BILL ANALYSIS
AB 252
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 252 (Carter)
As Introduced February 11, 2009
2/3 vote
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 11-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hayashi, Emmerson, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, |
| |Conway, Eng, Hernandez, | |Ammiano, |
| |Nava, Niello, | |Charles Calderon, Davis, |
| |John A. Perez, Price, | |Duvall, Fuentes, Hall, |
| |Ruskin, Smyth | |Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |John A. Perez, Price, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra |
| | | |Strickland, Torlakson |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASSEMBLY: 79-0 (May 4, 2009) SENATE:
35-1 (July 16, 2009)
SUMMARY : Authorizes the revocation of a physician and surgeon's
license who provides elective cosmetic medical procedures or
treatments (cosmetic surgery) in violation of the prohibition
against the corporate practice of medicine (CPM). Specifically,
this bill :
1)Authorizes the revocation of a physician and surgeon's license
if the individual practices medicine with a business
organization that offers to provide cosmetic surgery in
violation of CPM.
2)States that a physician and surgeon who does not own that
business organization but contracts to serve as the medical
director of a business organization that provides cosmetic
surgery is deemed to have knowledge that the business
organization is in violation of CPM.
3)States that a business organization that provides cosmetic
AB 252
Page 2
surgery in violation of CPM and employs a physician and
surgeon to facilitate its business is guilty of a public
offense.
4)Defines "outpatient elective cosmetic medical procedure or
treatments" to mean a medical procedure or treatment that is
performed to alter or reshape normal structures of the body
solely in order to improve its appearance.
5)Makes legislative findings and declarations that the
provisions of this bill authorizing the revocation of a
physician and surgeon's license for violations of CPM is
declaratory of existing law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires any person who practices medicine to hold a valid
certificate to practice medicine. Establishes the Medical
Board of California (MBC) to license and certify physicians
and surgeons.
2)Prohibits corporations and other artificial legal entities
from having any medical professional rights, privileges, or
powers (known as the "prohibition against CPM "). However,
existing law further provides that the MBC may, pursuant to
regulations it has adopted, grant approval for the employment
of physicians and surgeons on a salary basis by a licensed
charitable institution, foundation, or clinic if no charge for
professional services rendered to patients is made by that
institution, foundation, or clinic. Provides other certain
exceptions to the prohibition against CPM.
3)Makes it unprofessional conduct for any licensee to violate,
or attempt to violate, assist in, or abet the violation of, or
to conspire to violate the prohibition against CPM. Requires
the MBC to take action against any licensee who is charged
with unprofessional conduct. Specifies the types of actions
that constitute unprofessional conduct.
4)Requires the MBC, in conjunction with the Board of Registered
Nursing, and in consultation with the Physician Assistant
AB 252
Page 3
Committee, and professionals in the field, to review issues
and problems relating to the use of laser or intense light
pulse devices for elective cosmetic procedures by physicians
and surgeons, nurses, and physician assistants.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to Appropriations Committee, unknown,
likely minor increases in Medical Board of California (MBC)
enforcement workload and fines related to violations of
Corporate Practice of Medicine prohibitions.
COMMENTS : According to the author's office, "The purpose of the
bill is to train needed enforcement attention, with meaningful
penalties on the all too common incursion into the practice of
medicine by business models that attempt to create the
appearance of compliance with existing California law that
allows for delegation of the practice of medicine by physicians
and surgeons to mid-level practitioners. However, those
arrangements are unlawful from their inception, yet have not
been prioritized for prosecution owing, largely, to the rather
paltry potential penalties associated with the 'corporate
practice of medicine.'
"The scope of the problems addressed by the bill is summarized
as follows:
"Alternative patient treatment sites, often called "medi-spas,"
have become a major, and often misleading, presence in the
medical cosmetic skin care field - a phenomenon witnesses before
the Boards [MBC] regularly referred to as an 'industry' serving
'clients.' They may be freestanding locations, or are routinely
located in potential high-volume locales such as shopping malls
or centers.
"Medical spas are marketing vehicles for medical procedures. If
they are offering medical procedures, they must be owned by
physicians. The use of the term 'medical spa' is for
advertising purposes to make the procedures seem more appealing.
In reality, however, it is the practice of medicine."
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
AB 252
Page 4
"This bill is duplicative of existing law and unnecessary. The
Medical Board of California already has significant legal
authority to take action against physicians that violate the
Medical Practice Act."
Analysis Prepared by : Ross Warren / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301
FN: 0002151