BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 510
Page 1
( Without Reference to File )
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 510 (Bonnie Lowenthal)
As Amended July 2, 2012
2/3 vote. Urgency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |75-0 |(January 26, |SENATE: |36-0 |(July 5, 2012) |
| | |2012) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HEALTH
SUMMARY : Makes technical and clarifying changes to existing
requirements that are to become effective July 1, 2012, relating
to computed tomography (CT) X-ray.
The Senate amendments :
1)Provide that CT X-ray system studies used for delivery or for
calculating attenuation coefficients for nuclear medication
studies, or for therapeutic radiation treatment planning are
exempt from the dose recording requirement.
2)Allow, instead of require, facilities to send each CT study
and protocol page to the electronic picture archiving and
communications system.
3)Provide that the requirement that the displayed dose be
verified annually to ensure the displayed doses are within 20%
of the true measured dose to the facility's standard adult
brain, adult abdomen, and pediatric brain protocols is
effective until July 1, 2013.
4)Clarify the existing exemption from annual verification
requirements for accredited facilities to specify that a
facility that has a CT X-ray system that is accredited by an
organization that is approved by the federal Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, an accrediting agency approved
by the Medical Board of California, or the State Department of
Public Health (DPH) may elect not to perform the verification.
5)Allow a facility that is subject to accreditation to elect to
AB 510
Page 2
have the CT X-ray system accredited pursuant to a single
accreditation survey that includes the CT service by the
accrediting organization.
6)Specify that a CT X-ray system is not subject to the
accreditation requirements if the system is used for
therapeutic radiation treatment planning or delivery,
calculating attenuation coefficients for nuclear medicine
studies, or dedicated for image guidance for interventional
radiologic procedures.
7)Clarify the reporting requirements for a CT X-ray examination
that exceeds certain dose values.
8)Revise the extension of the reporting deadline from five
business days to no later than 10 business days for a facility
to report to DPH after the discovery of CT X-ray examination
that exceeds certain dose values or results in unanticipated
damage.
9)Add an urgency clause.
10)Make relating technical changes.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the bill as passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill clarifies
requirements that health facilities and imaging centers must
meet regarding excess radiation exposure that were enacted in SB
1237 (Padilla), Chapter 521, Statutes of 2010, and SB 38
(Padilla), Chapter 139, Statutes of 2011. The clarification is
needed for the facilities and DPH to meet the implementation
dates of July 1, 2012. The author states that limiting record
keeping of a CT scan to those used only for diagnosis is
necessary because the American College of Radiology (ACR) has
not developed standards for therapeutic functions. Therefore,
according to the author, there is no set standard for how these
machines will report the dose. The author further states that
the requirement relating to verification of displayed doses must
be limited to the facility's standard adult brain, adult
abdomen, and pediatric brain procedures because these are the
AB 510
Page 3
three most common with established standards used by the ACR.
According to the author, there could otherwise be 200 or more
that could be requested which is inefficient and costly. The
author points out that the intent of SB 1237 was to require the
hospital to report procedures that were done incorrectly and on
the wrong body part. The author states that there are instances
where a neighboring body part may be affected by the treatment
in the normal course of the procedure. According to the author,
this bill is intended to clarify this intent.
Analysis Prepared by : Marjorie Swartz / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097
FN:
0004408