BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |Hearing Date:April 29, 2013 |Bill No:SB | | |307 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Senator Curren D. Price, Jr., Chair Bill No: SB 307Author:Price As Amended:April 24, 2013 Fiscal:Yes SUBJECT: Healing arts: Veterinary Medical Board. SUMMARY: Extends until January 1, 2016, the provisions establishing the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) and the term of the executive officer of the VMB. Makes other changes regarding the inspection authority of the VMB as it pertains to veterinary premises, the membership and responsibility of the Multidisciplinary Committee of the VMB, and the requirements for veterinary assistants regarding access to controlled substances. Existing law: 1)Provides for the licensing and regulation of approximately 9,800 veterinarians and 4,300 registered veterinary technicians by the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 4800 et seq.) 2)Specifies that the VMB shall consist of 8 members, 4 of whom are licensed veterinarians, 1 of whom is a registered veterinary technician (RVT) and 3 of whom are public members, and that VMB shall remain in effect until January 1, 2014, and that the VMB is subject to review by the Legislature. (BPC § 4800) 3)Authorizes the VMB to appoint a person exempt from civil service who shall be designated as an executive officer and who shall exercise the powers and perform the duties delegated by the Board; provides that this authority shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2014. (BPC § 4804.5) SB 307 Page 2 4)Provides that the VMB may at any time inspect the premises in which veterinary medicine, veterinary dentistry, veterinary surgery is being practiced. (BPC § 4809.5) 5)Requires the VMB to establish a regular inspection program which will provide for random, unannounced inspections. (BPC § 4809.7) 6)Provides that the VMB shall establish an advisory committee to assist, advise, and make recommendations for the implementation of rules and regulations necessary to ensure proper administration and enforcement of the Veterinary Practice Act and to assist the VMB in its examination, licensure, and registration programs. This committee shall be known as the Veterinary Medicine Multidisciplinary Advisory Committee (MDC). (BPC § 4809.8 (a)) 7)Provides that members of the MDC shall be appointed by the VMB and shall consist of 7 members; 4 licensed veterinarians, 2 RVTs, and 1 public member. Members shall represent a sufficient cross section of the interests in veterinary medicine in order to address the issues before it, as determined by the VMB, including veterinarians, RVTs and members of the public. (BPC § id.) 8)Provides for terms of the membership of the MDC. (BPC § 4809.8 (b)) 9)Authorizes a RVT or a veterinary assistant to 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 § 4836.1 (a)) 10)Limits access to controlled substances to persons who have undergone a background check and who, to the best of the licensee manager's knowledge, do not have any drug or alcohol related felony convictions. (BPC § 4836.1 (b)) This bill: 1) Extends the establishment of the VMB and the authorization for the appointment of an executive officer to January 1, 2016. 2) Specifies that veterinary premises to be inspected by the VMB shall not include nonprofit animal rescue or adoption centers. 3) Provides that the VMB shall make every effort to inspect at least SB 307 Page 3 20 percent of veterinary premises on an annual basis. 4) Changes the membership of the MDC so that it shall consist of 9 members: 4 licensed veterinarians, 2 RVTs, 1 public member, and a veterinarian and RVT of the VMB. Provides that board members shall serve concurrent with their term of office. 5) States the intent of the Legislature that the MDC shall give specific consideration to issues pertaining to the practice of RVTs. 6) Requires a valid permit issued by the VMB to a veterinary assistant before the veterinary assistant would be able to have access to controlled substances on the veterinary premises. 7) Requires that as part of the application for a permit of the veterinary assistant, the VMB shall require an applicant to furnish a full set of fingerprints for purposes of conducting a criminal history record check and that the fingerprints furnished shall be submitted in an electronic format if readily available. Requires the VMB to use the fingerprints furnished to obtain criminal history information on the applicant from the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and for the VMB to obtain any subsequent arrest information that is available. 8) Provides that the requirement for a permit is contingent on the VMB receiving sufficient staffing and a fee to cover costs to implement the permit requirement and that the requirement for the permit shall become effective on January 1, 2015. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been keyed "fiscal" by Legislative Counsel. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose. This bill is one of six "sunset review bills" authored by the Chair of this Committee. Unless legislation is carried this year to extend the sunset dates for the VMB and its executive director they will be repealed on January 1, 2014. This bill makes a number of legislative changes recommended by the VMB as well as recommendations made in the Committee's background paper. SB 307 Page 4 2.Oversight Hearings and Sunset Review of Licensing Boards and Commission of DCA. In 2013, this Committee conducted oversight hearings to review 14 regulatory boards within the DCA. The Committee began its review of these licensing agencies in March and conducted two days of hearings. This bill, and the accompanying sunset bills, is intended to implement legislative changes as recommended in the Committee's Background/Issue Papers for all of the agencies reviewed by the Committee this year. 3.Review of the Veterinary Medical Board, Issues Identified and Recommended Changes. The following are