. Under this bill, in lieu of that prohibition, an outsourcing facility licensed by the board dispensing patient-specific compounded preparations pursuant to a prescription for an individual patient would not be required to be licensed as a pharmacy, but would otherwise be required to comply with the same requirements of a pharmacy. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (7) Existing law requires a person located outside this state that ships, sells, mails, warehouses, distributes, or delivers dangerous drugs or dangerous devices into this state or sells, brokers, warehouses, or distributes dangerous drugs or devices within this state to be considered a nonresident wholesaler or a nonresident third-party logistics provider and requires such a wholesaler or provider to be licensed and comply with specific requirements. Existing law requires a nonresident wholesaler or nonresident third-party logistics provider to maintain a valid, unexpired license, permit, or registration to conduct the business of the wholesaler or nonresident third-party logistics provider in compliance with the laws of the state in which it is a resident and requires a license application to include a license verification from the licensing authority in the applicant's state of residence. This bill would authorize the board to waive the home state licensure requirement for a nonresident third-party logistics provider if the board inspects the location and finds it to be in compliance with existing requirements and any regulations adopted by the board or the applicant provides evidence of its accreditation by the Drug Distributor Accreditation program of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. The bill would require the nonresident third-party logistics provider to reimburse the board for all actual and necessary costs incurred by the board in conducting an inspection of the location, as prescribed. (8) Existing law establishes specific provisions for applications for different categories of license, including grounds for denial. Other existing law relating to the powers of the department's constituent boards restricts the authority of a board within the department to deny a license, establishing prescribed circumstances under which denial is authorized for an applicant convicted of a crime or subjected to formal discipline. Existing law also requires such a board to follow established procedures for requesting or acting on an applicant's criminal history information. This bill, notwithstanding these restrictions and procedural requirements, would specifically authorize the board to deny an application for licensure 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. (9) Existing law prohibits the board from renewing a pharmacist license unless the applicant submits proof satisfactory to the board that they have successfully completed 30 hours of approved courses of continuing pharmacy education during the 2 years preceding the application for renewal. Existing law imposes requirements for the form and subject matter of the courses. This bill, commencing July 1, 2022, would require a pharmacist who prescribes a Schedule II controlled substance to have completed an education course on the risks of addiction associated with the use of Schedule II drugs. The bill would require that a pharmacist who has completed such a course within the last 4 years be deemed to have satisfied this requirement. (10) Existing law establishes requirements for disciplinary proceedings on, among other things, the suspension or revocation of licenses. This bill would require the board, by July 1, 2023, to convene a workgroup of interested stakeholders to discuss whether moving to a standard of care enforcement model would be feasible and appropriate for the regulation of pharmacy and make recommendations to the Legislature about the outcome of these discussions through a report submitted as prescribed. (11) Existing law authorizes the board to issue citations containing fines and orders of abatement for violations of specified law, as provided, including, where appropriate, the imposition of an administrative fine. This bill would prohibit such an administrative fine from being construed as a disciplinary action or discipline for purposes of licensure or the reporting of discipline for licensure. (12) Existing law establishes penalties for specific violations and provides for the recovery of those penalties by a civil action or by criminal prosecution. Unless another penalty is provided, a knowing violation of existing law is a misdemeanor and other violations are infractions, punishable as specified. This bill would authorize the board to bring an action for fines for 3rd or subsequent violations of materially similar provisions of existing law within 5 years by 3 or more pharmacies operating under common ownership or management within a chain community pharmacy, as defined, with a cap of $100,000 for a 3rd or subsequent violation. The bill would also authorize the board to bring an action against a chain community pharmacy operating under common ownership or management for fines, capped at $150,000, for any violation of existing law demonstrated to be the result of a written policy or which was expressly encouraged by the common owner or manager. The bill would also provide specified limitations and defenses to these actions, and describe the manner in which the fines are to be imposed. The bill would also require the board to provide information to the Legislature about these actions, as specified. (13) Existing law prohibits a person from conducting a pharmacy in this state without a license from the board and existing law requires this license to be renewed annually. Existing law requires a pharmacy that compounds sterile drug products to possess a sterile compounding pharmacy license, provides certain requirements for obtaining the license, and requires the license to be renewed annually. This bill would prohibit a pharmacy license from being renewed unless the applicant includes necessary matters identified by the board in the renewal application, as provided. This bill would also require a pharmacy located in California that distributes compounded human drug preparations interstate to meet certain conditions, including that the pharmacy must report information as specified and certify that the reporting requirements are satisfied in connection with and as a condition of renewal of the pharmacy's license. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (14) 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. (15) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 629, Statutes of 2021.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 3129.).

