BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1039
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Rudy Salas, Chair
SB 1039(Hill) - As Amended June 22, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 25-12
SUBJECT: Professions and vocations
SUMMARY: Makes several changes to the statutes governing
various boards and bureaus under the Department of Consumer
Affairs (DCA); includes specified fee increases for several
boards including the Dental Hygiene Committee of California
(DHCC), the California Board of Optometry (CBO), the Board of
Registered Nursing (BRN), the Board of Pharmacy (BOP), and the
Contractors State License Board (CSLB); and eliminates the
Telephone Medical Advice Services Bureau (TMAS).
EXISTING LAW:
1) Establishes, under the Dental Board of California (DBC), the
Dental Corps Loan Repayment Program (DCLRP) and requires the
DBC in consultation with the Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development, the dental community, other public
health facilities and those serving underserved communities
to develop and implement the DCLRP. (Business and
Professions Code (BPC) § 1970-1976)
SB 1039
Page 2
2)Requires the DHCC to establish by resolution the amount of the
fees that relate to the licensing of a registered dental
hygienist, a registered dental hygienist in alternative
practice, and a registered dental hygienist in extended
functions. Prohibits the biennial renewal fee from exceeding
$160. (BPC § 1944)
3) Establishes the Board of Podiatric Medicine (BPM) within the
jurisdiction of the Medical Board of California (MBC). (BPC
§ 2460)
4) Specifies that the MBC shall issue, upon the recommendation
of the BPM, a certificate to practice podiatric medicine to
each applicant who meets the requirements of the Medical
Practice Act. (BPC § 2479)
5)Establishes various fees applicable to certificates to
practice podiatric medicine, including, an application fee, a
duplicate wall certificate fee, a duplicate renewal receipt, a
letter of good standing fee or a letter for a loan deferment
fee, a fee for the issuance of a resident's license, a filing
fee to appeal the failure of an oral examination, a fee for
continuing education approval, and a fee for ankle
certification for persons licensed prior to January 1, 1984.
(BPC § 2499.5)
6)Establishes the CBO to regulate nonresident contact lens
sellers, registered dispensing opticians (RDO), spectacle lens
dispensers, and contact lens dispensers. Establishes the
CBO's regulatory fees, including an initial registration fee,
a renewal fee, and a delinquency fee. (BPC §§ 2546.9, 2565,
2566, 2566.1)
SB 1039
Page 3
7) Provides that certificates to practice podiatric medicine
and registrations of spectacle lens dispensers and contact
lens dispensers, among others, expire on a certain date
during the second year of a 2-year term if not renewed. (BPC
§ 2423)
8) Requires the BRN to adopt regulations establishing standards
for continuing education for licensees, as specified, and
requires that the standards take cognizance of specialized
areas of practice. (BPC § 2811.5)
9) Prescribes various fees to be paid by licensees and
applicants for licensure for the BRN and requires these fees
to be credited to the BRN Fund, which is a continuously
appropriated fund as it pertains to fees collected by the
BRN. (BPC §§ 2786.5, 2815, 2815.5, 2830.7, 2838.2)
10) Prescribes various fees to be paid by licensees and
applicants for licensure, and requires all fees collected on
behalf of the BOP to be credited to the BOP Contingent Fund,
which is continuously appropriated as it pertains to fees
collected by the BOP. (BPC § 4400)
11) Provides that the licensure requirements for a
veterinarian practicing in California do not apply if a
veterinarian from another state provides consultation from
another state or is called to attend to a case in this state
and does not open an office or appoint a place to do business
or if a veterinarian from another state is called into this
state by a law enforcement or animal control agency to attend
to cases that are part of an investigation of an alleged
violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal
cruelty laws. (BPC § 4830)
SB 1039
Page 4
12) Requires the certain businesses that provide telephone
medical advice services to a patient at a California address
to be registered with the TMAS and further requires telephone
medical advice services to comply with the requirements
established by the DCA, among other provisions, as specified.
(BPC § 4999 et seq.)
13) Prescribes various fees to be paid by licensees and
applicants for licensure with the CSLB, and requires fees and
civil penalties received under the Contractors' State License
Law to be deposited in the Contractors' License Fund, which
is a continuously appropriated fund as it pertains to fees
collected by the CSLB. (BPC §§ 7137 and 7153.3)
14) Provides for the licensure and regulation of
structural pest control operators and registered companies,
as defined, by the Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB)
within the DCA. (BPC §§ 8500-8697.4)
15) Prohibits a registered company or licensee under the
Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB) from commencing work on
a contract relating to the presence of wood destroying pests
or organisms until an inspection has been made by a licensed
Branch 3 field representative or operator; requires that the
address of each property inspected or upon which work was
completed to be reported to the SPCB, as specified; requires
that a written inspection report be prepared and delivered to
the person requesting the inspection or his or her agent; and
requires that the original inspection report to be submitted
to the SPCB upon demand. (BPC § 8516)
16) Requires the report to the SPCB to contain specified
information, including a foundation diagram or sketch of the
structure or portions of the structure inspected and requires
the report, and any contract entered into, to expressly state
SB 1039
Page 5
if a guarantee for the work is made, and if so, the terms and
time period of the guarantee. (BPC § 8519)
17) Defines "control service" as the regular inspection of
a property after a report has been made in compliance with
the requirements of an inspection as specified above, and any
corrections as have been agreed upon and have been completed.
(BPC § 8516 (g))
THIS BILL:
1) Increases the statutory cap for the biennial renewal fee for
various types of registered dental hygienists from $160 to
$500.
2) Removes the BPM from the jurisdiction of the MBC,
establishes it within the DCA, and makes conforming changes.
3) Increases various processing fees for the BPM, including
fees for issuance of duplicate certificate, issuance of a
resident's license, and others.
4) Deletes the provisions relating to the BPM's ankle
certification fee.
5) Establishes a specified minimum and maximum application fee
amount for nonresident contact lens sellers, registered
dispensing opticians, and spectacle lens dispensers and
increases minimum and maximum amounts for already established
fees. Authorizes the CBO to periodically revise and fix the
fees, as specified.
6) Specifies that the CE standards established by the BRN for
SB 1039
Page 6
nurses shall take cognizance of specialized areas of
practice, as currently required, but in addition the content
shall be relevant to the practice of nursing and shall be
related to the scientific knowledge or technical skills
required for the practice of nursing or be related to direct
or indirect patient or client care.
7) Requires the BRN to audit CE providers at least once every
five years to ensure adherence to regulatory requirements,
and requires the BRN to withhold or rescind approval from any
provider that is in violation of the regulatory requirements.
8) Prescribes various fee changes to be paid by licensees and
applicants for licensure and requires these fees to be
credited to the BRN Fund, which is a continuously
appropriated fund as it pertains to fees collected by the BRN
and also raises specified fees, and provides for additional
fees to be paid by licensees and applicants for licensure as
well as by schools seeking approval by the BRN.
9) Modifies, on or after July 1, 2017, specified fees to be
paid by the licensees and applicants for licensure with the
BOP.
10)Specifies that a veterinarian from another state or country
does not have to be licensed in California if they are
holding a current, valid license in good standing in another
state or country and provide assistance to a California
licensed veterinarian. The California licensed veterinarian
shall maintain a valid veterinarian-client-patient
relationship and that the veterinarian providing the
assistance shall not establish a veterinarian-client-patient
relationship with the client, as specified. Clarifies that a
veterinarian in good standing from another state does not
have to be licensed in California if they are called into
this state by law enforcement agency or animal control
agency, as specified.
SB 1039
Page 7
11)Eliminates the TMAS and repeals the requirement that certain
businesses that provide telephone medical advice services to
a patient at a California address to be registered with the
TMAS.
