BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 233 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 17, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair SB 233 (Pavley) - As Amended: July 14, 2011 Policy Committee: HealthVote:17-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill modifies definitions of key terms governing the provision of emergency medical care, in order to clarify that appropriate licensed persons acting within their scope of licensure, in addition to physicians, can provide treatment and consultation in an emergency care setting. FISCAL EFFECT Negligible direct state fiscal impact. This bill clarifies state law and conforms state law to existing federal law and current practice, and is not likely to significantly change the delivery of emergency medical care. COMMENTS Rationale . The author states this bill is necessary to clarify that a physician assistant or other appropriate personnel can continue to provide treatment and consultation in an emergency care setting. The author further states that as long as evaluation, consultation and treatment is performed pursuant to a provider's scope of practice, this type of care by a physician assistant is routine and should not be unduly restricted by omissions and lack of clarity in the current definition of "emergency services and care". This legislation is prompted by a problem that recently arose at Mission Hospital in Orange County. In this instance, a physician assistant was prohibited by the hospital from providing a consultation in the emergency room (ER). These types of services are commonly authorized by supervising physicians. The hospital, however, cited existing state law that SB 233 Page 2 does not explicitly authorize a physician assistant to perform such consultation and treatment services in an ER setting. Analysis Prepared by : Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081