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2515.).

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  11. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (August 26).

  12. In committee: Referred to suspense file.

  13. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. Withdrawn from committee.

  15. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  16. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (July 12).

  17. 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.

  18. Referred to Coms. on B., P. & E.D. and JUD.

  19. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  20. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 1742.)

  21. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  22. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (May 20).

  23. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  24. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 18. Noes 0.) (April 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  25. Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.

  26. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & P. Read second time and amended.

  27. Referred to Com. on B. & P.

  28. Read first time.

  29. From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

  30. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Committee on Business and Professions · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Committee on Business and Professions

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.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 1533 Utilities and Energy Third Reading Urgency By GARCIA

Passed 71 Yea · 0 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 44003
Republican 9004
Unaffiliated 18002
Total 71009
% of votes cast 89%0%0%11%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Ting — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Low — Yea
Wood — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Essayli — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Vince Fong — Not Voting
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Not Voting
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Not Voting
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Not Voting
Hoover, Josh Republican Not Voting
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Not Voting
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 15 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 10000
Republican 2001
Unaffiliated 3000
Total 15001
% of votes cast 94%0%0%6%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 13 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 6000
Unaffiliated 5002
Republican 2000
Total 13002
% of votes cast 87%0%0%13%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Ting — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Holden — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Not Voting
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

AB 1533 B. & P. Concurrence in Senate Amendments By LOW

Passed 78 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 43001
Democratic 27000
Republican 8001
Total 78002
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Low — Yea
Levine — Yea
Daly — Yea
Gray — Yea
Burke — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Wood — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ting — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Medina — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Not Voting
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB1533 B. & P. (Low) By Roth

Passed 38 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 22001
Democratic 12001
Republican 4000
Total 38002
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Pan — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Min — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Newman — Yea
Eggman — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 5 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 2000
Unaffiliated 3001
Republican 0001
Total 5002
% of votes cast 71%0%0%29%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Kamlager — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Bates — Not Voting
Laird, John Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5000
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Bates — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Judiciary]

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 3000
Unaffiliated 8001
Republican 1001
Total 12002
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
How each member voted (14)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Pan — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Newman — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Min — Yea
Bates — Not Voting
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

