Senate Bill 340 (S-1) as amended and passed by the Senate

Sponsor:  Sen. Curtis S. VanderWall

House Committee:  Health Policy

Senate Committee:  Health Policy and Human Services

Complete to 10-24-19


Senate Bill 340 would amend Part 177 (Pharmacy Practice and Drug Control) of the Public Health Code to allow remote pharmacies under certain specified circumstances, overseen either personally by a pharmacist or remotely using a telepharmacy system.

Telepharmacy system would be defined in the bill as an interoperable computer system meeting all of the following requirements:

·         Shares real-time data and uses a real-time audio and video link to connect a pharmacist at a parent pharmacy with a remote pharmacy operated by the parent pharmacy.

·         Uses a camera that is of sufficient quality and resolution to allow a pharmacist at a parent pharmacy who is reviewing a prescription to visually identify the markings on tablets and capsules at the remote pharmacy.

·         Maintains a continuous video recording that is periodically reviewed.

The bill would require that a remote pharmacy and the parent pharmacy overseeing it both be located in Michigan and licensed as a pharmacy under Part 177 of the code.

Application requirements and waiver

The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) would have to grant a pharmacy license to a remote pharmacy if it submitted an application and paid the applicable fee, showed LARA that the parent pharmacy and proposed remote pharmacy shared common ownership, demonstrated that the remote pharmacy would not be within 10 miles of another pharmacy (except under certain circumstances),  and met any other licensure requirements set by LARA in consultation with the Board of Pharmacy. LARA could waive the 10-mile requirement if the proposed remote pharmacy could show that the area had limited access to pharmacy services and that compelling circumstances justified waiver. LARA would have to consider whether existing pharmacies in the area in question had limited hours, services, access, or barriers to transportation.

            Oversight at remote pharmacies

A remote pharmacy not under the personal charge of a pharmacist would have to be staffed by a qualified pharmacy technician overseen through a telepharmacy system by a qualified pharmacist while assisting in the dispensing process. A pharmacist employed and located at the parent pharmacy could only oversee the activities at a remote pharmacy if the pharmacist had access to all relevant patient information maintained by the parent pharmacy. A prescription dispensed in this way would be considered dispensed at the remote pharmacy by the pharmacist at the parent pharmacy.

Currently under the code, a pharmacist can be designated the pharmacist in charge (PIC) of only one pharmacy.  The bill would allow the pharmacist to serve as PIC for up to three pharmacies, including remote pharmacies. It would also state that, in the case of remote pharmacies, the PIC need not be physically present, but could satisfy the supervision requirements through the telepharmacy system.  

Policy and procedure manual

Under the bill, the pharmacist in charge of the parent pharmacy would have to establish and maintain a written policy and procedure manual made available to LARA upon request and containing each of the following:

·         A description of how the remote pharmacy will comply with federal and state laws, rules, and regulations.

·         The procedure by which the pharmacist at the parent pharmacy oversees a qualified pharmacy technician at the remote pharmacy who is assisting in the dispensing process and the procedure by which the pharmacist provides counseling to patients at the remote pharmacy.

·         The procedure for reviewing the prescription drug inventory at the remote pharmacy and prescriptions or equivalent records approved by the board that are on file at the remote pharmacy.

·         The policy and procedure for providing adequate security to protect the confidentiality and integrity of a patient’s protected health information.

·         The procedure for recovering from an event that interrupts the pharmacist at the parent pharmacy from overseeing the operations of the remote pharmacy through the telepharmacy system. The procedure would require that the remote pharmacy be closed to the public whenever the telepharmacy system was malfunctioning, unless a pharmacist was present at the remote pharmacy.

·         The procedure for ensuring that the pharmacist at the parent pharmacy complies with the Michigan Automated Prescription System (MAPS) for monitoring schedule 2, 3, 4, and 5 controlled substances before dispensing them.

·         The specific acts, tasks, and functions that a qualified pharmacy technician may perform at the remote pharmacy. However, a qualified pharmacy technician could not receive oral orders for prescription drugs, provide consultation regarding a prescription or regarding medical information contained in a patient medication record or patient chart, or perform compounding of sterile or nonsterile drugs, except for the reconstitution of an orally administered prescription drug.

·         A requirement that the pharmacist at the parent pharmacy complete a monthly, in-person inspection of the remote pharmacy that includes inventory reconciliation for controlled substances and reviewing video recordings as necessary.

·         A policy that requires the pharmacist at the parent pharmacy to retain audio and video recordings from the telepharmacy system for at least 45 calendar days.   

            Public notice

The pharmacist at the parent pharmacy would have to display a conspicuous notice at the remote pharmacy stating that the pharmacy services are being offered remotely, that patient counseling could be provided using audio and video communication, and the address of the parent pharmacy.

Dispensation of prescriptions at remote pharmacies

The pharmacist at the parent pharmacy would have to review a prescription as required by state and federal law, rules, and regulations before dispensing it. Additionally, the pharmacist would have to ensure that the identity of the person dispensing the prescription and all other functions required to be completed by the pharmacist or qualified pharmacy technician were recorded. Also, when seeking reimbursement, the pharmacist would have to identify the remote pharmacy as the point of dispensation.

If the parent pharmacy’s pharmacist was not present at the parent pharmacy, the remote pharmacy would have to be closed for business unless another pharmacist was present at the remote pharmacy.

A remote pharmacy could not dispense more than 225 prescriptions in a day.

The pharmacist at the parent pharmacy could dispense drugs after viewing a digital image of the prescription, rather than the original prescription itself, before the drug is dispensed at the remote pharmacy.

Also, the code currently requires pharmacies refilling a prescription that was originally filled by another pharmacy to comply with specific rules. The bill would treat the parent pharmacy and remote pharmacy as a single entity for the purposes of those requirements.  

Required counseling

If a remote pharmacy was not under the personal charge of a pharmacist, any required patient counseling that must take place before a drug or device is dispensed would have to be provided by the pharmacist at the parent pharmacy through the telepharmacy system and in compliance with federal law. 

MCL 333.17707 et seq.


Senate Bill 340 would have an indeterminate net fiscal impact on the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA). LARA would assume increased administrative responsibility for licensure of remote pharmacies. It is unclear whether licensing activities under this bill would require additional departmental staff or resources. The bill would stipulate that remote pharmacies would be required to pay licensure fees under MCL 333.16333, presumably the same fee that regular pharmacies pay, which is an application processing fee of $35 and an annual license fee of $50.

                                                                                         Legislative Analyst:   Jenny McInerney

                                                                                                 Fiscal Analyst:   Marcus Coffin

This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.