HOUSE BILL NO. 306 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Pharmacy; and providing for an effective date." 9:08:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE ANDI STORY, SPONSOR, thanked the committee for hearing the bill. She stated that the Board of Pharmacy must be extended for the critical work of licensing and regulation of the profession. She agreed with the auditor's recommendation of extending the board for six years. She remarked that legislators all shared a concern about the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). She believed fixing the PDMP was a separate issue from the extension of the board. She clarified that the PDMP was housed under the Board of Pharmacy; however, the board only had enforcement power and regulatory oversight over pharmacists. She highlighted that the Medical Board, Board of Nursing, Board of Dental Examiners, Board of Examiners and Optometry, and Board of Veterinarian Examiners all participated in the PDMP. She relayed that the chairs of the boards met twice a month solely about the PDMP. She shared that her staff had been working closely with the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) and Sara Chambers [Director, Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing, DCCED] and they all felt strongly about how to make some progress in the PDMP. She requested to hear from Ms. Chambers. 9:11:10 AM AT EASE 9:11:37 AM RECONVENED SARA CHAMBERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, appreciated the members' desire for a solution to ensure the PDMP was doing what the legislature had set forth for the program to do and to ensure it was doing it well. In addition to that, everyone understood and agreed on the expectations of the PDMP. She appreciated the bill sponsor's desire to find some solutions. She communicated that since the last bill hearing, the department had been working with the board chairs and some members of the House Finance Committee to identify existing funding sources that could help the department locate a contractor, consultant, or individual with PDMP expertise who could take a holistic view of how the PDMP fit into the state's opioid crisis management. Additionally, the individual could help determine whether legislation could be recommended in a subsequent report to the legislature to address changes ranging from small to large, what the department, boards, and administration could be doing differently, looking at other states, and providing technical assistance. Ms. Chambers stated the resources were out there and they were working to connect the dots, especially with the department's limited resources. She elaborated that they had been working with the Division of Public Health to identify some grant funding. They believed it may provide an option to move forward on a report and analysis in a way that would edify the concerns. 9:13:52 AM Representative Edgmon relayed that he had been one to raise concerns about the PDMP. He appreciated the information, and it satisfied his concern. He was ready to support the legislation. Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32- LS1434\A.2 (Ambrose, 3/16/22) [by Representative Carpenter] (copy on file): Page 1, line 5 Delete "2028" Insert "2026" Representative Edgmon OBJECTED. Representative LeBon explained the amendment. He stated that the committee had heard from the legislative auditor there were some issues with board governance and the working relationship between the Board of Pharmacy and the agency. He thought the legislature would want to see progress towards improving the work of the board. He supported a reduction in the extension of the board from 2028 to 2026. Representative Edgmon MAINTAINED his OBJECTION. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Johnson, Josephson, LeBon, Thompson OPPOSED: Ortiz, Wool, Edgmon, Merrick, Foster The MOTION to adopt Amendment 1 FAILED (4/5). 9:15:58 AM AT EASE 9:16:08 AM RECONVENED Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to REPORT HB 306 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. Representative Johnson OBJECTED for discussion. She remarked that she put a reminder in her calendar to bring up the topic the following session. She wanted to ensure the legislature was doing its do diligence. She had some concerns about the length [of the board extension] because some issues had been identified. She remarked that going forward with the next year's budget, it was easy to let things go by the wayside. She remarked there may be an opportunity in the future to talk about boards and commissions, which she believed would likely be healthy for some of the state's boards. She was not interested in shutting the board down or in spending a substantial amount of money on another audit to come back to the committee to report that the same thing was still happening. She stated that somehow the legislature needed to figure out how to get a report that may not be 100 percent or exactly what the legislature wanted to vote on. The legislature would need to determine how to deal with it. Representative Johnson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, HB 306 was REPORTED out of committee with three "do pass" recommendations and six "no recommendation" recommendations and with one previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (CED). 9:17:59 AM AT EASE 9:20:02 AM RECONVENED