AB 1533 B. & P. Assembly Third Reading By LOW

Passed 77 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 28000
Unaffiliated 41000
Republican 8002
Total 77002
% of votes cast 97%0%0%3%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Voepel — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ting — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Medina — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Low — Yea
Levine — Yea
Daly — Yea
Gray — Yea
Burke — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Wood — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Chau — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Not Voting
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8000
Democratic 6000
Republican 2000
Total 16000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Holden — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chau — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 18 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10000
Republican 2001
Democratic 6000
Total 18001
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (19)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Salas — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Ting — Yea
Low — Yea
Holden — Yea
Medina — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety healthcare labor health-insurance
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1533 do?
(1) Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of the practice of pharmacy by the 13-member California State Board of Pharmacy, which is within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law requires the Governor to appoint 7 competent pharmacists who reside in different parts of the state to serve as members of the board. Existing law requires the membership of the board to include at least one pharmacist representative from each of specified practice settings. Existing law authorizes the appointment of 6 public members, 4 of whom are appointed by the Governor, and the Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly each appoint a public member, as prescribed. These provisions are repealed as of January 1, 2022. Under other existing law with respect to the department and its constituent boards, an appointing authority has power to remove from office at any time any member of any board appointed by the appointing authority for continued neglect of duties required by law, or for incompetence, or unprofessional or dishonorable conduct. This bill would require, in lieu of competence, that the Governor's pharmacist appointees to the board be licensees in good standing. The bill would specify that each appointing authority for the board has power to remove from office at any time any member of the board appointed by that authority for the reasons specified above. The bill, with regard to the practice settings represented on the board, would require at least one pharmacist representative from a compounding pharmacy specializing in human drug preparations. The bill would extend the repeal of those provisions to January 1, 2026. Existing law requires the principal office of the board to be located in Sacramento and requires the board to hold a meeting at least once in every 4 months. This bill would authorize members of the board to meet by teleconference, as prescribed. Existing law, until January 1, 2022, authorizes the board, with the approval of the Director of Consumer Affairs, to appoint a person exempt from civil service to be designated as an executive officer and to exercise the powers and perform the duties delegated by the board and vested in them by existing law. Under existing law, the board determines whether the executive officer is a member of the board. This bill would prohibit the executive officer from being a member of the board. The bill would extend the repeal of the board's executive officer provisions to January 1, 2026. (2) Existing law generally authorizes a pharmacist to dispense or furnish drugs only pursuant to a valid prescription, except as provided, such as existing authority to initiate and administer COVID-19 vaccinations and initiate and furnish HIV prophylaxis, as specified. This bill would authorize a pharmacist to initiate, adjust, or discontinue drug therapy for a patient under a collaborative practice agreement with any health care provider with prescriptive authority, as specified. The bill would authorize a pharmacist to provide medication-assisted treatment pursuant to a state protocol, to the extent authorized by federal law. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a pharmacist recognized by the board as an advanced practice pharmacist to take certain actions, including initiating, adjusting, or discontinuing therapy in a specified manner. This bill would authorize an advanced practice pharmacist to initiate, adjust, or discontinue drug therapy without specifying the manner of such actions. (3) Existing law generally makes it unlawful for any person to manufacture, compound, furnish, sell, or dispense a dangerous drug or dangerous device, or to dispense or compound a prescription of a prescriber unless the person is a licensed pharmacist. Existing law authorizes the board to issue certain other licenses for activities relating to pharmacy, including a designated representative to provide sufficient and qualified supervision in a wholesaler or veterinary food-animal drug retailer, a designated representative-3PL to provide sufficient and qualified supervision of a third-party logistics provider's place of business, and a designated representative-reverse distributor to provide sufficient and qualified supervision over a licensed wholesaler that only acts as a reverse distributor. Existing law requires as a condition of licensure for each of these other licenses that the applicant be a high school graduate or possess a general education development certificate equivalent. This bill, with regard to that education requirement, would alternatively permit the applicant to have earned a degree from an accredited postsecondary institution. (4) Existing law authorizes a pharmacy to provide pharmacy services to specified licensed health facilities through the use of an automated drug delivery system (ADDS) , as defined, owned and operated by the pharmacy that need not be located at the same location as the pharmacy. Existing law prohibits the installation or operation of an ADDS unless the ADDS meets prescribed requirements, including that an ADDS be placed and operated in one of prescribed locations inside an enclosed building, as approved by the board. Existing law also authorizes specified licensed health clinics, including nonprofit and free clinics, to use an ADDS, operated under the authorization of a pharmacist, and under which the clinic is responsible for the safety and security of the drugs in the system. Existing law requires a pharmacy holding an ADDS license to complete an annual self-assessment, performed pursuant to specified regulations, evaluating the pharmacy's compliance with pharmacy law relating to the use of the ADDS. Existing law defines an "automated unit dose system" (AUDS) as an ADDS for storage and retrieval of unit doses of drugs for administration to patients by persons authorized to perform these functions. Existing law also provides a program to authorize a pharmacy located in the state to provide pharmacy services to the patients of covered entities, as defined, that are eligible for discount drug programs under federal law, as specified, through the use of an automated patient dispensing system (APDS) , as defined. Existing law requires a pharmacy holding an APDS license to complete an annual self-assessment, performed pursuant to specified regulations, evaluating the pharmacy's compliance with pharmacy law relating to the use of the APDS. This bill would authorize the location and operation of an AUDS in those locations authorized for an ADDS and, additionally, in a state-licensed facility with the statutory authority to provide pharmaceutical services or in a jail, youth detention facility, or other correctional facility where drugs are administered within the facility under the authority of the medical director. The bill would impose requirements for the operation of an AUDS. