TIMELINE OF EVENTS RELATED TO LASER HAIR REMOVAL REGULATIONS
Electrolysis was first developed by an ophthalmologist in 1865 for the treatment of ingrown eyelashes. Over the decades this service became more popular due to its esthetic appeal, and practitioners desired a more professional status with standards of training and sanitary conditions in place.
In Florida, electrolysis was an unregulated business until 1991. Florida electrologists had actively sought licensure for many years, but not until the Florida Board of Medicine (BOM) addressed the issue of AIDS/HIV and other blood borne diseases, did the importance of needle type electrolysis capture their attention. Electrolysis is regulated under the Board of Medicine due to the small number of practitioners in the state who are unable to support their own board.
The current Florida requirements for this invasive procedure of needle electrolysis includes the use of a sterilizer which must have a monthly spore test performed; proper bio-hazardous disposal of our sharps; use of non-sterile, disposable gloves while performing treatment; and the practice of universal precautions.
Before 1999, there was never any discussion or attempt to impose physician supervision of any type for needle electrolysis procedures, and no prescription from a physician has ever been required or even discussed to obtain this treatment due to its global safety record.
In the mid 1990’s, lasers for hair removal were introduced into the market place. Electrologists made the obvious move to incorporate this effective, new technology into their licensed hair removal practices.
Florida electrologists followed the proper channels of state government to incorporate statute changes to allow the use of any new equipment that would safely remove hair. The new laser technology is a non-invasive procedure that does not require any precautions for blood borne pathogens, has no bio-hazardous disposal issues, and its accessories require only sanitation rather than sterilization practices.
Electrologists brought hair removal lasers to BOM meetings so the Board members could participate in hands on demonstrations, and understand this safe, new technology. They have complied with every requirement that has been issued by the Board.
Following is the history of the regulation of laser hair removal in Florida. You will see that a group of physicians have imposed their opinions of how this equipment should be regulated and have in fact insisted on regulating electrologists according to the equipment that they use rather than the service or procedures that they offer.
Timeline of Events for Florida Electrologists & Laser Hair Removal
1999
q June 1, Chapter 478.52(5) gets a statutory change to allow the use of light based devices. Electrologists had tried unsuccessfully to get this language changed for 3 years prior to this.
478.42 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, the term:
-
"Board" means the Board of Medicine.
-
"Council" means the Electrolysis Council.
-
"Department" means the Department of Health.
-
"Electrologist" means a person who engages in the practice of electrolysis.
-
"Electrolysis or electrology" means the permanent removal of hair by destroying the hair-producing cells of the skin and vascular system, using equipment and devices approved by the board which have been cleared by and registered with the United States Food and Drug Administration and that are used pursuant to protocols approved by the board.
History.--s. 3, ch. 92-172; s. 168, ch. 94-218; s. 144, ch. 97-264; s. 143, ch. 99-397.
q August 6, Electrolysis Council submits rules for BOM review and approval.
q August 6, Chair of the Medical Physicist Council says hair removal lasers are basically safe, and the equipment would pose no real threat to consumers when operated by electrologists.
q November 12, (5 ½ months after our statute was passed and implemented) MQA meets and discusses the issue at depth. There were electrologists, physicians, and laser company representatives present to testify. The committee then voted and recommended general supervision with a physician. (below) MQA’s primary concern was about regulating intense pulsed light devices. The committee was never concerned about imposing anything more than general supervision.
Suggested Rules for the Implementation of HB 2125 as it pertains to the Practice of Electrology:
64B8-56.002 Protocols for Permanent Removal or Reduction of Hair by Non-Laser and Light-Based Hair Removal or Reduction Devices. Licensed electrologists may not use laser or light-based hair removal or reduction devices unless:
-
they have completed a continuing education training course approved by the Council pursuant to Rule 64B8-52.004;
-
they have been certified in the use of lasers and light-based devices for the removal or reduction of hair by a national certification organization approved by the Council and Board;
-
they are using only the laser or light based hair removal or reduction devices upon which they have been trained; and
-
they are operating under the general supervision of a physician licensed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes.
q December 3, the BOM tabled the developed rules when Dr. Mark Nestor made his first appearance before the Board and demanded more time for the dermatologists to be able to influence the Board’s decision. He stated on record that these decisions had been made without the knowledge of the dermatology association. Even though electrologists had been working on this issue for 3 years, and all of these meetings had been properly noticed, the Board put the electrologists on hold in order for the Florida Society of Dermatologists (FSD) to gather their troops together to forbid the use of this non-invasive equipment which is safer than needle electrolysis.
o Dr. Mark Nestor was allowed to make his case and demand more time for research.
o Guest physicians who were flown in from other states at electrologists’ expense, along with electrolysis attorneys, and Florida licensed electrologists were not allowed to speak.
456.517 (4)(a) “Neither the department nor any board may create unreasonably restrictive and extraordinary standards that deter qualified persons from entering the various professions. Neither the department nor any board may take any action that tends to create or maintain an economic condition that unreasonably restricts competition, except as specifically provided by law.”
q Dermatologists quickly mailed a survey to its members searching for evidence of consumer injury from electrologists. No evidence was revealed.
CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PAGE 2