Year: 2012
Resolution Number: 20
Action Taken: Approved as Amended
Status:
Author(s): Scott Kuhnert, MD
Sponsor: Scott Kuhnert, MD
On behalf of: Ingham County Delegation
Committee: B (Legislation)
Resolved Section(s):
RESOLVED: That MSMS oppose efforts by licensing boards of non physicians to establish their own scope of practice, and expansions in non-physician scope of practice may only occur with approval of the Boards of Medicine, the respective non-physician licensing board, and the Legislature.RATIONALE: The Committee was very receptive to making it more difficult for non physician professional boards to make unilateral decisions regarding their own scope of practice. The Committee could not envision a scenario whereby a board would not be inclined to push the limits of their education and training when defining their own scope. The second resolved was stricken because the requirement to provide compelling evidence that a scope change is safe is a fairly subjective requirement unless it were further defined. The Committee believed that the key provision is in limiting the autonomy of non physician boards and requiring that the Board of Medicine play an appropriate role in assuring that any scope changes meet the primary obligation of licensing boards to protect the public as opposed to professional self interest. The Committee believed if these requirements were in place, then the intent of the resolution would be met.
RESOLVED: That MSMS oppose efforts by licensing boards of non physicians to establish their own scope of practice, and expansions in non-physician scope of practice may only occur with approval of the Boards of Medicine, the respective non-physician licensing board, and the Legislature.RATIONALE: The Committee was very receptive to making it more difficult for non physician professional boards to make unilateral decisions regarding their own scope of practice. The Committee could not envision a scenario whereby a board would not be inclined to push the limits of their education and training when defining their own scope. The second resolved was stricken because the requirement to provide compelling evidence that a scope change is safe is a fairly subjective requirement unless it were further defined. The Committee believed that the key provision is in limiting the autonomy of non physician boards and requiring that the Board of Medicine play an appropriate role in assuring that any scope changes meet the primary obligation of licensing boards to protect the public as opposed to professional self interest. The Committee believed if these requirements were in place, then the intent of the resolution would be met.
Fiscal Note: NULL
Resolution: View PDF for Health Profession Boards Need to Protect Patients