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would remove the requirements that the ADDS and APDS license self-assessments be annual. (5) Existing law requires a pharmacy that compounds sterile drug products to possess a sterile compounding pharmacy license, as provided. Existing law establishes procedures for the issuance of a cease and desist order to such a pharmacy that poses an immediate threat to the public health or safety. Those procedures authorize the owner to request a hearing to contest the order. Existing law requires such a hearing to be held no later than 5 days from the date the request of the owner is received by the board and requires the president of the board to render a written decision within 5 days of the hearing. Existing law establishes similar cease and desist order provisions for an outsourcing facility compounding sterile drug products or nonsterile drug products. Existing law also establishes similar cease and desist order provisions for unlicensed facilities. This bill would modify those hearing and decision deadlines to be 5 business days. (6) Existing law requires the board to license an outsourcing facility, as defined. Existing law requires an outsourcing facility to be licensed with the board before doing business within or into the state. Existing law prohibits an outsourcing facility from performing the duties of a pharmacy, such as filling individual prescriptions. Under this bill, in lieu of that prohibition, an outsourcing facility licensed by the board dispensing patient-specific compounded preparations pursuant to a prescription for an individual patient would not be required to be licensed as a pharmacy, but would otherwise be required to comply with the same requirements of a pharmacy. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (7) Existing law requires a person located outside this state that ships, sells, mails, warehouses, distributes, or delivers dangerous drugs or dangerous devices into this state or sells, brokers, warehouses, or distributes dangerous drugs or devices within this state to be considered a nonresident wholesaler or a nonresident third-party logistics provider and requires such a wholesaler or provider to be licensed and comply with specific requirements. Existing law requires a nonresident wholesaler or nonresident third-party logistics provider to maintain a valid, unexpired license, permit, or registration to conduct the business of the wholesaler or nonresident third-party logistics provider in compliance with the laws of the state in which it is a resident and requires a license application to include a license verification from the licensing authority in the applicant's state of residence. This bill would authorize the board to waive the home state licensure requirement for a nonresident third-party logistics provider if the board inspects the location and finds it to be in compliance with existing requirements and any regulations adopted by the board or the applicant provides evidence of its accreditation by the Drug Distributor Accreditation program of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. The bill would require the nonresident third-party logistics provider to reimburse the board for all actual and necessary costs incurred by the board in conducting an inspection of the location, as prescribed. (8) Existing law establishes specific provisions for applications for different categories of license, including grounds for denial. Other existing law relating to the powers of the department's constituent boards restricts the authority of a board within the department to deny a license, establishing prescribed circumstances under which denial is authorized for an applicant convicted of a crime or subjected to formal discipline. Existing law also requires such a board to follow established procedures for requesting or acting on an applicant's criminal history information. This bill, notwithstanding these restrictions and procedural requirements, would specifically authorize the board to deny an application for licensure 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. (9) Existing law prohibits the board from renewing a pharmacist license unless the applicant submits proof satisfactory to the board that they have successfully completed 30 hours of approved courses of continuing pharmacy education during the 2 years preceding the application for renewal. Existing law imposes requirements for the form and subject matter of the courses. This bill, commencing July 1, 2022, would require a pharmacist who prescribes a Schedule II controlled substance to have completed an education course on the risks of addiction associated with the use of Schedule II drugs. The bill would require that a pharmacist who has completed such a course within the last 4 years be deemed to have satisfied this requirement. (10) Existing law establishes requirements for disciplinary proceedings on, among other things, the suspension or revocation of licenses. This bill would require the board, by July 1, 2023, to convene a workgroup of interested stakeholders to discuss whether moving to a standard of care enforcement model would be feasible and appropriate for the regulation of pharmacy and make recommendations to the Legislature about the outcome of these discussions through a report submitted as prescribed. (11) Existing law authorizes the board to issue citations containing fines and orders of abatement for violations of specified law, as provided, including, where appropriate, the imposition of an administrative fine. This bill would prohibit such an administrative fine from being construed as a disciplinary action or discipline for purposes of licensure or the reporting of discipline for licensure. (12) Existing law establishes penalties for specific violations and provides for the recovery of those penalties by a civil action or by criminal prosecution. Unless another penalty is provided, a knowing violation of existing law is a misdemeanor and other violations are infractions, punishable as specified. This bill would authorize the board to bring an action for fines for 3rd or subsequent violations of materially similar provisions of existing law within 5 years by 3 or more pharmacies operating under common ownership or management within a chain community pharmacy, as defined, with a cap of $100,000 for a 3rd or subsequent violation. The bill would also authorize the board to bring an action against a chain community pharmacy operating under common ownership or management for fines, capped at $150,000, for any violation of existing law demonstrated to be the result of a written policy or which was expressly encouraged by the common owner or manager. The bill would also provide specified limitations and defenses to these actions, and describe the manner in which the fines are to be imposed. The bill would also require the board to provide information to the Legislature about these actions, as specified. (13) Existing law prohibits a person from conducting a pharmacy in this state without a license from the board and existing law requires this license to be renewed annually. Existing law requires a pharmacy that compounds sterile drug products to possess a sterile compounding pharmacy license, provides certain requirements for obtaining the license, and requires the license to be renewed annually. This bill would prohibit a pharmacy license from being renewed unless the applicant includes necessary matters identified by the board in the renewal application, as provided. This bill would also require a pharmacy located in California that distributes compounded human drug preparations interstate to meet certain conditions, including that the pharmacy must report information as specified and certify that the reporting requirements are satisfied in connection with and as a condition of renewal of the pharmacy's license. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (14) 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. (15) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Who sponsors AB 1533?
AB 1533 is sponsored by Committee on Business and Professions.
What is the current status of AB 1533?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 19, 2021. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 1533?
Track AB 1533 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1533

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1533

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →