Pharmacy practice expands with collaborative care rules

Summary#

SF-121, the Wyoming Pharmacy Act amendments, is an enacted law that amends the Wyoming Pharmacy Act. It adds wording about what counts as pharmacy practice and requires the Wyoming Board of Pharmacy to make rules; the bill does not separately state an overall goal, but its text refers to improving patient safety and service quality.

• The amended definition of pharmacy practice includes interpreting, evaluating, compounding, dispensing or administering orders or prescriptions; counseling patients; and assessing patients for the purpose of prescribing drugs or devices, subject to board rules.
• It also includes pharmacist care services under board rules, quality-improvement programs, emerging technologies, competency-based education and collaborative pharmaceutical care.
• The Board of Pharmacy must make all rules needed to implement the act. The act does not create a new independent agency.
• No pharmacist is required to provide collaborative pharmaceutical care. An employer may not discriminate against a pharmacist for declining to take part in a collaborative pharmacy practice agreement.
• The main provisions take effect July 1, 2026. The rulemaking and effective-date sections take effect when the bill completes the steps to become law.

What it means for you#

• Pharmacists: The law’s description of pharmacy practice includes the listed activities. The Board’s rules will govern collaborative pharmaceutical care. A pharmacist does not have to provide it, and an employer may not discriminate against a pharmacist for declining a collaborative practice agreement.
• Employers: Employers must not discriminate against pharmacists on that stated basis. The text does not set out a complaint process or a penalty for discrimination.
• Patients and the public: The law does not require a pharmacist to offer collaborative pharmaceutical care or guarantee that any particular service will be available. It does not set out patient eligibility or a process for receiving these services.
• Board of Pharmacy: The Board must make rules to implement the act.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The Board must make rules, but the act gives no estimate of the cost or staffing needed.
• The act does not state a fee, tax, fine, appropriation or new benefit.

What is unclear#

• The prior version of the amended law was not supplied, so the available text does not show which parts of this wording are new and which may already be law.
• The act does not define “collaborative pharmaceutical care” in the supplied text.
• It leaves the details of collaborative-care rules to the Board. The text does not set timelines, oversight, appeals or reporting requirements.
• The text does not say how patients would access collaborative care, or how it would interact with existing services.

Case for#

• The expanded list could make clear that pharmacy practice includes patient counseling, assessment, care services and collaborative care, not only preparing or dispensing drugs.
• Letting the Board set rules could allow practice details to be addressed through rules rather than fixed in the statute.
• The act protects a pharmacist’s choice not to participate in collaborative care and bars employer discrimination for that choice.

Case against#

• The act leaves key details of collaborative pharmaceutical care to Board rules and does not define the term in the supplied text.
• The law does not guarantee that patients will be able to get collaborative care; no pharmacist is required to provide it.
• The text does not specify how the Board’s rules will be overseen, or how a pharmacist could challenge alleged discrimination.