HHS Advisory Opinion Clarifies PREP Act Preemption Measures and Protection for Pharmacists
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.27.20
Widespread testing has been considered one of the country’s best ways to help minimize the spread of COVID-19, by allowing for quick identification, isolation, and treatment of infected individuals before further spread the virus. To this end, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recognized that pharmacists are uniquely positioned to aid in COVID-19 testing expansion, as they are trusted health care professionals who have established relationships with both their patients and medical providers, and also have the ability to refer patients to hospitals when necessary. On May 19, 2020, HHS issued an Advisory Opinion (Opinion) on the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, making it clear that the PREP Act shields pharmacists from liability stemming from ordering and administering FDA-authorized COVID-19 tests.
HHS had previously issued guidance authorizing licensed pharmacists to order and administer COVID-19 tests, including serology tests. Under this guidance, pharmacists were authorized as “Covered Persons” under the PREP Act, and would thereby receive liability immunity from claims of loss caused by, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of FDA-authorized COVID-19 tests. However, many states prohibit licensed pharmacists from ordering and administering tests, raising an important question about the PREP Act’s preemption provisions. HHS’s Opinion clarifies that the PREP Act authorization for pharmacists does, in fact, preempt any conflicting state laws.
First, the Opinion discusses the pharmacists’ status as “Covered Persons.” For PREP Act purposes, pharmacists fall within the subcategory of “qualified persons.” A “qualified person” is either (1) a licensed health care professional authorized under state law to prescribe, administer, or dispense a Covered Countermeasure, or (2) one identified as a “qualified person” by the HHS Secretary in the PREP Act declaration. The Opinion notes that this second category allows the Secretary to “designate someone as a ‘qualified person’ even if that person is not authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense such countermeasures under state law when that person prescribes, administers, or dispenses the countermeasures in that State.” (emphasis in original). The Opinion further explains that the HHS Secretary would not immunize anyone under this second category if states or localities could prohibit those persons from administering the Covered Countermeasures in the first place.
Second, the Opinion explores the PREP Act’s preemption provisions. The applicable statute mandates that during the effective period of the HHS Secretary’s PREP Act declaration, “no State or political subdivision of a State may establish, enforce, or continue in effect with respect to a covered countermeasure any provision of law or legal requirement” if it is “different from, or is in conflict with, any requirement applicable under this section; and relates to the . . . prescribing, dispensing, or administration by qualified persons of the covered countermeasure.” The Opinion reasons that the PREP Act would not preempt all state and local laws for pharmacists, but only those that differ from or conflict with the PREP Act or the PREP Act declaration. At a minimum, this provision would be broad enough to preempt any state or local requirement which would otherwise prohibit pharmacists from ordering and administering FDA-approved COVID-19 tests.
It is also important to note that these particular protections for pharmacists only apply for the purposes of ordering and administering COVID-19 tests, and not necessarily for other acts. Nonetheless, the Opinion should provide assurance to pharmacists concerned that they may be violating state laws by testing individuals for COVID-19.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25

