NOTICES
INDEPENDENT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION
Notice of Comments Issued
[34 Pa.B. 6208] Section 5(g) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(g)) provides that the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) may issue comments within 30 days of the close of the public comment period. The Commission comments are based upon the criteria contained in section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b).
The Commission has issued comments on the following proposed regulations. The agency must consider these comments in preparing the final-form regulation. The final-form regulation must be submitted within 2 years of the close of the public comment period or it will be deemed withdrawn.
Reg. No. Agency/Title Close of the Public Comment Period IRRC Comments Issued 16A-691 State Board of Social Workers, Marriage and Family Therapists and Professional Counselors Sexual Misconduct
34 Pa.B. 4908 (September 4, 2004)10/4/04 11/3/04 16A-4917 State Board of Medicine
Licensure of Medical Doctors
34 Pa.B. 4887 (September 4, 2004)10/4/04 11/3/04 16A-5610 State Real Estate Commission
Reciprocal License
34 Pa.B. 4913 (September 4, 2004)10/4/04 11/3/04 16A-5119 State Board of Nursing
Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner Program Approval
34 Pa.B. 4890 (September 4, 2004)10/4/04 11/3/04 16A-5121 State Board of Nursing
Temporary Practice Permits
34 Pa.B. 4897 (September 4, 2004)10/4/04 11/3/04 16A-447 State Board of Podiatry
Professional Liability Insurance
34 Pa.B. 4902 (September 4, 2004)10/4/04 11/3/04 16A-6313 State Board of Psychology
Education Requirements
34 Pa.B. 4903 (September 4, 2004)10/4/04 11/3/04
____
State Board of Social Workers, Marriage and Family Therapists and Professional Counselors Regulation # 16A-691 (IRRC # 2419)
Sexual Misconduct
November 3, 2004 We submit for your consideration the following comments that include references to the criteria in the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b) which have not been met. The State Board of Social Workers, Marriage and Family Therapists and Professional Counselors (Board) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on October 4, 2004. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within two years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.
1. Section 47.61., Section 48.21. and Section 49.21. Definitions.--Clarity.
Client/Patient
Under the definition of this term, minors and legally incapacitated adults ''shall be the client/patient for issues specifically reserved to the individual, such as confidential communications in a therapeutic relationship and issues directly affecting the physical or emotional safety of the individual, such as sexual or other exploitive dual relationships.'' In its comments, the House Professional Licensure Committee (House Committee) asked for clarification of ''other exploitive dual relationships.'' We agree that this terminology is vague and request the Board provide examples of these relationships.
Sexual intimacies
These sections define this term and list examples of behavior that meets the definition. The examples include ''exposure, kissing, hugging, touching, physical contact or self-disclosure of a sexual or erotic nature.'' In the preamble, the Board states that it ''seeks to insure that nonsexual hugging, touching, physical contact or self-disclosure are excluded from the definition.'' The Board goes on to note that nonsexual physical conduct or self-disclosure can be healing and supportive to clients because it ''may create trust and facilitate a therapeutic alliance particularly with children, the physically and mentally disabled and the elderly.''
We note that the text of the regulation does not reflect the Board's position on nonsexual contact or self-disclosure. We suggest the Board amend the definition of ''sexual intimacies'' to clarify that nonsexual physical conduct or self-disclosure does not fall under the definition of ''sexual intimacies,'' and therefore, is not prohibited behavior.
The House Committee commented that Paragraph (iv) of the definition of ''sexual intimacies'' prohibits a licensee from soliciting a date from a client/patient, but does not prohibit a licensee from accepting a date from a client/patient. The House Committee suggests expanding the language of this paragraph to also prohibit a licensee from accepting a date. We agree.
2. Section 47.64., Section 48.24. and Section 49.24. Sexual intimacies with a former client/patient or an immediate family member of a former client/patient.--Reasonableness, Feasibility, Clarity.
Subsection (a) of these sections establishes a seven-year period after termination of the professional relationship during which sexual intimacies between a licensee and client/patient are prohibited. According to the preamble, the Board researched the ethics codes of several professional associations and found time periods during which sexual intimacies were prohibited to range from two years to indefinitely. The seven-year prohibition in this regulation is a compromise between a two-year and an indefinite prohibition.