12)Raises specified fees to be paid by the licensees and
applicants to the CSLB and requires the CSLB to establish
criteria for the approval of expedited processing
applications, as specified.
13)Requires the operator licensed and regulated by the SPCB
prior to conducting an inspection as specified above to be
employed by a registered company. Requires that the written
inspection report be prepared and delivered to the person
requesting it, the property owner, or the property owner's
designated agent. Requires all inspection reports to be
submitted to the SPCB and maintained with field notes,
activity forms, and notices of completion until one year
after the guarantee expires if the guarantee extends beyond 3
years. Requires the inspection report to clearly list the
infested or infected wood members or parts of the structure
identified in the required diagram or sketch. Clarifies the
definition of "control service agreement" as an agreement,
including extended warranties, to have a licensee conduct
over a period of time regular inspections and other
activities related to the control or eradication of wood
destroying pests and organisms. Makes other clarifying and
technical changes regarding the SPCB.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee
Analysis dated May 27, 2016:
1)One-time costs of $260,000 and ongoing costs of $250,000 per
SB 1039
Page 8
year for the Board of Registered Nursing to audit providers of
continuing education.
2)Increased licensing fee revenues of about $23 million per year
to the Board of Registered Nursing.
3)Increased licensing fee revenues of about $7 million per year
to the Board of Pharmacy.
4)Increased licensing fee revenues of about $13 million per year
to the Contractor's State Licensing Board.
5)Increased licensing fee revenues of about $950,000 per year to
the Court Reporters Board.
6)Reduced expenditures (and license fee revenues) of about
$200,000 per year from the elimination of the Telephone
Medical Advice Services Bureau.
7)Unknown additional fee revenues due to increases in various
licensing fees assessed by the Contractors State Licensing
Board.
COMMENTS:
Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the author. According to
the author, "?this bill is intended to be an omnibus bill which
includes several changes to a number of boards under the [DCA]
and would also include necessary fee increases for certain
boards to ensure they continue to operate without a major
structural deficit and maintain adequate reserves. With the
advent of the BreEZe project, which is an attempt to replace
multiple antiquated standalone information technology (IT)
SB 1039
Page 9
systems for most of the boards under the DCA, some boards have
anticipated what may be significant costs and have also provided
projections of future fund conditions which show less than
possibly 3 months in reserve because of overall increased
budgetary costs for these individual boards. (Typically, boards
consider seeking fee increases when they project their funds in
will be at, or dip below, a three-month reserve.)
This bill also makes other clarifying substantive changes for
the [SPCB] in regards to inspection conducted by structural pest
control operators and their companies and eliminates the [TMAS]
Bureau which is no longer necessary to provide oversight of
remote advice provided by healthcare practitioners."
Background. This bill contains several fee increases requested
by boards which have projected fund condition issues,
incorporates several of the recommendations from the DCA-wide
sunset paper published for this year's sunset review oversight
hearing in March, and other technical changes.
BPM and MBC Jurisdiction. This bill makes technical changes
striking references to the MBC in the podiatry practice act,
which are intended to reflect the independent status of each
board. While the BPM was once housed within the MBC, it has
been an independent entity since the late 1980's and relies on
the MBC only for contractually specified duties, which the MBC
provides for other boards as well.
For instance, existing law specifies that the MBC issues the
podiatric medicine license. As a result, podiatric licenses are
printed with the text "The Medical Board of California Certifies
that [insert name of licensee] possesses [the required
qualifications] and is hereby granted a license?." However, in
practice, the BPM is responsible for determining the eligibility
of its licensees and making final disciplinary decisions.
SB 1039
Page 10
Fee Changes for the BPM. The BPM's current fee schedule
(excluding initial and renewal fees) has not been increased in
over 25 years. According to the BPM, the costs for performing
the services under the schedule have increased significantly
over the 25 years. According to the BPM's two recent fee audits
(one performed by DCA and one by a contract consultant), in
order to cover the costs of the services, the BPM will need to
increase fees.
