BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 923|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 923
Author: Steinorth (R)
Amended: 5/31/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 8-0, 6/6/16
AYES: Hill, Bates, Block, Gaines, Galgiani, Hernandez,
Mendoza, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 1/27/16 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Respiratory care practitioners
SOURCE: California Society for Respiratory Care
DIGEST: This bill makes changes to disciplinary provisions of
the Respiratory Care Practice Act (Act).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Establishes the Respiratory Care Board (Board) of California
to implement the Act. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) §
3710)
2)States that protection of the public shall be the highest
AB 923
Page 2
priority for the Board in exercising its licensing,
regulatory, and disciplinary functions. Whenever the
protection of the public is inconsistent with other interests
sought to be promoted, the protection of the public shall be
paramount. (BPC § 3710.1)
3)Defines respiratory care as a practice to mean the therapy,
management, rehabilitation, diagnostic evaluation, and care of
patients with deficiencies and abnormalities which affect the
pulmonary system and associated aspects of cardiopulmonary and
other systems functions, under the supervision of a medical
director. (BPC § 3702)
This bill:
1)Modifies the scienter requirement from "knowingly" to "knew or
should have known" for an employer who employs an unlicensed
person who presents herself or himself as a licensed
respiratory care practitioner when the employer knew or should
have known the person was not licensed.
2)States that the expiration, cancellation, forfeiture, or
suspension of a license, practice privilege, or other
authority to practice respiratory care by operation of law, by
order or decision of the Board, or a court of law; the
placement of a license on a retired status; or the voluntary
surrender of the license by a licensee shall not deprive the
Board of jurisdiction to commence or proceed with any
investigation of, or action or disciplinary proceeding
against, the licensee, or to render a decision to suspend or
revoke the license.
3)States that unprofessional conduct includes, but is not
limited to:
a) Any act of administering unsafe respiratory care
procedures, protocols, therapeutic regimens, or diagnostic
testing or monitoring techniques; or,
b) Any act of abuse towards a patient.
AB 923
Page 3
4)Authorizes the Board to order the denial, suspension, or
revocation of, or the imposition of probationary conditions
upon, a license of a licensee who knowingly provides false
statements or should have known that the statements provided
to the Board was false on any form provided by the Board or to
any person representing the Board during an investigation,
probation monitoring compliance check, or any other
enforcement-related action.
5)Makes technical changes.
Background
According to the author's office, "The goals of AB 923 are aimed
at the very core of the Respiratory Care Board's mandate to
protect its most vulnerable consumers.
AB 923 ensures that the commission of an act of neglect,
endangerment, or abuse is grounds for discipline by the
Respiratory Care Board; California's Respiratory Care Board can
maintain disciplinary jurisdiction over cases, even if a
licensee allows their license to expire."
The Board regulates a single category of health care workers -
respiratory care practitioners (RCPs). RCPs are specialized
health care workers who work under the supervision of medical
directors and are involved in the prevention, diagnosis,
treatment, management, and rehabilitation of problems affecting
the heart and lungs. RCPs provide treatments for patients who
have breathing difficulties, including those dependent upon life
support, and treat those with acute and chronic diseases,
including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, trauma victims,
and surgery patients. They are typically employed in hospitals,
however, a growing number of RCPs work in alternative settings
like skilled nursing facilities, physician offices, hyperbaric
oxygen therapy facilities and sleep laboratories. There are
over 34,000 RCP licensees in California.
2013 Sunset Review. According to the Board's 2013 Sunset
Review, the Board believes there are roadblocks within the Act
that prevent administrative suspension or discipline for
egregious criminal offenses committed by RCPs. The Board stated
AB 923
Page 4
that many Deputy Attorneys General (DAGs) believe the Board's
existing law does not allow it to pursue administrative
suspension or discipline for some sexually related crimes or
even in a case where the RCP was arrested for attempted murder,
unless there is a conviction. The Board has found that DAGs are
often reluctant to take action solely based on "a corrupt act;"
for example, because the language is too broad.
This bill is intended to clarify the parameters for the
administration of discipline in the Act by adding examples of
what constitutes "unprofessional conduct;" modifies the
scienter requirement to prove an employer acted unlawfully;
prohibits the provision of false information by a licensee; and
clarifies that the Board has jurisdiction over any individual
who violates the Act regardless of the expiration, cancellation,
forfeiture, surrender, retirement, or suspension of a license,
practice privilege, or other authority to practice respiratory
care by operation of law, by order or decision of the Board, or
a court of law.
It should be noted, however, that while it is important for the
Board to police its licensees for conduct dangerous to patients,
it is equally critical that licensees are afforded appropriate
due process for any real or perceived transgressions, and
discipline is not meted out based on insubstantial evidence.
These amendments are not intended to reduce the burden of proof
for the Board, but rather provide further guidance in
administering the Act.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified6/20/16)
California Society for Respiratory Care (source)
The Respiratory Care Board of California
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/20/16)
AB 923
Page 5
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Respiratory Care Board of
California and the California Society for Respiratory Care write
that this bill will strengthen legal framework in the Act
related to disciplinary actions, which will further the consumer
protection mandate of the Board and allow it to effectively
regulate the Respiratory Care profession in California.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 1/27/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez,
Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Mathis
Prepared by:Sarah Huchel / B., P. & E.D. / (916) 651-4104
6/22/16 15:14:56
**** END ****