S.B. 66 Medical Cannabis Pharmacy License Amendments: transcript

Okay, so this is similar. Uh, when we originally set up the medical cannabis program, we set up regions in the state, and we specifically said that, you know, the pharmacies couldn't transfer locations to a different region. When we did the medical cannabis cleanup bill last year, we inadvertently took out that clause. And so there was an application for a pharmacy to move from one region to another. The medical cannabis licensing board met. And, uh, a number of us that have been involved in this space as legislators, uh, testified in the committee letting them know that that was not the intent. The intent was, is to keep that region component in it. And we tried actually. And, and the licensing board understood that. And so they denied the move. Um, we tried to put this in a special session, but it just was one of those things, it didn't rise to that level. And so this bill, it simply puts that back in place that a, a pharmacy license can't, you know, transfer from one region to another in the state. The idea behind that concept is, is to have, to make sure that there's access to patients across the state. And, you know, and arguably maybe some of those, the pharmacies in some of the outer regions aren't as profitable as some on the Wasatch front. So I'm sure that, you know, for profitability standpoint, they would probably want them, uh, all of their licenses on the Wasatch front. But that doesn't, that doesn't meet patient need and patient desire. So, and demand. So anyway, that's simply what this one does, is it corrects an issue that we created last year, unfortunately. Okay. Thank you. Uh, bring it to committee for any questions, concerns.

Okay. I motion we pass this bill.

No, I'll waive. Thank you. Okay.

2026. So moved. Okay. Motion for any discussion?

Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I have no animal noises for this one. So we can guess we can move forward. Um, couple year, a year ago when we did the medical cannabis pharmacy update, and each year there's some provisions we have to modify and, and keep moving forward. And always with the one thought in mind to, to make our medical cannabis program the very best possible medical cannabis program that's in the country. We, uh, when, when we originally set up the program, we established, uh, regions in the state and we allowed certain number of pharmacy licenses, cannabis pharmacy license to go out. And with the idea of having, making sure that there were certain number in each region, um, and then also, uh, with the idea that you couldn't move one of those from one region to another. Last year when we did the, uh, the update bill, we inadvertently took out that, that phrase that we, that you couldn't move them. And so it created a little bit of an issue. 'cause in, in the interim, we had a license holder request to move from one region to another. Uh, fortunately that we have a licensing board in place. And they understood that as that was not the legislative intent to allow that. And so they, they denied the move. Uh, this bill is very simple. It just fixes that, it just says, so it reinstates that language that said that a pharmacy license cannot move from one region to another. And with that, I, I, Dr. Forsyth here from, uh, with our medical cannabis program, if you have any questions or if you have any comments to add to that, Dr.

Forsyth? Yeah, if I can ahead. Dr. Forsyth, director of the medical cannabis program at the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. This really is an important detail of the program to protect patients in rural areas. There is a financial incentive for pharmacies to move to the Wasatch front, obviously because it's where the majority of the patients are. But having spoken with patients in rural communities, they do need access to the pharmacies. It's not enough just to have delivery. They need to be able to talk to pharmacists and to get advice on the cannabis products that they're purchasing. And it's really inefficient for them to have to drive all the way into the city to do that in a lot of cases or sometimes just completely impractical. So we appreciate the sponsor of the bill and your consideration of it. Thank you. Appreciate it.

It's Oh, fer. Sorry. That's okay. We're close. Yeah. Thank you Mr. Chair. I move that we favorably recommend SSB 66

you like to speak to it? I'll

Yeah. I appreciate the motion. Um, we actually tried to get this taken care of during the special session. It just didn't seem to rise to the level of emergency, although we're trying to get it through as quickly as possible. So I appreciate it. And if successful in the motion, uh, just, uh, maybe request, you might consider consent calendar simply because we're trying to move as through as quickly as possible so we can get a immediate effective date. But with that, I'd appreciate your support.

So I just wanted to, at least in the summation, let you know that what we're trying to do is do as quickly as possible. So thank you. And it's a simple bill.

I'd move that we place this on the consent calendar in the house.

I'll waive waive to the sponsor.

No, I appreciate it very, very much for the reasons outlined

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

Thank you Mr. President. Uh, when we originally set up the medical cannabis program, we set up regions of the state and we allowed certain number of license, pharmacy license to go in each region, the idea to keep 'em within that region. Uh, a year ago when we did our medical cannabis bill that had a number of different new provisions in it, we inadvertently pulled that provision out, realized that we actually, it, it became, um, apparent when a cannabis pharmacy wanted to move their license from one region to another. And we had no way to prevent that. Fortunately, you know, the, the advise the licensing board recognized that issue and we, we as legislators let them know that we're going to try to correct that. We tried to correct it actually into in the special session, but it just didn't rise to that level. And so this bill simply does reinstate that piece that'll, that requires those licenses within a region to stay within that region. With that, I'm open for any questions.

I will waste some motion to move this Senate. Bill 66, be read a third time. Thank You. And the question is, shall Senate bill 66 be read a third time Roll call

Thank you Mr. President Pro Tem. Uh, from time to time there'll be a product that, uh, research comes forward and it may be classified as a Schedule one product, and then it comes out and becomes now an f uh, a rescheduled product to a lower schedule. Uh, this bill simply says that if seems like common sense, that if this, if a product like that comes forward that and it's scheduled, we would schedule it here in the state of Utah at the same scheduled class that is done by the DEA and the FDA. Um, this is not being done with any, any in, in any product in mind. We're just trying to set up a process so that if things like that happen, then we would, would, would be in place to, to deal with that. We also, on the state of Utah, we have in place the Control Substance Advisory Committee that actually looks at recommendations for scheduling of controlled substances. And from time to time, we've actually taken the, the move we can be, we can more be more restricted, but we can't be less. So, for example, thinking back when Rool or Soma was a non-scheduled medication, we scheduled it and then the f the FDA and DEA came behind us and scheduled it. Same thing with Gabapentin. So this is simply setting up a process that if a product came off of that schedule one list to a different, uh, schedule, then we would originally put that in the same schedule as deemed by the federal government. And then we would have the ability if we chose to, to look at a, a more restrictive point from, from that point on. So with that, I'm for any questions, Thank you for the presentation discussion to the bill.

Thank you. I'd wa summation move the Senate. Bill 83. Be read a third time

Uh, last year in the bill that we were doing to, to add some amendments to the cannabis program, we inadvertently left changed some language that allowed that to happen. Uh, there was one application for that. That application was denied. And the Medical Cannabis Licensing Committee, because of the intent, they were aware of the intent of the legislation and they knew that we were going to come back and try to fix it. It this is the piece that fixes that and keeps those licenses within each region. Thank you again for that presentation.

Every raise, summation, move that Senate Bill 66 pass.

Thank you, Mr. President. Um, from time to time, there's research done

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 66 is a fixed bill that resulted from a drafting issue last year. In policy. Um, medical cannabis pharmacy code requires, uh, regionality in the state so that we don't end up with areas in the state with too many pharmacies and to ensure that, um, there's disbursement around the state, um, that suits the needs of patients in the state of Utah. Last year during, in one of the bills that was passed, um, there was some cleanup, cold and cleanup in some old language that was thought to be redundant, and we inadvertently introduced some ambiguity as to the, um, the require the state requirements for the regionality. This bill simply puts that language back in to clarify that, um, the Department of Agriculture and Food will establish and maintain regions and density for medical cannabis pharmacies in the state. That's my presentation.