The BPM notes that, "Assuming full expenditures, BPM's projected
Fund Condition Analysis indicates that in the FY 16-17 BPM will
have one month of expenditures remaining and during FY 17-18
will be in the negative by six months." As a result, the BPM
will increase the following fees: (1) Application Fee; (2)
Duplicate License; (3) Duplicate License Renewal Fee; (4) Letter
of Good Standing; (5) Resident's License; (6) Exam Appeal Fee;
and (7) CME Course Approval.
In addition, because the ankle license application and exam fees
are obsolete, this bill will delete the reference to those fees.
Fee Changes for the CBO. AB 684 (Alejo), Chapter 405, Statutes
of 2015, among other things, transferred the regulation of RDOs
from the MBC to the CBO, along with the authority to inspect
leases and premise locations for compliance with BPC § 655
(dealing with various kick-back arrangements). However, neither
the MBC nor the CBO collected data on how many locations are
co-located, so there is no concrete data on how many registrants
are subject to inspection. In the following years, the CBO will
collect the data and use it to further develop the inspection
program.
Currently, the additional revenue brought in by a fee floor will
SB 1039
Page 11
not support the inspection program. After more data is
collected, the CBO will reassess the cost of this new function
(as recommended by the fee audit) and potentially increase fees
through the regulation process.
Still, the fee audit shows that current RDO fee structure is not
sufficient to sustain the new RDO program. The fee audit shows
that the proposed fee floor is just enough to sustain the
program without factoring in the requirements specified in AB
684. Further, the CBO notes that there are a lot of "unknowns"
pertaining to the total impact on the program in regards to the
license population and enforcement workload. The fee auditor
recommended setting a fee floor, due to the immediate need, and
a fee ceiling high enough to allow the CBO to reassess total
impact after a few years of data collection.
The auditor recommended fees based on cost per item. However,
in an effort to even out the fees and make them more reasonable,
the DCA budgets used the auditor's projected program's
revenue/budget needs to determine the proposed fee structure.
BRN CE Audits. All BRN licensees are required by statute to
complete 30 hours of CE during each two year renewal cycle to
ensure continued competence. Licensees are required to submit
proof of their compliance by signing a statement under penalty
of perjury and agreeing to produce documentation upon request.
The BRN relies on adherence to CE standards as the primary
method of assuring the continued competence of its licensees,
but it has not institutionalized regular audits of licensees'
CEs or CE providers (CEPs) since 2002. This issue was raised in
the 2011 Sunset Review Report.
During the comprehensive sunset review oversight of the BRN
in 2015 conducted by the Senate Committee on Business,
Professions and Economic Development and Assembly Committee
SB 1039
Page 12
on Business and Professions (Committees), staff recommended
the following: "The BRN should review its criteria for
CEPs and require content to be science-based and directly
related to professionally appropriate practice. The BRN
should continue to pursue additional staffing for CE
auditors, but should simultaneously rebalance its existing
workload and prioritize ongoing CE and CEP audits."
This measure reflects the recommendation made in 2015 during
sunset review and provides more staffing to audit CE provided
pursuant to the fee increase.
Fee Changes for BRN. The BRN Fund is maintained by the BRN and
includes the revenues and expenditure related to licensing
nurses. According to the BRN, the cause of its projected
deficit is an ongoing problem.
Also, increasing costs to the BRN as a result of unanticipated
BreEZe cost increases (which increased from $2,444,396 million
in FY 2014/15 to $5,182,708 million in FY 2015/16 and $4,997,301
in FY 2016/17). As of March 31, 2016, the BRN has expended
approximately $10,596,070 on BreEZe.
