|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 319
APPENDIX
FMinnesota Sunrise Provisions
MINNESOTA STATUTE 214 (ENACTED 1976),
SECTION 214.001
Subdivasion 1. The legislature finds that the interests of the people of the
state are served by the regulation of certain occupations. The legislature
further finds: (1) that it is desirable for boards composed primarily of
members of the occupations so regulated to be charged with formulating
the policies and standards governing the occupation; (2) that economical
and efficient administration of the regulation activities can be achieved
through the provision of administrative services by departments of state
government; and (3) that procedural fairness in the disciplining of persons
regulated by the boards requires a separation of the investigative and pro-
secutorial functions from the board's judicial responsibility.
Subdivision 2. Criteria for regulation. The legislature declares that no reg-
ulation shall be imposed upon any occupation unless required for the safety
and well being of the citizens of the state. In evaluating whether an oc-
cupation shall be regulated, the following factors shall be considered:
(a) Whether the unregulated practice of an occupation may harm or
endanger the health, safety and welfare of citizens of the state and whether
the potential for harm is recognizable and not remote;
(b) Whether the practice of an occupation requires specialized skill or
training and whether the public needs and will benefit by assurances of
initial and continuing occupational ability;
(c) Whether the citizens of this state are or may be effectively protected
by other means;
- ,:~ ~ a -
319
OCR for page 320
320
APPENDIX F
(d) Whether the overall cost effectiveness and economic impact would
be positive for citizens of the state.
Subdivision 3. If the legislature finds after evaluation of the factors iden-
tified in subdivision 2 that it is necessary to regulate an occupation not
heretofore credentialed or regulated, then regulation should be imple-
mented consistent with the policy of this section, in modes in the following
order:
(a) Creation or extension of common law or statutory causes of civil
action, and the creation or extension of criminal prohibitions;
(b) Imposition of inspection requirements and the ability to enforce
violations by injunctive relief in the courts;
(c) Implementation of a system of registration whereby practitioners
who will be the only persons permitted to use a designated title are listed
on an official roster after having met predetermined qualifications Enote
that legislative action is not required herel; or
(d) Implementation of a system of licensing whereby a practitioner must
receive recognition by the state that he has met predetermined qualifica-
tions, and persons not so licensed are prohibited from practicing.
MINNESOTA RULES 4695.0800: FACTORS FOR
DETERMINING THE NECESSITY OF REGULATION
Subpart 1. Consideration of factors. In the review of an applicant group
questionnaire, the subcommittee, council, and commissioner shall base their
recommendation or decision as to whether or not the applicant group shall
be regulated upon the factors contained in Minnesota Statutes, section
214.001, subdivision 2.
Subpart 2. Factor of unregulated practice. In applying the factor of whether
the unregulated practice of an occupation may harm or endanger the
health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the state and whether the potential
for harm is recognizable and not remote, at minimum the relevance of the
following shall be considered:
A. harm shall be construed to be a condition representative of physical,
emotional, mental, social, financial, or intellectual impairment resulting
from the functions rendered or failed to be rendered by the applicant
group;
B. potential for harm may be recognizable when evidenced by at least
one or more of the following: expert testimony; client, consumer, or patient
testimony; research findings; legal precedents, financial awards, or judicial
rulings;
C. potential for harm may be recognizable when evidenced by at least
one or more of the following characteristics of the applicant group;
.
OCR for page 321
APPENDIX F
321
(1) inherently dangerous nature of the applicant group's functions;
(2) dangerous nature of devices or substances used in performing
applicant group's functions;
(3) exercise by practitioners of the applicant groups of an observable
degree of independent judgment when: identifying or evaluating a
consumer's or client's symptoms; formulating a plan for consumer
or client care, service delivery or treatment; and/or providing con-
sumer or client care, delivering service, or implementing a plan of
treatment;
D. potential for harm may be remote when evidenced by at least one
or more of the following: infrequent or rare instances of impairment;
impairment which is minor in nature; or secondary or tertiary effects of
the applicant group's function.
