Provide for practice agreements between pharmacists and physician assistants
Summary
LB955 amends Nebraska’s Pharmacy Practice Act to expressly allow pharmacists to enter into written practice agreements not only with independently authorized prescribers, but also with physician assistants practicing under a collaborative agreement. Under those agreements, pharmacists may provide pharmaceutical care according to written protocols, and the bill requires notice to the Board of Pharmacy and the licensing board for the health care practitioner involved when an agreement begins or changes. The bill also requires the agreement and protocols to be in writing, signed by all participating parties, and reviewed, signed, and dated every two years.
The bill further specifies when a practice agreement ends, including death of a participant, loss of license, disciplinary restrictions affecting participation, or termination by a party or by mutual agreement. It also clarifies that a pharmacist intern may participate in an agreement if supervised by a pharmacist who is a party to the agreement. Finally, LB955 repeals the original statutory section it replaces, consolidating the updated rules into the revised statute.
Impact
LB955 changes state law governing pharmacist scope of practice and interprofessional collaboration by expanding the list of practitioners with whom pharmacists may form practice agreements to include physician assistants under collaborative agreements. It imposes procedural requirements for documentation, notification, and periodic review, and it affects pharmacists, pharmacist interns, physician assistants, supervising physicians, and the state boards responsible for pharmacy and licensure oversight.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It advanced unanimously from the legislature’s earlier stage and then passed final reading with overwhelming support, 47-2, before being approved by the Governor. The vote pattern suggests general agreement that the measure was a technical or practice-expansion update rather than a major policy dispute.
Contention
No committee testimony or transcript excerpts were provided, and the voting record shows little opposition. The only visible dissent came from two senators on final reading, but the record does not indicate their reasons. Based on the bill text, any potential concerns would likely center on pharmacist oversight, the scope of collaboration with physician assistants, and the administrative requirements for written protocols and board notification, but no specific objections are documented in the provided materials.