The BRN further indicates that as a result of the high volume of
work regularly referred to the Office of the Attorney General,
they have requested additional deputies beginning in FY 2016/17
and 10 senior legal analysts to comply with the data reporting
requirements contained in SB 467 (Hill), Chapter 656, Statutes
of 2015. The BRN also underwent a fee audit of all fees to
determine whether the BRN was charging appropriate fees in order
to conduct its business at an adequate service level to provide
public protection. It was found that the BRN has not been
charging enough fees for many areas and has not been collecting
enough fees to support the increased enforcement efforts.
SB 1039
Page 13
Fee Changes for the BOP. The BOP's current statutory authority
establishes both a minimum and maximum level for all fees. The
BOP uses its regulatory authority to establish each fee within
this range. As a result of a regulatory change that took effect
July 1, 2014, with few exceptions, all of the BOP's fees are at
their statutory maximums. The BOP indicates that it is seeking
to realign its current fee structure to address a structural
imbalance in its current budget resulting from an increase in
annual authorized expenditures that is not offset by a
corresponding increase in revenue. As a precursor to
establishing the new fee schedules, the DCA's Budget Office
completed a fee analysis of the BOP's fund condition and fee
structure in late 2015.
Requirements for Veterinarians from Other States. This bill
makes changes to the exemption from California licensure for
out-of-state veterinarians who may consult or provide assistance
to a California licensed veterinarian to make it clear under
what circumstances veterinary practice in this state would be
permissible.
TMAS. Under current law, any business that provides telephone
medical advice services to a patient in California and who
employs or contracts with five or more health care professionals
to register with the TMAS. The registrant must renew every two
years and file quarterly reports which, among other
requirements, list all California and out-of-state employees who
provide medical advice services to California patients. The
TMAS ensures that all registrants file quarterly reports and
checks to make sure that all the licensees provided on the list
by the registrant are properly licensed. However, there is no
effort to independently confirm the accuracy of the lists
provided - for example, whether the registrant has provided a
comprehensive list of their licensed providers or whether any
non-California licensed providers offered advice to
Californians.
SB 1039
Page 14
TMAS receives, on average, 21 consumer complaints per year. In
the past five years, 105 complaints were received, and all but
two were closed without referral for investigation. According
to the most recent DCA reports, there have been zero citations,
fines assessed, referrals for criminal or civil action, formal
disciplinary actions filed, or consumer restitution ordered by
the TMAS in the last five years. DCA licensing boards already
have concurrent authority with the practice of healthcare by
licensed and unlicensed individuals and can effectively police
this area without TMAS.
Fee Changes for the CSLB. The proposed fee increases for the
CSLB seek to provide the CSLB with sufficient funding to support
its existing budget and provide for reasonable inflationary cost
increases. While costs have increased in every area in the last
few years, the most significant areas are in Personal Services,
DCA Pro Rata and Enforcement. The CSLB anticipates that it will
have, by FY 2018/19, a deficit of approximately $6 million.
CSLB needs a fee increase in order to continue to provide its
existing level of service to both licensees and consumers.
In FY 2012/13, the CSLB spent approximately $54 million, and in
the current budget year we expect to spend approximately $61
million, an increase of approximately 16% and close to $8.5
million. Of that $8.5 million in increased spending, $4.4
million went to Personal Services, which includes salary,
benefits, and retirements. During that time period, CLSB added
4 positions, which were approved through the annual budget
process. The amount CSLB pays to DCA in pro rata charges
increased by $2 million. A significant portion of that $2
million increase is due to DCA's new BreEZe IT system. While
CSLB was previously scheduled to be included in the BreEZe
system, it is now not currently scheduled to be included.
The CSLB also had increased enforcement costs of about $2
SB 1039
Page 15
million, which is primarily costs for the use of services by the
Attorney's General's Office and the Office of Administrative
Hearings. If the CSLB is not able implement a fee increase, it
reports that it will have to reduce costs in enforcement,
beginning with cuts to proactive enforcement (stings and
sweeps).
