Skip to main content
Evergreen Ledger

E2SHB 1422

Signed

House

Drug take-back program

Modifying the drug take-back program.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: February 26, 2025
Last Action: May 12, 2025
Status: C 215 L 25
View Bill Text (HTML) (opens in new tab)View Bill Text (PDF) (opens in new tab)

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill strengthens Washington’s drug take-back program by requiring detailed annual reporting, setting performance goals for drug collection, and creating a new system of civil fines for underperformance or noncompliance. It also clarifies enforcement authority, updates fee structures to cover state costs, and establishes a dedicated fund for drug misuse prevention and recovery programs.

  • Requires program operators to submit detailed annual reports to the Department of Health, including drug collection amounts (by weight), collection methods, safety issues, public outreach, and budgets—starting July 1 after the first full year of implementation.
  • Sets new performance standards: each program operator must collect at least as much as it did the prior year, and collection weights should be roughly equivalent (within 80% or more of the highest collector’s weight) across operators.
  • Authorizes the Department of Health to assess civil fines up to $2,000 per day for violations by manufacturers (for non-participation), wholesalers/retailers (for failing to report manufacturer lists), and program operators (for underperformance or noncompliance).
  • Requires program operators to pay fines based on undercollection: if they collect less than 80% of the highest collector’s weight or less than 90% of their own prior-year goal, they may be fined per pound short using an average collection cost formula.
  • Creates a new 'Secure Drug Take-Back Program Account' to hold fees and fines, which can only be spent by the Department of Health for drug take-back administration and related public health programs (e.g., prevention, treatment, recovery).
  • Adds a sunset clause: all existing drug take-back laws (RCW 69.48.010 through 69.48.200) will be repealed on January 1, 2030, unless renewed or replaced.

Who is affected

  • Pharmaceutical manufacturers — Pharmaceutical manufacturers that sell prescription drugs in Washington must fund and operate or participate in drug take-back programs to collect and dispose of unused medications.
  • Program operators — Program operators—organizations approved by the state to run drug take-back programs—must meet annual collection goals, submit detailed reports, and may face fines if they fall short.
  • Wholesalers and retail pharmacies — Wholesalers and retail pharmacies must provide the state with a list of drug manufacturers they carry; failure to do so may result in fines.
  • General public — State residents benefit from improved access to safe medication disposal, reducing risks of misuse, accidental poisoning, or environmental contamination.
Effective: July 28, 2025Fiscal impact: The bill establishes fees to cover the Department of Health’s administrative, oversight, and enforcement costs. Civil fines collected (up to $2,000 per violation per day) are deposited into the Secure Drug Take-Back Program Account and may be used to support drug misuse prevention, treatment, and recovery services. The bill also creates a new civil fine structure tied to underperformance in drug collection, which could generate additional revenue for state programs.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 11:05 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (5)

  • Mandating parity in drug collection weights and annual growth targets should increase statewide access to safe disposal, reducing accidental overdoses, misuse, and environmental contamination—especially benefiting rural and low-income communities with historically limited access.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 5(2)-(3)

  • Civil fines and fees are directed into a dedicated fund used for prevention, treatment, and recovery services, directly expanding public health capacity where need is greatest—particularly for people experiencing opioid or stimulant use disorders.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 4 & Sec. 5 (fine usage)

  • Mandated annual public reporting on collection methods, safety issues, outreach, and goals increases transparency and accountability, enabling communities and advocates to hold programs accountable and improve equity in service delivery.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h)

  • Fee structure tied to actual administrative costs ensures sustainable program funding without overburdening manufacturers or operators—though the removal of the 10% cap may still disproportionately affect small operators.

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a)

  • Authority to suspend or restrict noncompliant programs protects public health by preventing unsafe or ineffective take-back operations from continuing, especially where violations pose immediate environmental or safety hazards.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(a)(ii)
Potential Concerns (4)

  • Civil fines for underperformance could impose significant administrative and financial burdens on program operators—many of whom are small nonprofits or local governments—especially if collection targets are set unrealistically high or data reporting is inconsistent across regions.

    Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 5(4)(a)-(b)

  • Removal of the 10% fee cap on program operators’ annual expenditures (previously in 2021 law) may increase operational costs for smaller program operators disproportionately, potentially reducing their capacity to serve rural or underserved communities.

    Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 3(1)(b) (repealed in final version, but fee cap removed)

  • Fines tied to collection weight differences may incentivize program operators to inflate reported collection figures or avoid reporting challenges (e.g., rural access, stigma), potentially undermining data integrity and public trust.

    Public SafetyRef: Sec. 5(4)(a)-(b)

  • The 2030 sunset of all prior take-back statutes may create regulatory uncertainty for local governments and program operators, potentially disrupting long-term planning and investment in infrastructure, especially if renewal is delayed or restructured.

    Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 6 (sunset clause)

Who Is Most Affected

Pharmaceutical manufacturersMixed Impact

Manufacturers face new compliance and cost burdens, but the fee structure is designed to be cost-recovery-based. Large manufacturers may absorb costs more easily than small specialty drugmakers.

Program operatorsMixed Impact

Program operators (often local health jurisdictions, nonprofits, or pharmacies) face new reporting, performance, and financial obligations. Smaller operators may struggle with parity requirements, but the dedicated funding stream supports long-term capacity.

Wholesalers and retail pharmaciesPositive Impact

Wholesalers and pharmacies face minimal new costs (just reporting), but face civil fines for noncompliance. The burden is low relative to benefits of regulatory clarity.

General publicPositive Impact

General public benefits from expanded, safer, and more transparent drug disposal access—reducing overdose risk, accidental poisoning, and environmental harm. Low-income, rural, and elderly populations stand to gain most.