In reviewing the Board's proposal, we researched the comparable requirements imposed by the State Board of Psychology and the State Board of Medicine. The State Board of Psychology imposes a two-year period within which sexual intimacies are prohibited (49 Pa. Code § 41.83(a)). The State Board of Medicine also imposes a two-year time period on practitioners who are involved in the management or treatment of a mental health disorder (49 Pa. Code § 16.110(c)). It would appear that issues concerning sexual intimacies would be similar among licensees of this Board and the Boards of Medicine and Psychology. Therefore, we request the Board explain the relevant factors that support a seven-year time period, rather than the two-year time period.
Subsection (a) of these sections also provides that sexual conduct after seven years is permitted ''only under very limited circumstances.'' The House Committee commented that this language does not give licensees adequate notice as to what conduct is prohibited. We agree. If the Board wants to continue to prohibit a sexual relationship after the seven-year period under certain circumstances, it should specifically delineate what those circumstances are.
3. Section 47.65., Section 48.25. and Section 49.25. Disciplinary proceedings.--Reasonableness, Clarity.
Subsection (c) of these sections requires that in a disciplinary proceeding, the licensee ''shall have the burden of proving that there has been no exploitation of the client/patient . . .'' in light of ''relevant factors'' listed in the sections related to sexual intimacies with former client/patients and their immediate family members. We have two concerns with this provision.
First, this language contradicts the absolute prohibition in Sections 47.62, 48.22 and 49.22, against sexual intimacies between a licensee and a client/patient, as well as the absolute prohibition in Sections 47.63, 48.23 and 49.23 against a licensee accepting as a client/patient someone with whom the licensee has had sexual intimacies. We agree with the House Committee that sexual conduct under these circumstances is per se exploitative. The only situation in which evidence that the relationship was not exploitative is relevant is when the sexual conduct occurs more than seven years after termination of the professional relationship. Therefore, we recommend that references to Sections 47.62--47.63, 48.22--48.23 and 49.22--49.24 be deleted from Subsection (c) of the above sections.
Second, we note that Subsection (b) of Sections 47.64, 48.24 and 49.24 uses the phrase ''burden of demonstrating'' while Subsection (c) of Sections 47.65, 48.25 and 49.25 uses ''burden of proving.'' We agree that the licensee must demonstrate factors over which he or she would have direct control or knowledge. However, as the House Committee correctly notes, the Due Process Clause prohibits the shifting of the burden of proof to the licensee in disciplinary matters. To avoid this confusion, and for the sake of consistency, the phrase ''burden of proving'' should be replaced with ''burden of demonstrating'' in Subsection (c).
4. Miscellaneous clarity issues.
* The House Committee comments that the term ''person'' in the definition of ''client/patient'' should be replaced with ''individual.'' We agree and suggest the Board make this change in the definition of ''client/patient'' and in Sections 47.63, 48.23 and 49.23 relating to Former sexual partners as client/patients.
* A commentator noted that the Social Workers, Marriage and Family Therapists and Professional Counselors Act (63 P. S. § 1903) defines the terms ''licensed clinical social worker,'' ''licensed marriage and family therapist,'' ''licensed professional counselor'' and ''licensed social worker.'' However, the proposed regulation does not use the term ''licensed'' in referring to these professionals. The commentator suggests that the Board insert the term ''licensed'' before all references to these professionals throughout the regulation to be consistent with the terminology used in the statute. We agree and suggest the Board adopt the commentator's recommendation.
State Board of Medicine Regulation #16A-4917 (IRRC #2420)
Licensure of Medical Doctors
November 3, 2004 We submit for your consideration the following comment that includes a reference to the criterion in the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b) which has not been met. The State Board of Medicine (Board) must respond to this comment when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on October 4, 2004. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within two years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.
Section 17.1. License without restriction and Section 17.5. Graduate License.--Protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
This rulemaking would delete direct Board evaluation of hourly, monthly and yearly education requirements for graduates of unaccredited medical colleges (foreign medical graduates) to practice in Pennsylvania. The House Professional Licensure Committee objects to these amendments and expressed deep concern that deleting the specific educational requirements from the regulation could jeopardize the health and safety of Pennsylvania citizens.
To complete our evaluation of whether the amendments are in the public interest, we request further explanation and support for the amendments. Specifically, the Board should answer the following questions:
* Will the proposed amendments allow licenses without restriction and graduate licenses to be issued to applicants who cannot qualify under existing regulation?
* Why isn't Board verification of the specific time period requirements needed under Subsection 17.1(b) and Subsection 17.5(c)?
