PHARMACIST MAY REFUSE
TO DISPENSE PRESCRIPTIONS
House Bill 4405 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. Kathy Crawford
Committee: Health Policy
Complete to 4-25-17
SUMMARY:
House Bill 4405 would amend the Public Health Code to allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense a prescription for a controlled substance listed in schedules two to five in Part 72 of the Code, if the pharmacist has a reasonable and good-faith belief that the prescription was not written in good faith or would not be used for legitimate medical purposes. A pharmacist who does refuse to dispense the prescription will not be held liable for damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property arising from that refusal. This bill would take effect 90 days after it is enacted.
Proposed MCL 333.17751a
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This bill was precipitated by the recommendations of the October 2015 Michigan Prescription Drug & Opioid Abuse Task Force report.[1] In that report, the task force recognized the prescription drug abuse epidemic in Michigan. According to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services' (MDHHS) April 2015 Epidemiological Profile, "in 2013, prescription drugs totaled 8,464 treatment entrances for individuals 21 year of age and older, accounting for 9.2% of all substance abuse treatment admissions."[2] The graph on the next page shows the overall increase in prescription drug-related mortality for Michigan residents.
The task force also recommended an exemption from civil liability for a pharmacist acting in good faith and with a reasonable doubt that the prescription is not authentic or would be used for non-medical purposes.
While pharmacists are already allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for these reasons, they do not have any protection when they choose to do so. House Bill 4405 would protect a pharmacist from liability, giving pharmacists greater flexibility to use their judgment when it appears a person is doctor- or pharmacy-shopping, or filling more prescriptions for controlled substances than are reasonably needed.
Although the task force report recommended that the exemption "should require consultation with the prescribing physician before the pharmacist can decide to deny filling the prescription[,]" the bill does not include that requirement.
[Please see the PDF version of this analysis, if available, to view this image.]
(Note: The top line represents 35–54 year olds; the second line, 21–34 year olds; the third, 55+ year olds; and the bottom line, 16–20 year olds.)
FISCAL IMPACT:
House Bill 4405 would not have a fiscal impact on the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs or on other units of state or local government.
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.