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