Board of Pharmacy rule relating to Uniform Controlled Substances Act
Summary
SB 393 is a narrow authorization bill that approves a legislative rule for the West Virginia Board of Pharmacy relating to the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. The bill amends the state code section governing miscellaneous board and agency rules to specifically authorize the Board of Pharmacy’s rule, identified as 15 CSR 02, which was filed, revised to address objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee, and refiled in October 2024.
In practical terms, the bill does not create a new controlled substances policy on its own; instead, it gives legal effect to the Board of Pharmacy’s administrative rulemaking under authority already provided in the Controlled Substances Act. The measure is a standard legislative rule authorization bill, meaning its main function is to validate and allow implementation of the agency rule within state law.
Impact
If enacted, SB 393 would amend §64-9-1 of the West Virginia Code to authorize the Board of Pharmacy’s legislative rule concerning the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. This would allow the rule to take effect and govern pharmacy-related administration and enforcement of controlled substances regulations in West Virginia, affecting the Board of Pharmacy, pharmacists, and other regulated parties subject to controlled substances oversight.
Sentiment
The available record suggests little to no controversy around SB 393. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, and the bill appears to be a routine rule-authorization measure rather than a substantive policy debate. The overall tone is procedural and administrative, with the bill presented as a technical authorization of a revised rule that had already been adjusted to address legislative review concerns.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The only notable issue implied by the bill text is that the Board of Pharmacy had to modify the rule to meet objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee before refiling it, suggesting the committee had prior concerns with the rule’s content or form. However, the nature of those objections is not included, and no opposition from legislators, stakeholders, or the public is shown in the record provided.
Making a supplementary appropriation to the Department of Human Services, Bureau for Medical Services – Policy and Programming and State Board of Education – State Department of Education