Subf art 3. Occupation requiring special skillfactor. In applying the factor of
whether the practice of an occupation requires specialized skill or training
and whether the public needs and will benefit by assurances of initial and
continuing occupational ability, the existence of the following items shall
be considered as indicating that specialized skill or training or their con-
. . . . .
t~nuat~on Is required:
A. that the functions performed by the practitioner are several and their
performance necessitates a thorough understanding of the complex rela-
tionship between those functions;
B. that the one or more functions performed by the practitioner requires
a detailed understanding of the specific components of the function and
the relationship between the functions and the symptoms, problem, or
condition that function is intended to address or ameliorate;
C. that the absence of specialized skill or training is likely to increase
the incidence and/or degree of harm as defined in subpart 2 to the con-
sumer as client; and
D. that there occur frequent or major changes in areas of skilled knowl-
edge and technique of which the practitioner must keep informed in order
to meet current standards.
Subpart 4. Factor of more effective means. In applying the factor of whether
the citizens of this state may be effectively protected by other means, at a
minimum the relevance of the following shall be considered:
A. Indicators of protection by other means shall include but not be
limited to:
(1) supervision by practitioners in a regulated occupation;
(2) existence of laws governing devices and substances used in the
occupation;
(3) existence of laws governing the standard of practice;
(4) existence of standards for professional performance;
OCR for page 322
322
APPENDIX F
(5) employment in licensed human service facilities which are re-
quired to employ competent staff;
(6) existence of federal licensing as credentialing mechanism;
(7) existence of civil service procedures which effectively screen po-
tential employees for competence;
(8) graduation of members of the applicant group from an accred-
ited educational institution or training program;
(9) mandatory participation in on-thejob training programs which
are required by law or by professional organization of the occupation;
(10) existence of professional credentials and standards of perfor-
mance which effectively sanction malpractice; and
(11) existence of a national certification process which effectively
attests to the competency of recognized professionals.
B. Indicators of protection by other means shall be assessed and eval-
uated at least in view of the extent to which they:
(1) address all practitioners within an occupational group;
(2) appear sufficient to protect the general public from harm caused
by the practice of the occupation in question; and
(3) appear to be permanent and ongoing mechanisms.
Subpart 5. Overall cost effectiveness And economic impact. In determining whether
the overall cost effectiveness and economic impact would be positive for
citizens of the state, the following shall be considered:
A. Positive cost effectiveness and economic impact results where the
benefits expected to accrue to the public from a decision to regulate an
occupation are greater than the costs resulting from that decision.
(1) Cost effectiveness means the relationship of the benefits antici-
pated from a decision to regulate an occupation to the overall costs
to the public resulting from that decision.
(2) Economic impact means the direct and indirect effects on the
price and supply of services provided by the occupation under con-
sideration for regulation. Direct effects include impacts on the cost
and supply of practitioners who would be regulated. Indirect effects
include: the degree to which the existing practitioners will be pre-
cluded from practice because of regulation; the degree to which
persons aspiring to practice the occupation, who if not for regulation
could practice the occupation successfully, but will be prohibited be-
cause of inability to meet entry requirements; impact on ability of
minorities or protected classes to enter occupation; or impact on
innovations in the delivery of care or services as a result of regulation.
(3) Costs of a decision to regulate include the estimated costs to state
and local governments of administering the proposed regulatory pro-
gram; educational requirements and training costs including costs
OCR for page 323
APPENDIX F
323
associated with experiential requirements of the proposed mode of
regulation; and costs to the public such as reduced or increased access
by potential or existing providers to labor markets.
(4) Benefits of a decision to regulate an occupation include access to
less expensive but similar providers; measurable improvements in
quality of care; reductions in costs of services; process for seeking
redress for injury from malpractice, or other unprofessional conduct;
and reduction in the potential for public harm from unregulated
practice.
B. Cost effectiveness and economic impact can be evaluated through
consideration of the following factors:
(1) degree to which regulation directly or indirectly impacts the costs
and prices of goods or services provided by applicant group;
(2) impact upon the current and future supply of practitioners of
the regulated occupation;
(3) degree to which existing practitioners will be precluded from
practice because of regulation;
(4) impact, if any, on innovations in delivery of care or services as a
result of regulation;
(5) costs of additional education and training required as a result of
the regulation of the occupation;
(6) manner in which and degree to which regulation will result in
improvement in the quality of care;
(7) degree to which services of the applicant group substitute for
currently regulated occupations and estimated comparative cost of
applicant group and currently regulated practitioners;
(8) degree to which services of the applicant group supplement cur-
rently regulated occupations;
(9) whether regulation confers or facilitates access to reimbursement
for government assistance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid;
estimated impact on programs and budgets; and
(10) impact on expenditures by government and private third party
payers, if any, resulting from regulation of the occupation.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
specialized skill