* Under the proposed amendments to Section 17.1, an applicant must meet the qualifications listed in Subsection (a). Subsection (b) states the applicant may use the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc., or Federation's Credentials Verification Service (FCVS), to verify their credentials. What specific credentials listed in Subsection (a), or elsewhere, can FCVS verify and what specifically will FCVS verify to the Board?
* What other United States jurisdictions accept and use the FCVS?
State Real Estate Commission # 16A-5610
(IRRC # 2421)
Reciprocal License
November 3, 2004 We submit for your consideration the following comments that include references to the criteria in the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b) which have not been met. The State Real Estate Commission (SREC) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on October 4, 2004. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within two years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.
1. General.--Statutory authority; Clarity.
The preamble of this regulation states, ''Licensees whose principal place of business is outside of this Commonwealth be classified as 'reciprocal licensees' and all other licensees in this Commonwealth be classified as 'standard licensees.' '' This statement implies that a person who has a main office outside the Commonwealth is not eligible to apply for a standard license. We don't believe it is the SREC's intent to prohibit a person whose principal place of business is outside the Commonwealth from applying for a standard license. If this is the intent, the SREC should explain the reason for the prohibition.
2. Section 35.201. Definitions.--Consistency with statute; Clarity.
Reciprocal license.
As written, this definition states a person applying for reciprocal licenses must be, '' . . . from a state that has executed a reciprocal agreement with the Commission.'' To avoid confusion, the definition in the Act and in the regulation should be verbatim. In the alternative, the definition should cross-reference the definition in the Act.
Standard license.
The definition of ''standard license'' states, ''A license issued to an individual or entity who has fulfilled the education/experience and examination requirements of the Act.'' The definition in the Act states, ''Any license issued under this act that is not a reciprocal license.''
To avoid confusion, the definition in the Act and in the regulation should be verbatim. In the alternative, the definition should cross-reference the definition in the Act.
3. Section 35.245. Display of licenses in office.--Clarity.
Subsection (e) requires, ''A broker or cemetery holding a reciprocal license . . .'' to maintain at a branch office a list of employees who are licensed in the Commonwealth and at which branch office they work. The term ''broker'' should be added after the word ''cemetery'' in the final-form regulation.
4. Section 35.255. Reciprocal licenses.--Reasonableness.
Subsection (c) requires a reciprocal licensee to notify the SREC of a change in the status of their current standard license or a change in their principal place of business to this Commonwealth within 90 days. How did the SREC determine the 90-day notification period? Will the SREC require office inspections for a change in licensure status?
5. Section 35.384. Qualifying courses.--Clarity.
The SREC is proposing to delete from its regulations reference to required topics for continuing education. The House Committee has questioned the rationale behind the SREC's decision to delete the required three hours in fair housing laws and practices. The SREC should explain why this requirement is being deleted.
State Board of Nursing Regulation # 16A-5119 (IRRC # 2426)
Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner Program Approval
November 3, 2004 We submit for your consideration the following comments that include references to the criteria in the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b) which have not been met. The State Board of Nursing (Board) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on October 4, 2004. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within two years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.
1. Section 21.361. Approval of programs.--Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
Subsection (b)--Experimental or accelerated programs
This subsection states that the Board will consider ''experimental or accelerated programs that culminate with at least a master's degree in nursing.'' The final-form regulation should define the phrase ''experimental or accelerated programs.''
Subsection (c)--Program goals
The only sentence in this subsection contains 56 words. The sentence describes the contents of the primary goal for educational programs for certified registered nurse practitioners (CRNPs). The contents should be set forth with shorter sentences and enumeration as recommended in Section 2.8 and Chapter 7 of the Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin Style Manual. An example of this format for the goals of a nursing program can be found in Section 21.32 of the current regulations.
2. Section 21.362. Annual reports and compliance reviews; list of approved programs.--Reasonableness; Implementation procedure.
Every three years, approved CRNP programs must conduct a compliance review. The results of this review are to be reported on a form provided by the Board. Under Subsection (c), the Board will send ''a written report of recommendations or requirements, or both'' to CRNP programs based on the compliance reviews. The final-form regulation should specify how long the CRNP program has to comply with the recommendations or requirements of the written report.
3. Section 21.363. Approval process.--Reasonableness; Implementation procedure; Clarity.
Subsection (b) relates to CRNP programs that are on ''provisional approval status.'' The Board can decide whether to place a CRNP program on ''provisional approval status'' based on compliance reviews submitted by the CRNP program or ''other information.'' CRNP programs on provisional status are required to submit ''progress reports or other information deemed necessary for the evaluation of the program on provisional approval status.'' We have two concerns.
