|
Friday Fax – Legislative Update
It was another busy week for NCRMA on Jones Street this week with a full load of work to do on video games, methamphetamines and pharmacy cuts. Talk of a lottery actually took a back seat to lobbying reform. The place will reach a new level next week with the House bill filing deadline fast approaching on Wednesday.
April 15, 2005
1) Methamphetamines
2) Split Case Fee on Wine
3) ABC Permit Bill Filed
4) Violent Video Games
5) Pharmacy Would Take a Hit in Proposed Budget
6) Bills on the Way for Bad Checks, Pharmacy Quality Assurance and Common Sense Consumption
7) Court of Appeals to Hear Pharmacy Case on Tuesday
1) Methamphetamines
On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary II Committee held the first hearing on the methamphetamine issue. During the hearing, the Committee heard from Attorney General Roy Cooper, Senate Bill 686 sponsors Walter Dalton (D-Rutherford) and John Snow (D-Cherokee), a fire-fighter who had been permanently disabled while fighting a fire in a home containing a methamphetamine lab and a representative from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics.
Senate Bill 686 would reclassify all cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, except liquids and gel caps, as Schedule V substances which would result in these items only being available in a pharmacy, behind the pharmacy counter, and from a pharmacist.
The Attorney General and the bill sponsors hammered home the importance of this law for the state and their communities respectively. The Oklahoma representative pointed to an 80% reduction in methamphetamine labs since a similar law was enacted in their state. The Attorney General and the bill sponsors have done a good job at chipping away at our access argument by pointing to the exempted gel caps and liquids which will still be available under the proposed bill.
We were thankful that the Committee ran out of time on Tuesday especially because of the emotion that was expressed in the testimony of the firefighter. This issue will be back before the Committee on Tuesday. We will have an opportunity to testify and try and sell our more reasonable approach of placing products whose sole active ingredient is pseudoephedrine behind the counter of any retailer and leaving multi-source products containing pseudoephedrine on the shelves of retailers with a two or three package limit per purchase.
One Republican Senator who is a good friend to retail said to us on Tuesday, “this train is leaving the station unless your people get on the phone and start writing letters and emails telling us not to stick with the Attorney General.”
On another note, we continue to make good progress with House members but there may come a time when pressure not to change the Senate bill overcomes us. A House bill proposing NCRMA's more reasonable proposal will be introduced next week.
NCRMA has started a grassroots campaign for grocery stores on the website of the Carolinas Food Industry Council ( www.cficweb.org ) and with its pharmacy members (see attached letter). We encourage you to call your legislators and tell them that Senate Bill 686 goes too far and that you support reasonable restrictions on cold medicine products.
2) Split Case Fees on Wine
The ABC Commission through us for a loop last Friday at their April meeting. When the Commission's business was completed Commissioner Ricky Wright inquired as to the status of the split case fee even though this item was not on the agenda of the Commission. Fred Gregory, Commission Counsel, gave a brief overview of the issue. Chairman of the ABC Commission Doug Fox then accepted a motion from Ricky Wright that Mr. Gregory prepare a memorandum from the Commission that wine wholesalers charge a split case fee because the wholesaler was providing a thing of value. NCRMA pleaded with the Commission to provide all of the interested parties with an opportunity to speak on the issue and reminded the Commission that numerous parties – wineries, wine shops, convenience stores, restaurants and retailers - had been prepared to speak the month before only to see the item pulled from the agenda.
Chairman Fox responded that he had read the memos from these groups and that he did not think anything that was said would persuade him otherwise and with that the two approved Mr. Wright's motion. The opinion letter that was released later that day stated that when a wholesaler splits a case of wine the wholesaler has provided a thing of value to the retailer and therefore effective April 8, 2005, a wholesaler would be in violation of ABC laws if they did not charge the retailer a split case fee.
NCRMA has been weighing its options since last Friday on how to best protect its members from this drastic change in ABC policy. We have discussed this issue with several interested trade groups and legislators alike. It is much more likely that we will pursue a legislative change rather than heading to court.
3) ABC Permits
Representative Deborah Ross (D-Wake) introduced House Bill 1174 on Tuesday. NCRMA has been working with Representative Ross for quite some time to help address the problem of bad actor alcohol permittees in Southeast Raleigh without hurting legitimate operators and put the issue of local alcohol control to rest. This bill is still in its beginning stages and we will continue to work to fix the many problems contained within the bill. NCRMA has also made its concerns with the bill known to the Alcoholic Beverage Committee Chairman in the House, Representative Pryor Gibson (D-Montgomery).
4) Violent Video Games
On Tuesday, the Senate Commerce Committee held its first hearing on Senate Bill 2 – No Violent Obscene Video Games Sold to Minors complete with testimony from a Harvard “expert” who alleged that video games were inherently evil. Additional testimony in support of the bill was provided by a public interest group against media violence. NCRMA and the ACLU provided testimony in opposition to the bill. Members of the Senate know the bill is unconstitutional but also know the bill makes for good politics. In an attempt to help the bill pass constitutional scrutiny the legislation has been changed for the worse and would now require retailers to create a separate section in their store not available to minors for games that contain “violence.” The bill will receive another hearing on Tuesday.
5) Pharmacy Would Take a Hit in Proposed Budget
On Wednesday, the Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee released its proposed budget. Contained in this proposal was a reduction of the reimbursement paid to pharmacies under Medicaid from AWP-10% to AWP-14%. This reduction would save the state $9.2 million in 2005-2006 and $15 million in 2006-2007. When federal matching dollars are added in it triples to $27 million in 2005-2006 and $45 million in 2006-2007. Additionally, co-pays would be raised from $1 to $3 for generics which will be a disincentive for Medicaid recipients to choose the cheaper drug. In cooperation with independent Pharmacy groups, NCRMA began meeting with the Co-Chairs of this Committee from both the House and the Senate to explain what taking these large amounts of money out of the cash registers of pharmacies will mean to their constituents.
6) Bills on the Way for Bad Checks, Pharmacy Quality Assurance and Common Sense Consumption
Look for NCRMA initiative bills to be filed next week to increase the bad check fee from $25 to $30 and to implement a mandatory Quality Assurance Program for all pharmacies in North Carolina . Representatives Thomas Wright (D-New Hanover) and Pryor Gibson (D-Montgomery) will be introducing the worthless check bill while Representative Nelson Cole (D-Rockingham) will introduce the Quality Assurance bill.
A “Common Sense Consumption” bill will be introduced on Monday to prevent frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers, packers, distributors, carriers, holders, sellers, marketers, or advertisers of food products. NCRMA member Representative Dewey Hill (D-Columbus) is one of the four co-sponsors of this legislation.
7) Court of Appeals to Hear Pharmacy Case on Tuesday
On Tuesday, the North Carolina Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in the case of North Carolina Board of Pharmacy v. North Carolina Rules Review Commission . This case began in 1998 and involves the Board of Pharmacy's attempt to regulate pharmacies rather than just pharmacists. In 1998, the Board attempted to require pharmacies to provide work breaks regardless of whether there was a line of customers in line to receive their prescriptions. The Rules Review Commission objected to the Board of Pharmacy's proposed rules stating that the Board lacked statutory authority to regulate pharmacies. NCRMA has been an active participant in this lawsuit including organizing of amicus briefs in support of the Rules Review Commission's position.
‘TIL NEXT WEEK
Fran Preston
Andy Ellen
|
