Physician Voices for Patient Safety

Resources


On this page:

About the bill
Impact on patients in DC
Impact of physicians in DC
What can you do?
Resources

About the bill

In November 2023, DC Health introduced B25-545, the Health Occupations Revisions General Amendment Act of 2023. This bill was a comprehensive rewrite of the law overseeing medical licensing and regulation in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, the bill as written overhauled scope of practice, place allied health professionals in oversight positions of medical licensing, and remove the physician from the center of the care team. After much work and a number of legislative wins, the bill passed the Council on May 7.

MSDC has long advocated that a physician is the most qualified professional at the head of a care team. Physicians have the most health education and pre-practice experience of any health professional, and thus must be involved in all but the most mundane health care decisions. Allied health professionals are a valuable part of the care team, but their medical education and experience limits their role.

The Medical Society of the District of Columbia (MSDC) is the leading voice for physicians in Washington, DC, committed to uniting physicians to advocate for physician-led health care in Washington, DC that protects patients from harm and increases access to quality care. MSDC is leading a coalition of Washington, DC specialty medical societies to advocate against the Health Occupations Revisions General Amendment Act of 2023.

 

Impact on DC medicine

Below is a breakdown of some of the major changes the bill contains; click on the title to expand how the bill would change that item.

 

Board of Medicine

Currently the Board of Medicine is composed of 10 physicians and 4 members of the public. The bill as amended would reduce the number of physicians to 9 and adds 2 physician assistants but keep the four members of the public health.

Advanced Practice Registered Nurses

The concern: The bill would codify that APRNs could independently diagnose, prescribe, and administer medicine.

The details: See the analysis from G2L Law Firm on the APRN provisions | See our one-pager on this issue that you can share with colleagues and the Council

The solutions: Independent Advanced Certified Nurse Practitioners should have a defined scope of practice limited to the following functions:

  • Practice only in the field of certification;
  • Comprehensive physical assessment of patients;
  • Certify to the clerk of the court that an adult has given birth;
  • Certify to the Transportation authority that an individual has special needs for certain health reasons;
  • Complete date of birth and medical information on a birth certificate;
  • Complete a death certificate if medical examiner does not take charge and deceased was under the care of the PN;
  • Establish medical diagnosis of common short-term and chronic stable health problems;
  • File a replacement death certificate;
  • Issue a “do not resuscitate order” in medical emergencies;
  • Order, perform, and interpret laboratory and diagnostic tests;Prescribe drugs and devices under DC controlled substance Schedules II-V with a valid DEA license, and medical marijuana under DC laws;
  • Provide emergency care within the scope of their skills;
  • Refer patients to appropriate licensed physicians or other health care providers;
  • Certify to utility company that a client has a serious illness or the need for life-support equipment;
  • Witness an advanced directive;
  • Sign off on home health/care orders.
Anesthesiologists and applying anesthesia

The concern: As seen below, additional allied health professions are permitted to apply anesthesia. Most concerning is the scope expansion that could permit nurse anesthetists to practice without physician collaboration.

The details: See our one-pager on this issue that you can share with colleagues and the Council

The solution: This bill asks to repeal Section 603 of DC official code ₰3-1206.03, and this action will allow nurse anesthetists to administer anesthesia without an anesthesiologist or other physician's direct collaboration. Language seeking repeal of Section 603 of DC official code ₰3-1206.03 should not be included.

This bill adds Sec. 605a, which contains language that a CRNA may plan and deliver anesthesia, pain management, and related care to patients or clients of all health complexities across the lifespan. Language adding Sec. 605a should be removed from this bill.

Athletic Trainers
The bill repeals law that requires limiting athletic trainers to only providing first aid, opening the door to athletic trainers potentially practicing some form of medicine.
Audiologists

The expands audiologists' scope to include "cerumen management" and "interoperative neurophysiologic monitoring" and permits audiologists to screen for cognitive, depression and vision.

Chiropractors

The bill completely rewrites the definition of the practice of "chiropractic". Chiropractors could:

  • Diagnose and treat biomechanical or physiological conditions that compromise neural integrity or organ system function
  • Refer patients for further medical treatment or diagnostic testing

The details: See our one-pager on this issue that you can share with colleagues and the Council

Pharmacists

The bill would expand pharmacists' scope to include:

  • Ordering labs
  • Scheduling and monitoring drug therapy
  • Ordering, interpreting, and performing more tests

The details: See our one-pager on this issue that you can share with colleagues and the Council

Physical Therapists

The bill would permit physical therapists to independently evaluate and treat disability, injury, or disease. PTs may also order imaging as part of their treatment plan.

Podiatrists

The concern: The bill expands podiatrists scope of practice to allow:

  • apply anesthesia as part of treatment; and
  • administer vaccines and injections.

The details: See our one-pager on this issue that you can share with colleagues and the Council

Nursing

Throughout the bill, restrictions on nursing scope of practice are removed or loosened throughout. Specific language outlining what and how nurses can practice is removed and replaced with more vague language giving the Mayor (read DC Health) the ability to dictate scope. This applies to many different nursing types, like APRNs and NPs.

Articles on scope of practice

 

AMA Letter Endorses DC Prior Auth Bill

Apr 20, 2023, 16:05 PM by MSDC Staff
AMA sent a outlining why B25-124 is important to pass this year.

Today, the American Medical Association (AMA) sent a letter to the Council endorsing MSDC's prior auth bill.

The letter lends national importance to the bill, which would introduce common-sense reforms to the insurance market.

The letter, seen below, went to bill main introducer Brooke Pinto and the Committee on Health. It outlines a number of statistical reasons why DC prior authorization reform is important to medicine's wellbeing and patient wellbeing.

A hearing on the bill will take place on May 24. For information, visit our prior authorization page.

___________________________________

April 20, 2023

The Honorable Brooke Pinto Council of the District of Columbia 1350 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

John A. Wilson Building, Room 106 Washington, DC 20004-3051

Re:  AMA Support for Prior Authorization Reform Amendment Act of 2023

Dear Councilmember Pinto:

On behalf of the physician and student members of the American Medical Association (AMA), I write  to state our support for the Prior Authorization Reform Amendment Act of 2023, DC Bill (B) 25-0124. This legislation would go a long way in reducing the burden of the prior authorization process on patients and physicians and takes reasonable steps to right sizing ballooning prior authorization programs.

Prior authorization’s harmful impact on patients

As health plans continue to use prior authorization programs as a means of reducing their immediate costs under the guise of managing care, the AMA is hearing from both physicians and patients about delays in care that result from prior authorization requirements. AMA survey data released last month show that 94 percent of physicians report care delays because of prior authorizations. These delays directly impact patients’ health as the same survey found that 89 percent of physicians surveyed saw prior authorization as having a negative effect on their patients’ clinical outcomes and 80 percent indicated that patients abandon treatment due to prior authorization struggles with health insurers. Alarmingly, AMA data also show that 33 percent of physicians report that prior authorization has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care, such as hospitalization, permanent impairment, or death. Given this data, it is hard to imagine how we, as a society, can permit health insurers to continue their prior authorization programs when patients
are so clearly being harmed by these requirements.

Prior authorization’s costs to physician practices

Costs to the health care system due to prior authorization are playing out in physician practices all across the District of Columbia. Physician offices find themselves using inordinate amounts of staff time and resources submitting prior authorization paperwork to justify to health plan bureaucrats, medically necessary care for their patients. In fact, AMA survey data show that, on average, physician practices complete 45 prior authorizations per physician per week. This adds up to nearly two business days, to completing prior authorizations. Moreover, 35 percent of physicians have staff who work exclusively on prior authorizations.


Another prior authorization cost that cannot be easily measured through statistics or surveys is the moral harm to physicians who are struggling to hire staff for their practices, get back on their feet following the pandemic, and focus on what they were trained to do—provide care to patients. Rather than focusing on patient care, physicians are being forced to accommodate endless health insurer requirements that dictate how they treat their patients and recklessly intrude into the patient-physician decision making process. The country is facing a looming physician workforce
shortage and data suggest that one in every five physicians is planning to leave practice within two years. To be clear, physicians are burnt out and administrative burdens, especially prior authorization, play a major role in that burn out, as 88 percent of physicians describe the burden associated with prior authorization as high or extremely high.

Prior authorization’s economic and societal costs

In addition to the harmful individual patient impact, there is no economic rationale for the volume of prior authorizations. Prior authorization leads to increased health care resource utilization by \preventing patients from receiving the right care at the right time. AMA survey data found that 64 percent of physicians report that prior authorization has led to ineffective initial treatments, 62 percent report that prior authorization has resulted in additional office visits, and 46 percent report immediate care or emergency room visits because of prior authorization requirements.

Additionally, by delaying care, undercutting recovery, and reducing the stability of patients’ health, excessive prior authorization requirements increase workforce costs as patients miss work or may not be as productive in their jobs. For example, AMA survey data show that of physicians who treat patients between the ages of 18 and 65 currently in the workforce, 58 percent report that prior authorization has interfered with a patient’s ability to perform their job responsibilities.

Importance of the Prior Authorization Reform Amendment Act of 2023

The Prior Authorization Reform Amendment Act of 2023 attempts to address several of these prior authorization problems through reasonable reforms that many states have already enacted. For example, the legislation would help protect patients from the delays and harms associated with prior authorization by reducing the frequency for which prior authorizations are required. Patients with chronic conditions or long-term diseases would especially benefit, as repeat prior authorization for treatment which they already receive would be prohibited. Furthermore, those in
need of treatment for opioid use disorder would not be forced to wait for a prior authorization before accessing such critical care.

The bill would also reduce the time for which patients wait for health plan decisions—down to 24 hours for urgent care requests—improving health outcomes for those most in need of expedient care. Moreover, patients switching health plans would not be immediately subject to new prior authorization requirements and resulting delays, helping to prevent gaps in care on which patients may be reliant and stable. This provision could be particularly important for those current Medicaid recipients as they transition to other coverage during the unwinding of the Medicaid
continuous enrollment provision.

B25-1024 will also ensure that when prior authorization is denied, it is done so by a licensed physician of the same or similar specialty, which will likely reduce the number of inappropriate denials and the need to pursue appeals. The legislation would also increase the transparency of the prior authorization process through, for example, a requirement that plans post prior authorization statistics on approvals, denials and appeals—perhaps helping lawmakers and other stakeholders make more targeted reforms in the future.

Because of these, and many more reforms in this bill, enactment of the Prior Authorization Reform Amendment Act of 2023 is of critical importance to patients, physician practices, and our society.

Next steps
The AMA appreciates your commitment to improving the prior authorization process and stands ready, along with our colleagues at the Medical Society of the District of Columbia, to work with you towards passage of the Prior Authorization Reform Amendment Act of 2023. If we can be of any assistance, please contact Emily Carroll, Senior Attorney, Advocacy Resource Center, at emily.carroll@ama-assn.org.

Sincerely,
James L. Madara, MD

cc:
The Honorable Christina Henderson
Committee on Health
Medical Society of the District of Columbia