First, the final-form regulation should explain what ''other information'' could be considered by the Board.
Second, when and how often will a program on provisional status be required to submit progress reports? The final-form regulation should specify that the Board will provide programs with written notice describing the specific requirements and timelines for progress reports.
4. Section 21.365. Establishment.--Reasonableness; Implementation procedure; Clarity.
Subsection (a)--Regionally or nationally accredited institutions
This section establishes the requirements for a CRNP program. The existing regulations of the Board at 49 Pa. Code § 21.51(a) refer to educational programs ''under the authority of a regionally accredited university or college.'' We have two concerns.
First, it is our understanding that national accreditation programs usually evaluate specific programs, such as a CRNP program, that are parts of larger institutions. In contrast, the words ''regionally accredited'' are terms of art that are regularly used to describe a university or college. Is it necessary to refer to both ''regionally'' and ''nationally'' accredited institutions in this subsection? If so, should Section 21.51(a) in the current regulations also refer to a ''regionally'' or ''nationally'' accredited college and university? The Board should clarify whether the word ''national'' is being used to refer to the accreditation of a college or university as a whole, or to a specific CRNP program.
Second, would a medical school also be an ''accredited university or college''? If not, the Board should consider adding ''medical school'' to this subsection.
Subsection (b)--Director
Subsection (b) requires a program to be ''under the direction of a faculty member who holds an active certification as a Pennsylvania CRNP and an earned doctorate degree or a specific plan for completing doctoral preparation.'' We have two concerns.
First, is there a specific area or field in which a CRNP program director must hold a doctorate degree?
Second, the phrase, ''a specific plan for completing doctoral preparation'' is unclear. The final-form regulation should clarify this requirement by specifying that the director must be enrolled in a doctoral degree program and what percentage of required credits must be completed. In addition, the Board should explain why the term ''preparation'' is used instead of the term ''degree.''
5. Section 21.367. Faculty requirements for certified nurse practitioner programs.--Reasonableness; Clarity.
Subsection (a)(1) requires faculty members to provide ''evidence of expertise'' in their subject areas and ''when appropriate'' be currently licensed and certified in Pennsylvania and maintain national certification. The phrases ''evidence of expertise'' and ''when appropriate'' are vague. The final-form regulation should explain what is meant by these phrases. For example, under what circumstances would faculty members not be required to be licensed and certified?
6. Section 21.369. General curriculum requirements.--Consistency with other regulations; Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
The ''advanced nursing practice core'' component in Subsection (c)(2) includes advanced pharmacology as required content. Subsection (c)(4) is a separate component entitled ''advanced pharmacology.'' Is there a need to have it in Subsection (c)(2)(iii)?
Subsection (g) requires that the ratio of students to faculty ''insure optimal learning opportunities in clinical laboratory sessions.'' However, Section 21.373(c)(3)(ii) provides specific guidance regarding the ratio of students to faculty. It reads:
One program faculty member shall supervise no more than 6 students in a clinical course. If faculty are providing onsite preceptorship, the maximum ratio is two students per faculty member. If faculty are managing their own caseload of patients, the maximum ratio is one student per faculty member.In the final-form regulation, Subsection (g) should cross reference Section 21.373(c)(3)(ii).
7. Miscellaneous Clarity.
* Section 21.363(c) references § 21.378. The regulation ends at § 21.377.
* In Section 21.365(a), the first letter of the word ''nationally'' is capitalized in the version published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Is this necessary?
* In Section 21.370(a)(2)(iii), a period is missing at the end of the sentence in the Pennsylvania Bulletin version.
State Board of Nursing Regulation # 16A-5121 (IRRC # 2425)
Temporary Practice Permits
November 3, 2004 We submit for your consideration the following comments that include references to the criteria in the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b) which have not been met. The State Board of Nursing (Board) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on October 4, 2004. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within two years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.
1. Comments from the House Professional Licensure Committee.--Consistency with existing regulations; Reasonableness; Implementation procedure; Need; Clarity.
During our review of this regulation, we identified issues and raised questions related to the criteria of the Regulatory Review Act. Many of these issues were also raised in the comments submitted by the House Professional Licensure Committee (House Committee) in a letter dated October 6, 2004. We concur with the comments presented by the House Committee.
In addition, we have three concerns directly related to the issues of adding definitions and practice by an unlicensed candidate.
