Urgent action alert for South Dakota physicians
SB 175, a bill that would authorize physician assistants to have full practice authority without physician supervision, will likely be heard by the South Dakota Senate on Monday, Feb. 13. South Dakota Senators need to hear from you. If you are a South Dakota physician, please call or email and urge them to oppose SB 175.
Here is the message from the South Dakota State Medical Association call to action:
South Dakota Senate Bill 175 would authorize physician assistants full practice authority without the requirement of a supervising physician. This legislation would significantly expand the scope of practice for physician assistants by removing any requirements of clinical oversight.
Physician assistants would be able to practice medicine independently upon graduation and completion of a mere 2,080 hours of collaboration which could be with someone other than a physician.
We need your help urging your state senator to vote NO on this legislation! This bill will be heard in the South Dakota Senate soon. Your elected officials need to hear from you now. We ask that you send an email to your state senator urging them to vote NO on changing state law to remove physician supervision of physician assistants.
Of note, a similar bill was defeated in the last two legislative sessions in South Dakota. The AMA encourages lawmakers to defeat SB 175 as well.
The time is now to reach out to your state Senator to make sure the voice of physicians is heard. Please call or email and urge them to vote NO on SB 175.
AMA opposes scope expansion of pharmacists and psychologists in New Mexico
The AMA sent a letter (PDF) to the New Mexico Senate Judiciary Committee strongly opposing New Mexico Senate Bill 92 (SB 92), which would grant pharmacists the authority to independently diagnose and prescribe medications for a broad range of potentially serious health conditions. The AMA is deeply concerned with the scope of practice that would be granted to pharmacists under SB 92, since:
- Pharmacists do not have the education and training necessary to diagnose and prescribe: The PharmD curriculum does not include performing a physical examination, developing differential diagnoses or performing primary care activities.
- If approved, SB 92 would be one of the most expansive “test and treat” laws in the nation: This bill would allow pharmacists to diagnose and treat any child, adult, senior or pregnant patient who arrives at the pharmacy, without a review of the patient’s medical record; without knowledge or understanding of the patients’ medical history, other medical conditions or potential co-morbidities; and regardless of whether the pharmacist has any experience treating that population.
- Pharmacists are already overburdened, especially in the community setting: Data suggests that pharmacists in community settings are already at capacity, without the added burden of treating illness and providing preventative health care.
In a separate letter (PDF), the AMA expressed strong opposition to New Mexico House Bill 117 (HB 117), which would grant certain psychologists the authority to prescribe medications without any physician involvement—risking patient safety and exposing vulnerable patients to inadequate mental health care.
- Physicians have 10,000+ hours of comprehensive medical education and training while psychologists have none: Psychologists are required to undergo three to four years of postgraduate education, including only one to two years of patient care experience—all of which is focused entirely on non-medical therapies.
- Further expanding psychologist prescriptive authority threatens patient safety: Psychologists do not have medical training, and therefore do not have the education necessary to recognize and understand the potential complex interactions of psychotropic medications or the impact these powerful medications will have on their patients.
- HB 117 is not a solution for access to mental health care: While the AMA agrees that patients need greater access to care, especially in rural areas, further expanding the prescriptive authority of psychologists and allowing psychologists to prescribe without any physician involvement subjects vulnerable patients to substandard care.
While the AMA values the role that both pharmacists and psychologists play in the nation’s health care system, SB 92 and HB 117 risk the safety of patients in New Mexico. Patients deserve care led by physicians—the most highly educated, trained and skilled health care professionals.
Nebraska bill would protect patient access to high-quality telehealth services
In a recent letter (PDF) to the Nebraska Legislature, the AMA expressed strong support for Legislative Bill 256 (LB 256), which strengthens Nebraska’s existing laws on telehealth to ensure fair and equitable payment for services provided via telehealth. This bill would ensure continued access to high-quality telehealth for Nebraska’s patients by supporting physician investment and integration of telehealth in their practice.
The letter outlines the following reasons for the support of this bill:
- Patients and physicians trust and value care provided by telehealth: Telehealth improves patient satisfaction and provides physicians with an additional tool to provide care to their patients.
- Telehealth has been largely substitutive, rather than additive, for in-person care over the past two years: The vast majority of physicians who provide telehealth continue to provide in-person care and have made significant investments to fully integrate telehealth into their practices as an option for patients when clinically appropriate.
Laws that support fair and equitable payment for telehealth ensure physicians can continue providing this valuable service to their patients. If Nebraska passes LB 256, it will join more than half of states that have passed telehealth payment parity legislation.
