BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1839|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1839
Author: Ma (D)
Amended: 6/26/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE BUSINESS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMM. : 9-0, 6/11/12
AYES: Price, Emmerson, Corbett, Correa, Hernandez, Negrete
McLeod, Strickland, Vargas, Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 4/26/12 (Consent) - See last page
for vote
SUBJECT : Veterinary medicine: veterinary assistants
SOURCE : California Registered Veterinarian Technician
Association California Veterinary Medical
Association
DIGEST : This bill authorizes registered veterinary
technicians (RVTs) and unregistered veterinary assistants
to administer a controlled substance pursuant to "direct"
or "indirect" supervision if specified requirements are
satisfied, including undergoing a background check, but
authorizes the Veterinary Medical Board (Board) to restrict
access to a dangerous drug by an unregistered veterinary
assistant if the drug is identified as having a pattern of
being diverted.
CONTINUED
AB 1839
Page
2
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Provides for the licensing and regulation of
approximately 15,200 veterinarians and 8,100 RVTs by the
Board in the Department of Consumer Affairs.
2. Provides that the Board may adopt regulations
establishing animal health care tasks performed by an
unregistered assistant (UA) as well as by a RVT or a
licensed veterinarian; and provides that the Board shall
establish an appropriate degree of supervision by a RVT
or a licensed veterinarian over a UA for any tasks
established by regulation and the degree of supervision
for any of those tasks shall be higher than, or equal
to, the degree of supervision required when a RVT
performs the task. (Business and Professions Code (BPC)
Section 4836)
3. Provides that a RVT or a UA may administer a drug,
including, but not limited to, a drug that is a
controlled substance, under the direct or indirect
supervision of a licensed veterinarian when done
pursuant to the order, control, and full professional
responsibility of a licensed veterinarian. (BPC Section
4836.1)
4. Defines "direct supervision" as: (a) the supervisor is
physically present at the location where animal health
care job tasks are to be performed and is quickly and
easily available; and (b) the animal has been examined
by a veterinarian at such time as good veterinary
medical practice requires consistent with the particular
delegated animal health care job task. (Title 16 of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2034 (e))
5. Defines "indirect supervision" as: (a) the supervisor
is not physically present at the location where the
animal health care job talks are to be performed, but
has given either written or oral instructions ("direct
orders") for treatment of the animal patient; and (b)
the animal has been examined by a veterinarian at such
times as good veterinary medical practice requires,
AB 1839
Page
3
consistent with the particular delegated animal health
care task and the animal is not anesthetized, as
defined. (Title 16, CCR Section 2034 (f))
6. Repeals on January 1, 2013, the authorization in Item #3
above, for RVTs or UAs to administer a drug that is a
controlled substance pursuant to direct or indirect
supervision of a licensed veterinarian. (BPC Section
4836.1 (c))
This bill:
1. Replaces and updates references to "UAs" with the term,
"veterinary assistant."
2. Limits access to controlled substances by veterinary
assistants who have undergoing a background check and
who, to the best of the managing licensee's knowledge,
do not have any drug or alcohol related felony
convictions.
3. Authorizes the Board 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 RVTs and UAs to administer controlled
substances under specified circumstances, thereby
extending these provisions and authorization
indefinitely.
Background
As indicated, in 2007, the Board's 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 Legislative Counsel (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
AB 1839
Page
4
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 Controlled Substances Act, provided
that the supervising licensed veterinarian is properly
registered." In response, California Veterinary Medical
Association (CVMA) and the Board sponsored SB 969
(Aanestad), Chapter 83, Statutes 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 for one year by SB 943
(Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development
Committee), Chapter 350, Statutes of 2011.
Concerns were raised by the California Registered
Veterinarian Technician Association (CRVTA) that the
current law did not go far enough in providing the
appropriate oversight of UAs and assuring that UAs, who had
access to controlled substances, had proper background
checks and that drugs being abused or diverted could be
prevented from being used by unlicensed and unregistered
persons working within veterinary offices, clinics or
hospitals. The CRVTA did not believe the sunset date
should be lifted until these additional protections were
provided. Both CRVTA and the CVMA reached agreement to
include a requirement for fingerprinting of veterinary
assistants which provides a criminal background check and
to authorize the Board, in consultation with the BOP, to
identify a drug that has an established pattern of being
diverted and to restrict access to that drug by veterinary
assistants. With these changes, CRVTA agreed with CVMA to
eliminate the sunset date making permanent the authority
for RVTs and UA's to administer controlled substances under
specified circumstances. It was also decided to update the
term "UA" to "veterinary assistant."
Prior Legislation
AB 1980 (Hayashi), Chapter 538, Statutes of 2010, changed
the composition of the Board; made permanent the
"multidisciplinary committee" of the Board and provided for
additional duties of the committee; eliminated the
Registered Veterinary Technician Committee; specified that
the practice of veterinary medicine also includes physical
AB 1839
Page
5
rehabilitation or musculoskeletal manipulation upon an
animal, unless otherwise authorized by regulation of the
Board; prohibited the use of the title "registered
veterinary technician" unless registered with the Board;
required training for an "unregistered assistant" in the
use of radiation safety and techniques before they may
operate radiographic equipment; clarified the reporting
requirement for veterinarians who must report any animal
injuries which occurred at a rodeo event; allowed students
in their final year of study in a veterinary technology
program to perform tasks of a registered veterinary
technician; exempted from liability veterinarians or
registered veterinarians who provide services during any
state of war emergency, a state of emergency, or local
emergency.
SB 943 (Senate 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 969 (Aanestad), Chapter 83, Statutes of 2007, provided
that RVTs and UAs can administer drugs under the indirect
supervision of a licensed veterinarian.
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 Board in conjunction with BOP to enforce the
existing statutes of the Pharmacy Law regarding prescribing
and dispensing of dangerous drugs or devices.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/2/12)
California Registered Veterinarian Technician Association
(co-source)
California Veterinary Medical Association (co-source)
California Veterinary Medical Board
AB 1839
Page
6
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The CRVTA is one of the
co-sponsors of this bill, and indicates that 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. CRVTA believes strongly that:
?by adding this requirement, our patients and the public
are being protected from potential harm. This bill also
returns the ability of the ÝBoard] 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 ÝBoard] 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.
The CVMA is the other co-sponsor of this bill and believes
that this bill will put in place some important safeguards
for the handling of these drugs, such as requiring the
fingerprinting of veterinary assistant staff. CVMA states,
"AB 1839-Ma reaffirms the current, accepted practice in a
veterinarian's office relative to the administration of
drugs, provides necessary quick veterinary care to sick or
injured animals, and offers an appropriate check and
balance for the ÝBoard] regarding the ability to have lower
level employees receive a background check prior to their
ability to handle drugs in a veterinary office."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 4/26/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
AB 1839
Page
7
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Beth
Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Grove,
Hagman, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber,
Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell,
Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan,
Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner,
Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski,
Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cedillo, Furutani, Halderman, Harkey,
Jones, Smyth
JJA:k 7/3/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****