First, the final-form regulation should define the terms ''graduate registered nurse'' and ''graduate practical nurse'' because similar terms are also used in existing regulations. The terms are used repeatedly in this proposed regulation and the same or comparable terms are also found in existing language at 49 Pa. Code §§ 21.27 and 21.154.
Second, the Board needs to review the relationship between this proposed regulation and existing provisions at 49 Pa. Code §§ 21.27 and 21.154. These existing sections and the proposed regulation both allow unlicensed nurses to practice under certain conditions. Will these two existing provisions be necessary when this proposed regulation is adopted?
Third, the proposed regulation needs to address the fact that existing regulations require that unlicensed graduate nurses practice under the supervision of another nurse. Sections 21.27(2) and 21.154(2) state that a graduate nurse, who is not yet licensed, may practice but may only do so under the supervision of an experienced registered nurse (RN). ''Supervision'' in both of the existing sections ''means that the registered nurse is physically present in the area or unit where the unlicensed candidate is practicing.'' Will these existing rules still apply to graduate nurses with temporary practice permits (TPPs)? If not, the existing sections should be revised to clarify that they do not apply to TPP holders.
2. Sections 21.7 and 21.149. Temporary practice permits.--Reasonableness; Implementation procedure; Clarity.
This proposed regulation establishes the procedures and standards for the administration of TPPs for both RNs and licensed practical nurses (LPNs). Section 21.7 pertains to RNs and Section 21.149 pertains to LPNs. The following paragraphs identify questions and issues that apply to both Sections 21.7 and 21.149.
Subsection (a)--Graduate nurses
This subsection contains the requirements for graduate RNs and LPNs who do not have the results of their licensing examination and want to practice nursing. The first sentence of Subsection (a)(1) states, in part: ''An individual who wishes to practice as a graduate registered [practical] nurse during the period from the date of completion of a Board-approved educational program and notification of the results of the licensing examination . . . .'' (Emphasis added.) The word ''and'' should be replaced with the phrase ''to the.''
Under Subsection (a)(2), a graduate nurse that holds a TPP does not have to apply to take the licensure exam until 90 days before the TPP expires. Since TPPs are valid for one year, this would allow graduate nurses to practice for approximately nine months before they need to apply for a licensure examination. The Board should explain the basis for the nine-month timeframe.
Subsection (a)(3) allows for an extension of a TPP for illness or extreme hardship. We have two concerns.
First, the regulation does not indicate how long an extension for illness or extreme hardship lasts. The final-form regulation should include a time limit for these extensions or a statement that the Board will notify the applicant in writing of the time limit for each case.
Second, Paragraph (iii) requires an applicant to supply certification of the illness from the applicant's treating physician. What documentation would be required to evidence extreme hardship?
Subsection (b)--Nurses with out-of-state licenses
Under Subsection (b)(4) an applicant must submit all of the required documentation no later than 90 days prior to the expiration date of the TPP. Why are TPP holders allowed to practice for approximately nine months before they are required to supply the necessary documentation for licensure?
Subsection (b)(5) allows for an extension of a TPP for illness or extreme hardship. We have the same two concerns with this subsection that we have with Subsection (a)(3) noted above.
3. Miscellaneous Clarity.
These regulations are being added to the ''General Provisions'' portions of the RN and LPN regulations. A more appropriate place to place the regulations would be under the ''License'' section of the RN regulations and the ''Licensure'' section of the LPN regulations.
The evidentiary requirements for the ''illness'' extensions found in Sections 21.7(a)(3)(iii) and (b)(5)(iii), and 21.149(a)(3)(iii) and (b)(5)(iii) switch back and forth between the term ''physician'' and the phrase ''treating physician.'' The Board should consistently use either the term ''physician'' or the phrase ''treating physician'' throughout the final-form regulation.
Sections 21.7(b)(5) and 21.149(a)(3), unlike similar provisions in Sections 21.7(a)(3) and 21.149(b)(5), do not specifically include the criteria ''illness or extreme hardship'' as bases for requesting a TPP extension. This final-form regulation should clarify this possible error.
The references in Sections 21.149(a)(2)(ii) and 21.149(b)(1)(ii) should be to Section 21.147 (relating to fees), not Section 21.5.
There is also a notable difference between Sections 21.7(b) and 21.149(b). Section 21.7(b) begins with:
The Board may grant a temporary practice permit to a currently-licensed registered nurse as follows . . . . (Emphasis added.)However, Section 21.149(b) reads:
The Board will grant a temporary practice permit for a currently-licensed practical nurse as follows . . . . (Emphasis added.)Why does one subsection use the term ''may'' while the other uses ''will''?