Inspection Requirements for Licensees of the SPCB. Currently,
the Structural Pest Control Act outlines the procedures to be
followed during the performance of wood destroying organism pest
inspections and in the preparation of the accompanying
inspection reports and also provides guidelines for the
preparation of a notice of work completed and not completed
after a company completes work under a contract. In 2010, the
SPCB created an Act Review Committee and tasked it with
reviewing the Act for the purpose of making recommendations to
modernize and improve the language for the benefit of consumers
and the pest control industry. The proposed changes in this
measure related to SPCP are the result of that review and are
intended to clarify its provisions.
Prior Related Legislation. AB 684 (Alejo), Chapter 405,
Statutes of 2015, authorized the establishment of
landlord-tenant relationships between a RDO, optometrist and an
optical company as specified; transfers the regulation of RDOs
from the MBC to the CBO; replaces an optometrist with a RDO on
the CBO; establishes a RDO advisory committee; and establishes a
three-year period for the transition of direct employment of
optometrists to leasing arrangements.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
The California State Council of Laborers writes in support, "It
is important that the fee cap be adjusted to ensure CSLB
enforcement officials have the resources they need to conduct
SB 1039
Page 16
undercover sting and sweep operations that have successfully
targeted egregious offenders who continue to pose a threat to
consumers, employees, businesses, and legitimate licensed
contractors."
The Dental Board of California (DBC) has a support if amended
position. It will support the bill "if it is amended to add
back in the language relating to the [DBC's] ability to approve
foreign dental schools.
The language relating to foreign dental schools, as amended on
April 12, 2016, would have authorized the [DBC], in lieu of
conducting its own survey and evaluation of a foreign dental
school, to accept the findings of any commission or
accreditation agency approved by the [DBC], if the findings meet
specified standards, and adopt those findings as the [DBC's]
own. Additionally, it would have deleted the requirement to
establish a technical advisory group and would have authorized
periodic surveys and evaluations instead of requiring periodic
surveys and evaluations to be made to ensure compliance with the
Dental Practice Act."
The Medical Board of California writes in support, "The BPM is
its own board and is completely separate from the [MBC]. For
the past two decades, the BPM has been issuing its own podiatric
licenses, separate and apart from the [MBC]. It came to the
[MBC's] attention that the statute does not reflect this
practice in all sections of the [BPC] and there are some
conflicting provisions.
Currently, the [MBC] does not issue licenses for the BPM, nor
does it have any impact on the enforcement decisions of the BPM.
The [MBC] does provide shared services for the BPM, which means
BPM pays [MBC] staff to do some work for the BPM. This work
includes processing complaints and disciplinary actions for the
SB 1039
Page 17
BPM. If an investigation is warranted, these complaints are
sent to the [DCA] for investigation. The [MBC] will continue to
provide shared serves to BPM and the [MBC] is currently working
with DCA staff on a memorandum of understanding to formalize the
shared services agreement between the [MBC] and BPM. Nothing in
the statute authorizes the [MBC] to perform these services.
This is solely done through the shared services agreement.
The changes included in [this bill] will make it clear that the
BPM is its own board that performs its own licensing functions,
as this is existing practice. The [MBC] believes this is
important, as it does not have any control over the BPM, and the
law should accurately reflect each board's actual
responsibilities. This bill will not have any effect on BPM
licensees or their scope, as it is not changing the role of the
[MBC] or the BPM or either board's practices or functions."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
The Board of Podiatric Medicine has an opposed unless amended
and support if amended position. The BPM writes, "The [BPM]
understands how [this bill] could look non-substantive on its
face, however, [this bill] changes the authority of the [MBC] to
issue licenses to the [BPM] alters the structures currently in
place as to enforcement, and has negative financial
implications. The public needs an opportunity to fully review
and understand the effects of [this bill]." The BPM writes that
this bill will affect the following:
8)The status and privileges of Doctors of Podiatric Medicine
(DPM) who currently hold licenses that are issued by the MBC.
9)The BPM's enforcement activities that are vertically aligned
with those of the MBC.
