Relating to authorizing the Board of Pharmacy to promulgate a legislative rule relating to the Uniform Controlled Substances Act
Summary
HB2313 is a rule-authorizing bill that permits the West Virginia Board of Pharmacy to promulgate a legislative rule under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. The bill does not itself create a new regulatory program or amend the underlying controlled substances statutes in detail; instead, it gives legislative approval to a specific administrative rule filed by the Board of Pharmacy and revised to address objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee.
The measure references the rule filed in the State Register on August 29, 2024, and refiled on October 16, 2024, after modification. By authorizing that rule, the Legislature would allow the Board of Pharmacy to implement and enforce the rule as part of the state’s controlled substances regulatory framework. The practical effect is to validate the Board’s rulemaking authority in this area and keep the administrative rule in force.
Impact
HB2313 would amend West Virginia Code §64-9-1 to authorize a specific legislative rule under the Board of Pharmacy’s authority in §60A-3-301, thereby affecting the state’s administrative rules governing controlled substances. Its impact is procedural and regulatory rather than substantive: it confirms that the Board’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act rule may take effect and be enforced, which can affect pharmacies, prescribers, controlled substance handlers, and other regulated parties subject to pharmacy and drug-control oversight.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears routine and technical, aimed at approving a revised administrative rule rather than changing policy in a controversial way. The absence of recorded votes or discussion suggests no documented controversy in the provided record.
Contention
The only identifiable point of contention is the underlying legislative review process: the rule had to be modified to meet objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee before being refiled. That indicates there were some concerns with the original version of the Board of Pharmacy rule, though the specific objections are not included. No other opposition, stakeholder dispute, or policy disagreement is shown in the available materials.