statethreat_hero1

california
California legislation is threatening patient access to compounded medications.

AB 1990 regulates the wrong actors. It should be amended or opposed.

California patients deserve protection from misleading healthcare advertising. AB 1990 claims to protect patients but in reality, it places new unnecessary burdens on licensed, highly regulated pharmacies while leaving many of the entities responsible for problematic advertising practices largely untouched.

The Problem

The advertising practices cited by supporters of AB 1990 are often created and distributed by:

  • Telehealth companies

  • Lead-generation platforms

  • Wellness businesses

  • Digital marketing firms

Many of these entities operate outside the California Board of Pharmacy’s jurisdiction. Yet AB 1990 relies primarily on Board of Pharmacy enforcement—meaning the bill would impose substantial new requirements on licensed pharmacies while failing to adequately address the actors driving the conduct that prompted legislative concern.

nat_stacked2
Rectangle 123 (1)

We urge California lawmakers to stand with patients and protect pharmacy compounding.

Why this matters

AB 1990 creates significant new burdens

The bill adds new requirements related to advertising and disclosures, ingredient sourcing, testing and documentation, and manufacturing standards.

These mandates have not been shown to improve patient safety, and they could reduce access to medically necessary compounded medications prescribed when commercially available products cannot meet a patient's needs.

nat15

Unintended consequences for patient access

AB 1990 would create barriers that make it harder for patients to obtain medications their prescriber says they need through licensed, regulated healthcare providers.

For patients who rely on compounded therapies—including those with allergies, dosage needs, or treatment requirements not met by commercially available products—reduced access can have real consequences.

natl1

Protect patients without restricting access

Stakeholder amendments previously submitted to the bill author would correct these shortcomings. Those amendments would directly address misleading advertising, establish enforceable standards that apply to the appropriate actors, prohibit inappropriate marketing practices, and preserve access to clinically significant compounded therapies.

The legislators face a straightforward choice: Amend the bill so it addresses the actual problems, or risk advancing legislation that burdens regulated pharmacies while leaving significant gaps in enforcement and patient access.

nat_stacked5
Active Threat
Developing Threat
Threat Deferred

Has Your State Been Affected?

Explore our interactive map to track state legislation affecting pharmacy compounding. See which states have introduced or advanced bills and understand how these efforts impact patient care nationwide.