SESSION OF 2019
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE BILL NO. 234
As Amended by Senate Committee on Public
Health and Welfare

Brief*
SB 234, as amended, would amend the Pharmacy Act of
the State of Kansas to require certain prescription orders be
transmitted electronically.
The bill would require every prescription order issued for
a controlled substance in schedule II through V that contains
opiate to be transmitted electronically except as follows:
● Electronic prescription orders are not possible due
to technological or electronic system failures;
● Electronic prescribing is not available to the
prescriber due to economic hardship or
technological limitations that are not reasonably
within the control of the prescriber or other
exceptional circumstances exist as demonstrated
by the prescriber;
● The prescription order is for a compounded
preparation containing two or more components or
requires information that makes electronic
submission impractical, such as complicated or
lengthy instructions for use;
● The prescription order is issued by a licensed
veterinarian;

____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org
 ● The prescriber reasonably determines that it would
be impractical for the patient to obtain the
substances prescribed by electronic prescription in
a timely manner and such delay would adversely
impact the patient’s medical condition;
● The prescription order is issued pursuant to drug
research or drug therapy protocols;
● The prescription order is by a prescriber who
issues 50 or fewer prescription orders per year for
controlled substances that contain opiates; or
● The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires
the prescription order to contain elements that are
not compatible or possible with electronic
prescriptions.
A prescriber would be allowed to request a waiver from
electronically transmitting prescriptions for a period not to
exceed six months if the prescriber could not comply with the
electronic transmitting requirements due to economic
hardship, technological limitations, or other circumstance
demonstrated by the prescriber. The bill would allow the
prescriber to request renewal of a waiver granted by the State
Board of Pharmacy (Board), for a period not to exceed six
months. The bill would require requests for waivers or
renewals to be submitted to the Board in a form and manner
prescribed by the Board and to include the reason for the
request and any other information required by the Board.
If a prescriber prescribes a controlled substance by non-
electronic prescription, the prescriber would be required to
indicate the prescription is made pursuant to a waiver. A
pharmacist would not be required to verify the validity of the
waiver, either with the prescriber or the Board, but would be
allowed to do so in accordance with continuing law.
The bill would take effect July 1, 2021.

2- 234
Background
The bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on
Federal and State Affairs at the request of Senator Olson.
In the Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare
hearing, representatives of the Kansas Association of Chain
Drug Stores, Kansas State Board of Pharmacy, and Walmart
testified in support of the bill. The proponents generally stated
implementing electronic prescription transmittal would
increase patient safety and security, reduce prescription
errors, improve medication adherence, and reduce
administrative burden. Proponents stated the stakeholders
reached a compromise, and the House Committee on Health
and Human Services amended the mirror bill (HB 2389) to
include the compromise language. The proponents indicated
they believed SB 234, as introduced, would reflect the
compromise language, and their testimony reflects that
understanding; however, SB 234 as introduced contains the
language of HB 2389 as introduced. No other testimony was
provided.
The Senate Committee adopted amendments previously
agreed upon by stakeholders to delete a definition in the bill
of “controlled substance,” to add exceptions to the electronic
transmission requirement, to delete the requirement
technological, electrical, or other infrastructure be described
in rules and regulations, and to change the effective date
from January 1, 2020, to July 1, 2021. The bill was also
amended to change the electronic prescription requirement
from any controlled substance, to a controlled substance in
schedule II through V that contains an opiate, a change that
was agreed to by the stakeholders present at the time the bill
was worked. [Note: The previous stakeholder compromise
language would have applied the electronic prescription
requirement to a controlled substance in schedule II through
IV that contains an opiate.]
According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of
the Budget on SB 234, as introduced, the Board indicates
3- 234
total staff time associated with complying with the bill could
increase annual expenditures by $51,500 for a 0.50 inspector
full-time equivalent (FTE) position and $13,300 for a 0.30
licensing FTE position. Licensing staff would be responsible
for processing waiver requests and inspector responsibilities
would include reviewing the requirements set forth in the bill
in pharmacy compliance reviews. The Board indicates short-
term costs would include a 0.5 FTE position for a six-to-eight-
month period for researching guidelines, drafting regulations,
and moving regulations through the adoption process. [Note:
The rules and regulations requirements were removed in the
amended bill.] The Board estimates total salary and benefit
costs associated with the bill would be $116,330 for 1.3 FTE
positions, but is unable to estimate a precise fiscal effect on
other operating expenses.
The Board of Nursing indicates the bill would require
revision of some regulations, and communication would be
needed between the Board of Nursing and advanced practice
registered nurses regarding the provisions of the bill, with an
estimated fiscal effect of less than $5,000.
The Board of Healing Arts indicates the bill would result
in an increase in complaints and investigations, but a precise
fiscal effect could not be determined.
The Kansas Dental Board, the Kansas Board of
Veterinary Examiners, and the Kansas Board of Examiners in
Optometry indicate enactment of the bill would have minimal
to no fiscal effect. Any fiscal effect associated with enactment
of the bill is not reflected in The FY 2020 Governor’s Budget
Report.


4- 234