Ophthalmic drug company Harrow’s compounding business recently reached a settlement with the California Board of Pharmacy resolving 75 causes for discipline against its compounding subsidiaries, ImprimisRx and Imprimis NJOF. Following the settlement, the company voluntarily surrendered its California licenses.
Eric Knowles weighed in on how this investigation could prompt similar action by other states, including New Jersey, where Harrow’s compounding business is currently based.
As reported by The Capitol Forum, Eric noted:
“I think this very well may have some consequences in other states, including New Jersey, their home base, which would probably be the most likely.”
The article discusses how pharmacy boards communicate across jurisdictions and how disciplinary action in one state may lead to reciprocal or related action elsewhere. It further highlights how state pharmacy boards may initiate investigations, impose mirrored discipline, or require enhanced reporting where out-of-state action has occurred.
Eric also emphasized the concept of “sister state discipline,” explaining that:
“It’s a settlement agreement, so [Harrow is] not admitting” to anything. Even so, “there’s sister state discipline—a violation in one state can be viewed as a violation in another state.”
The analysis underscores the importance for compounding pharmacies and outsourcing facilities to understand:
- Reciprocal discipline frameworks across states
- Non-resident pharmacy licensing obligations
- Mandatory reporting requirements for out-of-state enforcement
- The heightened scrutiny that may follow high-profile board actions
For pharmacies operating in multiple jurisdictions, disciplinary proceedings in one state can create cascading regulatory risk. Boards of pharmacy frequently communicate and may independently evaluate whether similar action is warranted under their own laws and regulations.
Please note: The full article is available through The Capitol Forum and requires a subscription to access.
