CONTINUED OPTHALMIC MEDICATION; REQUIRE H.B. 4072:
SUMMARY OF HOUSE-PASSED BILL
IN COMMITTEE
House Bill 4072 (as passed by the House)
Sponsor: Representative Samantha Steckloff
House Committee: Health Policy
Senate Committee: Health Policy
CONTINUED OPTHALMIC MEDICATION; REQUIRE H.B. 4072:
SUMMARY OF HOUSE-PASSED BILL
IN COMMITTEE
House Bill 4072 (as passed by the House)
Sponsor: Representative Samantha Steckloff
House Committee: Health Policy
Senate Committee: Health Policy
CONTENT
The bill would amend the Public Health Code to require a hospital or freestanding surgical outpatient facility to provide to a patient any unused portion of a facility-provided eye drop or eye ointment dispensed for an ophthalmic surgery if the drug were required for the patient's continued treatment.
The bill would define "facility-provided drug" as a drug that is an eye drop or eye ointment and is not a pharmaceutical compounded under Section 17748b. (Generally, Section 17748b allows a pharmacist or compounding pharmacy to apply to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs for authorization to compound nonsterile or sterile pharmaceuticals for a prescriber, health facility, or agency to administer to their patients in limited quantities without a prescription).
Under the bill, any unused portion of a facility-provided drug that was dispensed for an ophthalmic surgical procedure performed on or for ophthalmic medical care provided to a patient in a hospital or freestanding surgical outpatient facility would have to be offered to the patient on the patient's discharge from the hospital or freestanding surgical outpatient facility if the following applied:
-- The hospital or freestanding surgical outpatient facility ordered the facility-provided drug for an ophthalmic surgical procedure for the patient that was performed on an in-patient basis or for ophthalmic medical care that the patient received from the hospital or freestanding surgical outpatient facility on an in-patient basis.
-- The facility-provided drug was administered to the patient at the hospital or freestanding surgical outpatient facility.
-- The unused portion of the facility-provided drug was required for the patient's continued treatment.
If a pharmacist, rather than a dispensing prescriber, dispensed a facility-provided drug that was offered to a patient, the bill would require the pharmacist to ensure that the drug was provided in a container that was labeled in the same manner as required in Section 17745(7) for a drug dispensed by a dispensing prescriber. (Section 17745(7) requires a label to contain the following information:
-- The name and address of the location from which the prescription drug is dispensed.
-- The patient's name and record number.
-- The date the prescription drug was dispensed.
-- The prescriber's name or, if dispensed under the prescriber's delegatory authority, the name of the delegate.
-- The directions for use.
-- The name and strength of the prescription drug.
-- The quantity dispensed.
-- The expiration date of the prescription drug or the statement, "Discard this medication 1 year after the date it is dispensed").
The bill would require the prescriber of a facility-provided drug to counsel the patient on directions for the patient's use of the facility-provided drug. If a pharmacist dispensed the facility-provided drug, any counseling requirement on the pharmacist would be waived.
Finally, the bill would require freestanding surgical outpatient facilities and hospitals to comply with these provisions. (Article 17 (Facilities and Agencies) of the Code prescribes misdemeanor penalties for violations of its requirements, and the bill's requirements would be included within Article 17's requirements.)
Proposed MCL 333.17773 et al.
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION
(This section does not provide a comprehensive account of previous legislative efforts on this subject matter.)
The bill is a reintroduction of House Bill 5616 from the 2023-2024 Legislative Session. The bill passed the House and was referred to the Senate Committee on Government Operations but received no further action.
Legislative Analyst: Lauren J. Lahie
FISCAL IMPACT
The bill would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and no fiscal impact on local governments. The Department could incur costs from investigations into potential violations of the practice regulated by the bill. The Department also could receive additional fine revenue from penalties it could enforce.