Collaborative Pharmacy Practice for Chronic Health Conditions:
HB 689 amends Florida’s collaborative pharmacy practice law for chronic health conditions. Under current law, pharmacists may enter into collaborative practice agreements for certain chronic conditions; this bill narrows the definition of “chronic health condition” by excluding heart failure, coronary heart disease, and cardiac rhythm disorders from the list of conditions that can be covered under those agreements. The bill leaves the existing listed conditions in place, including arthritis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes, HIV/AIDS, obesity, and any other chronic condition adopted by rule, but specifically removes the three cardiac-related conditions from eligibility.
The practical effect would be to limit the scope of pharmacist-managed collaborative care for patients with those excluded heart conditions, while preserving the program for other chronic diseases. The bill would amend section 465.1865, Florida Statutes, and would take effect July 1, 2025 if enacted. Because it died in the House Health Professions & Programs Subcommittee, it did not advance into law during the 2025 session.
HB 689 would have amended Florida Statutes section 465.1865, which governs collaborative pharmacy practice for chronic health conditions, by excluding heart failure, coronary heart disease, and cardiac rhythm disorders from the statutory definition of covered chronic health conditions. This would have reduced the range of conditions for which pharmacists could participate in collaborative treatment arrangements under that section, affecting pharmacists, physicians, osteopathic physicians, and patients managing those cardiac conditions. The bill did not become law because it died in subcommittee.
The available record suggests limited formal debate, with no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided. The bill’s progression ending in the Health Professions & Programs Subcommittee indicates it did not generate enough support to move forward, but the absence of discussion makes it difficult to identify broader sentiment. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to reflect a targeted policy choice to narrow pharmacist authority for certain heart-related conditions rather than a broad overhaul of collaborative pharmacy practice.
The main point of contention is the exclusion of heart failure, coronary heart disease, and cardiac rhythm disorders from the definition of chronic health condition. Supporters of the change may have viewed these conditions as requiring more direct physician oversight, while opponents could argue that pharmacists should remain part of collaborative care for complex chronic diseases, including cardiac conditions. Because there are no transcripts or votes, the specific arguments and sponsors’ positions are not documented in the provided record.