Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System.
Summary
Existing law classifies certain controlled substances into designated schedules. Existing law requires the Department of Justice, contingent upon the availability of adequate funds from various funds related to health care, as specified, to maintain the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) for the electronic monitoring of the prescribing and dispensing of Schedule II, Schedule III, and Schedule IV controlled substances by all practitioners authorized to prescribe or dispense these controlled substances. Existing law defines a security printer as a person approved to produce controlled substance prescription forms. Existing law requires that prescription forms for controlled substance prescriptions be obtained from security printers approved by the Department of Justice. These provisions authorize the department to approve a security printer who provides specified information to the department, including the location, names, and titles of the applicant's agent for service of process, all principal corporate officers, if any, and all managing general partners, if any. Existing law also requires those persons to provide a signed statement indicating whether they have ever been convicted of, or pled no contest to, a violation of any law or ordinance. Existing law authorizes the department to revoke its approval of a security printer for a violation of these provisions or action that would permit a denial. This bill would expand those requirements imposed on an applicant for approval as a security printer to additionally require the applicant to provide the location, names, and titles of any individual owner, partner, corporate officer, manager, agent, representative, employee, or subcontractor of the applicant who has direct access to, or management or control of, controlled substance prescription forms and require those persons to submit the signed statement described above. The bill would also make conforming and related changes. In addition, the bill would require that controlled substance prescription forms provided in person be restricted to established customers. The bill would require security printers to obtain photo identification from the customer and maintain a log of the information, and to report any theft or loss of controlled substance prescription forms to the department via fax or e-mail within 24 hours of the incident. The bill would also require that controlled substance prescription forms be shipped only to the prescriber's address on file and verified with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration or the Medical Board of California. The bill would specify penalties for certain violations, including, among others, failure to comply with security printer guidelines, failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent any dishonest act or illegal activity related to the access and control of security prescription forms, and theft or fraudulent use of a prescriber's identity in order to obtain security prescription forms. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law governs the prescription forms for controlled substances. Among other things, the forms are required to include the preprinted name, category of licensure, license number, and federal controlled substance registration number of the prescribing practitioner. This bill would also require the forms to include the address of the prescribing practitioner. The bill would make an additional change relating to forms ordered for use by prescribers when treating patients in licensed health care facilities or certain clinics that are exempt from other requirements governing these forms. The bill would provide that prescription forms that are not in compliance with these provisions shall not be accepted after July 1, 2012. The bill would establish a specified process by which a licensed health care practitioner or a pharmacist may obtain approval to access information stored on the Internet regarding the controlled substance history of a patient, as specified. The bill would require that the theft or loss of prescription forms be reported immediately to the department, as specified. The bill would also require the department to conduct audits of the CURES prescription drug monitoring system and authorize the department to establish a system for issuing citations, and for assessing and imposing administrative fines, not to exceed $2,500 for each violation, that would be deposited in the CURES Program Special Fund, for violations of the program, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Sep 2011
Senate Passage
Jun 2011
Assembly Passage
Sep 2011
Signed into Law
Oct 2011
Introduced Feb 15, 2011
Signed Oct 2, 2011
Floor votes · Senate Sep 10, 2011 · Assembly Sep 8, 2011
How they voted
36–0
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 39
Sep 10, 2011
D
Democratic24
95% Yea
R
Republican15
86% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
31
Key actions
8
Committee
7
Amendments
3
Oct 2, 2011
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 10, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (36-0-3)
senate
Sep 9, 2011
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 2460.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Sep 9, 2011
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Sep 8, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (77-0-2)
assembly
Aug 26, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 25).
lower
Aug 17, 2011
Committee
Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Jul 6, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 5).
lower
Jun 13, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
May 26, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 1115.) (May 26).
upper
May 9, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 862.) (May 3).
upper
Mar 31, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Feb 24, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Feb 15, 2011
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Mark DeSaulnier
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 360
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 360. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline