ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Phoenix, Arizona
Requires all health profession regulatory boards to
record a roll call vote on disciplinary actions that require a Board vote and
requires a two-thirds vote for a disciplinary action that is inconsistent with
an administrative law judge’s recommendation.
Currently, there are 19 health profession regulatory boards in the state of Arizona. These boards regulate: podiatrists, chiropractors, dentists, allopathic physicians, naturopathic physicians, nurses, dispensing opticians, optometrists, osteopathic physicians, pharmacists, physical therapists, psychologists, radiologists, homeopathic physicians, behavioral health providers, occupational therapists, respiratory care providers, acupuncturists and athletic trainers. The primary function of these boards is to protect the public from unlawful, incompetent, unqualified, impaired or unprofessional practitioners through licensure, regulation and rehabilitation of the professions. In addition, these boards investigate patient complaints and either dismiss the complaint or issue disciplinary or non-disciplinary actions.
When a health regulatory board decides that an act by a health care professional warrants disciplinary action, a series of interviews and hearings may take place, all of which are public and may involve an administrative law judge. However, statute does not currently contain requirements that regulate how the board must conduct a vote when the disciplinary action requires a vote or how the board is to take action that is inconsistent with the recommendations of an administrative law judge. S.B. 1315 addresses these issues by requiring all boards to take and record a roll call vote if disciplinary action requires a vote and requiring a two-thirds for a disciplinary action that differs from that of an administrative law judge, when applicable.
Provisions
1. Requires all health profession regulatory boards to record a roll call vote if a disciplinary action requires a vote.
2. Requires a two-thirds vote for a disciplinary action that is inconsistent with an administrative law judge’s recommendation.
3. Provides for a general effective date.
Prepared by Senate Staff
February 9, 2001