BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1839 Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 27, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION Mary Hayashi, Chair AB 1839 (Ma) - As Introduced: February 22, 2012 SUBJECT : Veterinary medicine: veterinary assistants. SUMMARY : Authorizes veterinary assistants to administer a controlled substance if specified requirements are satisfied, including completion of a fingerprinting background check and authorizes the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) to limit access to specified dangerous drugs, as defined. Specifically, this bill : 1)Limits access to controlled substances by veterinary assistants who have completed a state and federal fingerprinting background check and who do not have any drug or alcohol related felony convictions. 2)Requires the employer to retain the results of the background check in his or her personnel records and make them available to the VMB and the Department of Justice, upon request. 3)Authorizes the VMB to restrict access by veterinary assistants to any drug identified as a dangerous drug in consultation with the Board of Pharmacy (BOP), and that has an established pattern of being diverted. 4)Deletes the January 1, 2013, sunset for provisions authorizing registered veterinary technicians (RVT) and unregistered assistant (UA) to administer controlled substances under specified circumstances, thereby extending these provisions indefinitely. 5)Updates references to "UAs" with "veterinary assistant." EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides for the licensure and registration of veterinarians and RVTs and the regulation of the practice of veterinary medicine by the VMB under the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act (Act). 2)Authorizes UAs to carry out specified acts in the veterinary AB 1839 Page 2 care and treatment of animals, and authorizes VMB to regulate the veterinary care activities of unregistered assistants. 3)Authorizes, until January 1, 2013, an RVT and a UA to administer controlled substances, except for the induction of anesthesia, under specified circumstances. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : Purpose of this bill . According to the author, "For many years, RVTs and UAs who assist veterinarians in practice, have been allowed to administer drugs under indirect supervision of a veterinarian, by the veterinarian's order, control, and full professional responsibility. However, in 2007, VMB's legal counsel questioned the language in existing law regarding who can administer drugs to animals in a veterinary practice setting. The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) disagreed with the VMB's interpretation of the law and subsequently sought a Legislative Counsel (LC) opinion, requested by then Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian. The LC opinion confirmed CVMA's position and, it further validated current practice as it pertains to federal drug laws. "Ultimately, the VMB determined that temporary regulations, designed to rectify the confusion in the law, could only go so far, and that a statutory change would be necessary. SB 969 ?was signed into law, but contained a sunset provision." Background . This bill is co-sponsored by CVMA, VMB, and the California Registered Veterinary Technician Association (CRVTA). In 2007, the VMB attorney interpreted a section of law pertaining to who can administer controlled substances in a veterinary office under the indirect supervision of a veterinarian. The interpretation was inconsistent with application of this law in veterinary practices, and as such an LC opinion was sought for clarification. The LC opinion found that the current practice was appropriate, and in compliance with the federal Controlled Substances Act, but recommended legislative clarification. LC stated, "Thus, it is our opinion, that an amendment to California law authorizing those persons to administer controlled substances under the indirect supervision of a licensed veterinarian would not violate the federal AB 1839 Page 3 Controlled Substances Act, provided that the supervising licensed veterinarian is properly registered." In response, CVMA and VMB sponsored SB 969 (Aanestad) of 2007, which provided that RVTs and UAs could administer drugs under the indirect supervision of a licensed veterinarian until January 1, 2012. This sunset date was extended by one year, under SB 943 (Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee). This bill deletes the sunset provision, making permanent the authority for RVTs and UA's to administer controlled substances under specified circumstance; requires all UA staff with access to controlled substances to be fingerprinted; authorizes VMB to determine if access to a specified drug should be restricted if VMB determines that the drug is being diverted to an extent documented by cases investigated by the VMB; and, updates the term "UA" to "veterinary assistant." Support . The CRVTA, a co-sponsor of this bill, writes in support, "The previous, temporary bills that concerned the administration of controlled substances by unlicensed veterinary personnel, did not require fingerprinting or background checking of these individuals. We feel very strongly that by adding this requirement, we are protecting our patients and the public from potential harm. "This bill also returns the ability of the VMB to regulate the delegation of the administration of drugs that have been determined to have a pattern of being diverted. We believe this is a very important feature, since the previous legislation did not allow the VMB to restrict the administration of any drugs, even those that were known to be diverted. "We also support the change in title from 'UA' to 'veterinary assistant'. This trend exists on a national level precisely because no one actually used the title 'UA', which lead to all veterinary staff being called technicians. Now that we have title protection for the term RVT, we feel that it is in the interest of the public that they be aware of the distinction between licensed technicians and unlicensed veterinary assistants." Previous legislation . SB 969 (Aanestad), Chapter 83, Statutes of 2007, provided that RVTs and UAs can administer drugs under the indirect supervision of a licensed veterinarian. AB 1839 Page 4 SB 943 (Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee), Chapter 350, Statutes of 2011, extended the sunset date authorizing RVTs and UAs to administer drugs under the indirect supervision of a licensed veterinarian to January 1, 2013. SB 175 (Kuehl), Chapter 250, Statutes of 2003, modified the definition of "dangerous drug" or "dangerous device" to clarify that BOP has the authority to regulate all dangerous prescription drugs or devices regardless of whether or not they are for human or animal treatment. Authorized the VMB in conjunction with BOP to enforce the existing statutes of the Pharmacy Law regarding prescribing and dispensing of dangerous drugs or devices. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California Registered Veterinary Technicians Association (co-sponsor) California Veterinary Medical Association (co-sponsor) California Veterinary Medical Board (co-sponsor) Opposition None on file. Analysis Prepared by : Rebecca May / B.,P. & C.P. / (916) 319-3301