some of the major issues pertaining to the VMB, or areas of concern reviewed and discussed by the Committee during the review of the VMB, along with background information concerning each particular issue. Recommendations were made by Committee staff and members regarding the particular issues or problem areas which needed to be addressed. a) Issue : Delay and Lack of Addressing RVT Issues. Background : According to those representing the RVT profession, there have been several issues which either the MDC or the VMB have not addressed or have delayed action in resolving. Examples given were: (1) regulations to define the parameters for a student exemption allowing them to perform restricted RVT job tasks; (2) a regulation to clarify the VMB's authority over RVT schools which took two and half years to go to public hearing after approved by the VMB; (3) the transitioning from using the state RVT examination to using a national RVT exam. A little history regarding the RVT profession and RVT committees, and RVT input on VMB matters may be appropriate at this point. In 1975, the profession of Animal Health Technician (AHT) was created by the Legislature in response to the desire by the veterinary profession to have a well-trained and reliable work force. The AHT Examining Committee (AHTEC) was created as an independent committee with a separate budget to assist the VMB with issues related to the new profession. In 1994, the title "Animal Health Technician" was changed to RVT and the committee was called the Registered Veterinary Technician Examining Committee (RVTEC). In 1998, the original independent RVTEC was to sunset, and a new committee of the VMB, the Registered Veterinary Technicians Committee (RVTC), was created. The Legislature gave the new committee the statutory authority to advise the VMB on issues pertaining to the practice of RVTs, assist the VMB with RVT examinations, CE and approval of RVT schools. The Legislature also specifically stated in the law SB 307 Page 5 that its intent was that the VMB would give specific consideration to the recommendations of the RVTC. In 2004, the JLSRC was concerned that the RVTC had no independent authority over issues within its jurisdiction, e.g., examinations, eligibility categories, establishing criteria for and approving RVT school programs. In 2006, the duties of the RVTC were expanded to include assisting the VMB in developing regulations to define procedures for citations and fines. In 2010, the Legislature added an RVT to the VMB for the first time, increasing the VMB composition to a total of 8 members: 4 veterinarians, 1 RVT and 3 public members. At the same time the RVTC was allowed to sunset upon appointment of the RVT. The newly created MDC also had the following make-up of members: 4 veterinarians, 2 RVTs and 1 public member. The RVT committee has basically gone from an autonomous, semi-autonomous to a non-existent committee. However, it appears that both veterinarians and RVTs believed that both representation on the VMB by an RVT and providing for RVTs on the MDC would allow for issues regarding the RVT profession to be adequately addressed. It appears, however, that this may not be the case. The VMB seemed to realize this oversight at its September 5, 2012 meeting as it discussed the role of its committees and a structure for the committees that might be best to address the issues of the VMB. It appears that one of the problems may be that the VMB has no direct input during MDC meetings or oversight of matters brought before the MDC, or has not given clear direction to the MDC to address important issues brought before the VMB or that must be resolved. The VMB has also allowed RVT matters to be splintered between different subcommittees. There is one RVT subcommittee of the VMB made up of two board members and another subcommittee of the MDC made up of one RVT and one veterinarian. Section 4809.8 of the Business and Professions Code was clear that the role of the MDC was to assist, advise and make recommendations for the implementation of rules and regulations necessary for the proper administration and enforcement of the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act and to assist the VMB in its examination, licensure, and registration programs. The MDC was intended to be inclusive of all issues regarding the veterinarian profession, and the VMB must do the same. Recommendation : Committee staff recommended that to assure the VMB has direct input and oversight of matters related to the MDC, there should be one veterinarian member of the VMB that sits on the MDC, and the RVT member of the VMB should also sit on the MDC. They would not act as a liaison to the MDC but rather as SB 307 Page 6 actual participants of the MDC. The VMB should eliminate its RVT subcommittee and the MDC RVT subcommittee and deal with RVT issues directly and not delay implementation of important RVT matters. Section 4832(b) of the Business and Professions Code of 2005 should be reinstated and included within Section 4809.8 to assure that the VMB will give specific consideration to the recommendations of the MDC regarding RVT matters. [The current language in this measure reflects these recommended changes.] b) Issue : Slow Response to Issues and Recommendations of Joint Committee. Background : The Board has been slow to deal with the issues and recommendations made by the previous Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee (JLSRC) during its sunset review in 2004, and other issues which may have been brought before the VMB over the past 8 years. The following are some examples: Transitioning to the RVT National Examination. Appropriate oversight of RVT schools. Allowing students to perform limited RVT job tasks. Providing information to consumers about the use (or misuse) of specialty titles of veterinarians. Making its Diversion Program self-supporting. Only recently planning to increase the number of inspections of veterinary premises. Only recently putting forth regulations to