Subsection (b)(7) references Paragraphs (2)--(5). Should the reference be (2)--(6)?
State Board of Podiatry Regulation # 16A-447
(IRRC # 2424)
Professional Liability Insurance
November 3, 2004 We submit for your consideration the following comments that include references to the criteria in the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b) which have not been met. The State Board of Podiatry (Board) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on October 4, 2004. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within two years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.
1. Section 29.52. Requirements for applications.--Statutory authority; Reasonableness; Clarity.
The House Professional Licensure Committee (House Committee) questioned the exemption for federal employees in Section 29.52(b). Section 711(i) of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (40 P. S. § 1303.711(i)) (Mcare Act) specifically includes employees of a governmental entity and Section 711(j) of the Mcare Act (40 P. S. § 1303.711(j)) does not exempt federal employees. We agree with the House Committee's comment and question the statutory authority for the exemption.
As the House Committee correctly noted, the definition of ''government'' in Section 702 of the Mcare Act (40 P. S. § 1303.702) includes the Government of the United States. Furthermore, Section 711(j) of the Mcare Act (40 P. S. § 1303.711(j)) specifically lists the three types of providers exempt from the insurance provision, and the list does not include government employees. Therefore, Subsection (b) should be deleted, unless the Board can justify its statutory authority for the provision.
2. Section 29.53. Original license.--Consistency with statute.
This section requires a podiatrist applying for an original license to, ''within 90 days after receipt of the podiatrist's original license, furnish the Board with the information required in Section 29.51 (relating to applicants).'' However, Section 711(b) of the Mcare Act (40 P. S. § 1303.711(b)) requires medical professionals to ''submit proof of insurance or self-insurance to the department within 60 days of the policy being issued.'' The Board should revise Section 29.53 to be consistent with the Mcare Act.
3. Miscellaneous clarity issues.
Sections 29.52(a) and 29.54 contain general citations to the Mcare Act. For clarity, the citations to the Mcare Act should be specific to the subjects in these sections.
State Board of Psychology Regulation # 16A-6313 (IRRC # 2422)
Education Requirements
November 3, 2004 We submit for your consideration the following comments that include references to the criteria in the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b) which have not been met. The State Board of Psychology (Board) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on October 4, 2004. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within two years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.
1. General.--Reasonableness; Clarity.
Commentators have indicated that requiring an applicant to graduate from a program accredited by the American Psychological Association or the Canadian Psychological Association or designated by the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards/National Register might impede colleges and universities from starting new doctoral programs in the field of psychology. Does the Board anticipate any negative effect on the development of new programs as a result of this regulation? How would a college or university that desires to start a new program be able to do so, given the requirements of this regulation?
2. Section 41.1. Definitions.--Clarity.
We have three concerns with the definition of ''Doctoral degree in a field related to psychology.''
First, Subsection (iii)(A), which deals with foreign universities, adds the phrase, '' . . . accredited by a recognized accrediting body in the jurisdiction where the college or university is located.'' Who is responsible for ''recognizing'' accrediting bodies in foreign jurisdictions? Do all foreign jurisdictions have a ''recognized accrediting body''?
Second, Subsection (iii)(D)(IV) contains the phrase, '' . . . appropriate to the practice of psychology.'' Who is responsible for determining if the internship, practicum or other training is ''appropriate''?
Finally, Subsection (iii)(E) requires that the student complete a dissertation prior to the awarding of the doctoral degree by the foreign college or university. However, some doctoral programs require a doctoral project, rather than a dissertation. Will the Board accept doctoral projects when determining if a foreign student has met this criterion? The same concern applies to Subsection (iii)(H) in the definition of ''Doctoral degree in psychology.''
3. Section 41.31. Qualifications for taking licensing examination.--Clarity.
Subsection (b)(2) contains the phrase, '' . . . foreign education credential evaluator acceptable to the Board . . . .'' What criteria does the Board use to determine whether a foreign education credential evaluator is ''acceptable''? Does the Board maintain a list of acceptable foreign education credential evaluators?
Subsection (b)(4) sets forth the effective date of the regulation. The House Professional Licensure Committee and others questioned how this provision will be applied. In the final-form regulation, the Board should amend this provision to clearly state the Board's intent and give current students the opportunity to complete their degrees.
JOHN R. MCGINLEY, Jr.,
Chairperson
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 04-2042. Filed for public inspection November 12, 2004, 9:00 a.m.]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
