BILL ANALYSIS �
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