increase its fine authority. Only recently updating its Disciplinary Guidelines. Posting Disciplinary Actions taken by the Board on its Website. Only recently putting forth regulations to deal with illegal animal dentistry. Adoption of Uniform Substance Abuse Standards for its Diversion Program. Adoption of CPEI SB 1111 regulations similar to other health related boards. Lack of a consumer satisfaction survey. Recommendation : During the review of the VMB, the Chairs of the respective Committees were concerned about the issues which had not been addressed by the VMB and also the problem of the VMB in addressing RVT issues. To assure that the VMB will move ahead more expeditiously to implement these necessary changes and address RVT issues and provide continued oversight of the VMB, it was recommended that this Board receive a two-year extension of its sunset date rather than a four-year extension. It will not SB 307 Page 7 be necessary for the VMB to provide a detailed report in two years, but rather provide the respective Committees with an update on the progress it has made regarding these issues. [The current language in this measure reflects this recommended change.] a) Issue : Prioritize Veterinary Premises and Facilities to be Inspected. Background : It came to the attention of the Committee that the VMB may be inspecting non-veterinarian premises, including 501(c)(3) animal rescue groups, and providing an "inspection report" and possibly issuing citations and fines. The Committee was concerned that this may not be a reasonable use of resources for the VMB especially in light of the problems it is having maintaining its own inspection program over those facilities and hospitals that provide direct veterinary services. There may also be some confusion in the law regarding the VMB's jurisdiction over these types of "premises" and that should be clarified. There does not appear to be any need for the VMB to be involved in inspecting nonprofit animal rescue or adoption centers unless of course the VMB has probable cause to believe that such facility is involved in unlicensed activity. However, the VMB should only pursue action based on unlicensed activity, not pursuant to its inspection authority. The scope of VMB authority over humane society facilities needs to be clarified so that resources are not being expended on low-priority activities while higher priorities are suffering. Local jurisdictions, either pursuant to health and safety violations or complaints received, may be able to deal with these other entities more directly. Recommendation : Committee staff recommended that existing law should be clarified so that the VMB is not inspecting these non-veterinarian premises so that it can better target their use of scarce enforcement (inspection) resources and staff. [The current language in this measure reflects this recommended change.] b) Issue : Inspect More Veterinary Premises and Facilities. Background : California Code of Regulations Section 2030 sets the minimum standards for fixed veterinary premises where veterinary medicine is practiced, as well as all instruments, apparatus, and apparel used in connection with those practices. The method the VMB has selected to enforce such standards is the inspection of SB 307 Page 8 veterinary premises. During the sunset review of the VMB in 2004, the VMB inspected an average of 300 registered veterinary facilities that were selected from a master list, and an average of 31 facilities in response to complaints it received. The vast majority of these inspections were unannounced. From 1996 to 2003 the VMB had completed 2,616 inspections, including 211 complaint-related ones. The average rate for annual routine hospital inspections during those years was 13 percent, with a slight improvement during 2001/02 to 18 percent and 16 percent in 2002/03. In its report to the JLSRC at the time, the VMB indicated that all new veterinary premises were inspected within the first 6 to 12 months of operation and that its goal was to have all premises inspected within a 5-year period. The VMB further indicated to the JLSRC at the time that when it "randomly" selects premises to inspect, it eliminates from selection those premises with the most recent inspection dates. Thus, it appears that once facilities are inspected, they enjoy "safe harbors" from random inspections for an extended period of time, perhaps as long as 6 or more years. To accomplish these inspections, the VMB contracted with private veterinarians who hold current California licenses and have at least 5 years of clinical practice experience. However, the VMB was at the time considering expanding the pool of prospective inspectors to include RVTs as well. The Committee did not receive any current information regarding the VMB's inspection program of veterinary premises. The VMB only indicated that it hired three new inspectors for the 2012/13 fiscal year to begin in September 2012, with a goal of increasing the actual number of inspections each year to 500, or 16%. The VMB also changed the method of hiring inspectors from the Request for Proposal process to establishing a pool of qualified experts and hiring via the streamlined contract process implemented by DCA last year. This has greatly improved the pool of qualified applicants. Recommendation : The Committee requested that the VMB update the Committee on its inspection program for the past 8 years and indicate if it has adequate staff to increase the number of actual inspections and what percentage of veterinary premises does it believe it will be able to inspect on an annual basis. It would appear, based on the past number of inspections conducted by the VMB on an annual basis that the VMB should try to at least conduct inspections of 20% of veterinary premises. [The current language in this measure reflects this recommended change.] SB 307 Page 9 c) Issue : Veterinarian Assistants Access to Controlled Substances. Background : For many years the RVTs and veterinarian assistants