HB 2176

In Committee

House

Drug therapy agreements/PRA

Exempting information in collaborative drug therapy agreements from disclosure under the public records act.

Introduced (completed)
2
Committee (current stage)
3
Floor Vote (not started)
4
Opposite Chamber (not started)
5
Governor (not started)
6
Signed (not started)

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?

Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
Signed: The bill has been signed into law.

Introduced: January 11, 2026

Last Action: February 19, 2026

Status: H Rules X

View Bill Text (HTML)View Bill Text (PDF)

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 makes collaborative drug therapy agreements (CDTAs) — written agreements between pharmacists and prescribers that outline how medications are managed — confidential and exempt from public disclosure, except when the agreement is used in a disciplinary case against a licensed provider. It also protects the personal details of individuals involved, unless they are the subject of the disciplinary action.

Adds collaborative drug therapy agreements (CDTAs) and their attachments to the list of health information exempt from public disclosure under the Public Records Act.
Allows CDTAs to be disclosed only if they are used as evidence in a disciplinary action against a licensed health care provider (e.g., pharmacists, prescribers); in such cases, only the disciplined provider’s personally identifiable information may be included in the disclosure.
Protects personally identifiable information (e.g., names, addresses, credential numbers, email addresses, facility addresses and phone numbers) of individuals other than the disciplined provider, even if the CDTA itself is disclosed.
Clarifies that confidentiality applies regardless of which state agency holds the CDTA documents.

Who is affected

Pharmacists and prescribers using collaborative drug therapy agreements — Pharmacists and other health care providers who enter into collaborative drug therapy agreements (CDTAs) with prescribers; their agreement content and associated personally identifiable information may be protected from public disclosure unless used in a disciplinary case.
Patients — Patients whose information may be included in CDTAs; their personally identifiable details are protected from disclosure even if the agreement itself is disclosed due to a disciplinary action.
State health regulatory agencies (PQAC and DOH) — The Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission (PQAC) and Department of Health, which collect and manage CDTAs and related health data; they must follow new confidentiality rules when handling such records.
Public records requesters (e.g., journalists, researchers, citizens) — Members of the public or news organizations seeking access to health care records; they will no longer be able to obtain CDTAs (or certain other health data) through public records requests, except under limited circumstances.

Effective: July 28, 2026

Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 20, 2026, 2:42 AM

Pro/Con Analysis

Potential Benefits (5)

Protects the privacy of non-disciplined individuals (e.g., pharmacists, other prescribers) named in CDTAs — preventing reputational harm, harassment, or unwarranted scrutiny if their involvement in a collaborative agreement becomes public, even when no misconduct occurred.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(b)-(c)
Safeguards patient privacy by ensuring that CDTAs — which may contain detailed medication histories, dosing regimens, and provider-patient interactions — are not publicly exposed, reducing risk of identity theft, discrimination, or stigmatization.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(a)
Encourages candid, open collaboration between pharmacists and prescribers by reducing fear of public exposure or misinterpretation of complex medication management plans — potentially improving adherence and outcomes in chronic disease management.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(a)
Prevents accidental disclosure of sensitive facility contact details (e.g., pharmacy phone numbers, practice site addresses) that could be used for harassment or fraud if made public — especially important in rural or small communities where provider identities are easily linkable.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(c)
May reduce legal exposure for providers by preventing out-of-context quoting or selective publication of CDTA terms — though this benefit is modest and speculative, as CDTAs are already subject to professional standards review.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(a)

Potential Concerns (5)

Withholding CDTAs from public disclosure reduces transparency around medication safety incidents and provider conduct, potentially limiting public awareness of systemic risks (e.g., repeated prescribing errors, unsafe collaboration patterns) unless a disciplinary action occurs — and even then, only the disciplined provider’s identity is revealed, not the full context.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(a)-(b)
Even when CDTAs are disclosed in disciplinary cases, personally identifiable information of non-disciplined individuals (e.g., pharmacists, other prescribers involved in the same agreement) is protected — obscuring accountability for shared responsibility and hindering public or peer analysis of collaborative failures.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(b)-(c)
By making CDTAs confidential by default, the bill removes a key source of data for researchers, journalists, and public health agencies seeking to identify patterns of medication errors, inappropriate prescribing, or pharmacy practice risks — limiting early intervention and system-level improvements.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(a)
The narrow exception for disclosure in disciplinary cases creates a high bar for public scrutiny — only after a formal finding of misconduct is made, and only for the disciplined provider, meaning most CDTAs (including those involving near-misses or systemic issues without formal discipline) remain hidden.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(b)
The definition of “personally identifiable information” excludes identifiers like license numbers and facility addresses — which, while sensitive, could be de-identified for research or oversight purposes — thus overbroad in protecting information that does not meaningfully threaten privacy if anonymized.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(c)

Who Is Most Affected

Pharmacists and prescribers using collaborative drug therapy agreementsMixed Impact
Pharmacists and prescribers benefit from stronger privacy protections, especially when involved in collaborative agreements that later face scrutiny — but may face reduced public trust if errors are hidden, and may have less incentive to document thoroughly if agreements are not subject to oversight.
PatientsMixed Impact
Patients gain privacy and protection from potential stigma or discrimination tied to their medication regimens — but lose the benefit of public oversight that could expose unsafe or inappropriate prescribing practices affecting them or others.
State health regulatory agencies (PQAC and DOH)Mixed Impact
Regulatory agencies gain operational flexibility by limiting disclosure burdens, but lose a valuable data source for identifying trends and enforcing standards — potentially weakening their ability to proactively prevent harm.
Public records requesters (e.g., journalists, researchers, citizens)Negative Impact
Journalists, researchers, and citizens lose a tool for accountability and public health investigation — especially impactful in cases where disciplinary actions are rare or settlements are confidential, hiding systemic issues from public view.