SB 1039
Page 18
10)The statutory and regulatory frameworks that currently
reference "podiatry" or "podiatric." The BPM believes this
will create confusion.
11)The BPM's current workload, finances, and fund condition.
The BPM believes this may cause the BPM to eventually become
insolvent.
The California Podiatric Medical Association (CPMA) has an
opposed unless amended position and writes, "Since 2004, Doctors
of Podiatric Medicine (DPMs) practice independently, prescribe
medications, perform surgery, and admit and care for patients in
hospitals and emergency rooms. Currently, DPMs are included in
Business and Professions Code "Chapter 5, Medicine" as part of
the allopathic medical practitioners. Creating a separate
chapter outside of "Medicine" will be considered an "allied"
profession. Podiatrists are currently on staff at surgical
centers, hospitals and clinics and it is unclear what impact
these major changes will have on the profession, such as
hospital privileges or reimbursement issues from insurance
companies.
DPMs perform surgeries alongside their physician colleagues on a
daily basis. Removing the [BPM] from the Medical Practice Act
could create two standards from two separate boards for the same
procedures. Patients receiving treatment for a diabetic foot
could have a [DPM] with oversight from one board while their
primary care physician has oversight from a separate board.
Nothing in the bill prevents the boards from having inconsistent
standards of care for patients. Further, many statutes make
reference to providers 'licensed by the medical board.' It will
take time to cross reference all of these statutes to know the
full impact this bill will have on the practice of podiatry or
on board enforcement and consumer safety."
SB 1039
Page 19
The California Medical Association has an opposed unless amended
position and writes, "podiatric medicine is appropriately
incorporated into the Medical Practice Act. The creation of a
new code section for podiatry that is unaffiliated with the
Medical Practice Act is a significant change that must avoid
unintended consequences. The kind of significant transition
envisioned in [this bill] warrants its own bill and the focused
attention that a single subject bill affords. We ask that the
provisions of [this bill] dealing with podiatry be removed from
this bill."
The American Nurses Association\California (ANA\C) writes in
opposition, "The ANAC supports without question evidence-based
nursing education, nursing practice and evidence-based
continuing nursing education. Furthermore, we do not question
the need for regular audits every 5 years. We do however
question the BRN's current capacity of its already
stretched-to-the-max staff to effectively work on all the
courses curriculums and approvals, to efficiently process all
CEPs applications and to provide timely audits of all offered
courses?.
To sum it up, in order for the BRN to continue its duty in
safeguarding and protecting the public, it requires an increase
in budget to have more staff working on approving curriculums
for [CE] courses and on auditing of said education courses since
currently, the BRN is required to only audit the providers and
NOT their courses, [this bill] will fundamentally alter and
increase BRN's work load and its responsibility and increased
work load cannot be accomplished without increased budget."
POLICY ISSUES:
Removal of the BPM from MBC Jurisdiction. At this time, the
MBC, BPM, and stakeholders are unable to reach a consensus on
SB 1039
Page 20
the effect of the removal of the language establishing the BPM
under the MBC's jurisdiction from the Medical Practice Act and
recasting it as its own chapter in the BPC. The disagreement
ranges from the administrative responsibilities of each board to
the implications of the perceived disconnect among licensees and
the public. Given the disagreement, the author should consider
allowing time for additional discussion of this issue.
AMENDMENTS:
Strike the provisions relating to the removal of the BPM from
within the MBC to keep existing law and make conforming changes
to ensure the BPM's fee increases are maintained, consistent
with the rest of the bill.
REGISTERED SUPPORT:
California State Council of Laborers
Dental Board of California (support if amended)
Medical Board of California
REGISTERED OPPOSITION:
American Nurses Association\California
Board of Podiatric Medicine
California Podiatric Medical Association
California Medical Association
Analysis Prepared by:Vincent Chee /Le Ondra Clark Harvey, Ph.D.,
B. & P. / (916) 319-3301
SB 1039
Page 21