who assisted veterinarians in practice were allowed to administer drugs under indirect supervision of a veterinarian, by the veterinarian's order, control, and full professional responsibility. However, in 2007, the 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. The LC opinion confirmed CVMA's position and it further validated current practice as it pertains to federal drug laws. Ultimately, however, the CVMA 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. In 2007, CVMA carried SB 969 to make the statutory changes necessary to clarify those persons who could provide controlled substances in a veterinary office or clinic and under what level of supervision. This measure was signed into law, but contained a sunset provision. The purpose for the sunset provision was to assure that there were no problems or complaints received by the VMB regarding the access to controlled substances by veterinary assistants. The sunset provision was extended to January 1, 2013, pursuant to SB 943 of 2011. During the interim, the DCA, CVMA, the VMB and representatives from the RVT community met to determine if other changes were necessary in the law to assure that veterinary assistants who had access to controlled substances had appropriate oversight and had no criminal history. Discussions centered around the requirement for the fingerprinting of veterinary assistants who would have access to controlled substances within the veterinary facility. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicated that they would be unable to provide criminal background information on veterinarian assistants to the VMB unless they were under the authority of the VMB. Therefore, the VMB would have to at least require veterinary assistants to obtain a permit from the VMB to be allowed access to controlled substances so that the VMB could then request fingerprints of the veterinarian assistant that would be provided to DOJ. The VMB could then be provided with the criminal background information from DOJ before they granted a permit. SB 307 Page 10 Recommendation : It was recommended that the VMB should establish a permitting process for veterinary assistants who will have access to controlled substances, both under direct and indirect supervision of a veterinarian, so that the VMB can require fingerprints of veterinarian assistants and obtain criminal history information from DOJ. The requirement for a permit should begin by 2015. However, the VMB should be provided adequate staffing to implement this new program to be paid from fees collected pursuant to the permit requirement. [The current language in this measure reflects these recommended changes.] 5. Current Related Legislation. SB 304 (Price, 2013). Makes various changes to the Medical Practice Act and to the Medical Board of California. ( Note : This bill will also be heard before the BP&ED Committee during today's hearing) SB 305 (Price, 2013). Extends until January 1, 2018, the provisions establishing the Naturopathic Medicine Committee and the Respiratory Care Board of California, and extends the term of the executive officers of the Respiratory Care Board of California and the California State Board of Optometry. Specifies that the Osteopathic Medical Board of California is subject to review by the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. Exempts individuals who have performed pulmonary function tests in Los Angeles County facilities for at least 15 years, from licensure as a respiratory care therapist. Specifies that any board under the Department of Consumer Affairs is authorized to receive certified records from a local or state agency to complete an applicant or licensee investigation and authorizes them to provide those records to the board. ( Note : This bill will also be heard before the BP&ED Committee during today's hearing) SB 306 (Price, 2013). Extends until January 1, 2018, the provisions establishing the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology and Hearing Aid Dispensers Board, the Physical Therapy Board of California and the California Board of Occupational Therapy and extends the terms of the executive officers of the Physical Therapy Board of California and the Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology and Hearing Aid Dispensers Board. This bill also subjects the boards to be reviewed by the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. ( Note : This bill will also be heard before the BP&ED Committee during today's hearing) SB 308 (Price, 2013). Extends, until January 1, 2018, the term of SB 307 Page 11 the Interior Design Law. Specifies that a certified interior designer provides plans and documents that collaborates with other design professionals. Requires a certified interior designer to use a written contract when contracting to provide interior design services to a client. Extends, until January 1, 2018, the State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind and extends an arbitration procedure for the purpose of resolving disputes between a guide dog user and a licensed guide dog school. Extends until January 1, 2018, the State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology and requires a school to be approved by the board before it is approved by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education. The bill would also authorize the board to revoke, suspend, or deny its approval of a school on specified grounds. ( Note : This bill will also be heard before the BP&ED Committee during today's hearing) SB 309 (Price, 2013). Extends the term of the State Athletic Commission, which is responsible for licensing and regulating boxing, kickboxing, and martial arts matches and is required to appoint an executive officer until January 1, 2018. ( Note : This bill will also be heard before the BP&ED Committee during today's hearing) SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION: Support: None on file as of April 24, 2013. Opposition: None on file as of April 24, 2013. Consultant:Bill Gage