TIMELINE OF EVENTS RELATED TO LASER HAIR REMOVAL REGULATIONS - Page 2
2000
q April 7, BOM compromises with FSD and imposes “in-direct” supervision. That would require a supervising physician, but there would be no requirement for the physician to be on site during laser treatments. During the numerous committee meetings the Board had always taken the position that the need for a physician to be present on site during laser treatments was not necessary.
q FSD goes against the decision of the BOM. With 5 days left in the legislative session lobbyists for the FSD and the Florida Medical Association (FMA) circumvent the BOM and introduce amendment 458.348. The intent of this action was to mandate a physician on site during laser hair removal treatments. There were no committee meeting hearings, no bills filed, etc.
q When discussion ensued that revealed the position of the BOM, the FMA stated that they didn’t care what the BOM thought about it.
456.517 (4)(b) “The Legislature shall evaluate proposals to increase the regulation of regulated professions or occupations to determine the effect of increased regulation on job creation or retention and employment opportunities.”
q Their legislative intent was clear when electrologists learned that their proposed language would have placed needle electrolysis under physician supervision. Since consumer safety was not a part of their intent, they allowed the needle electrolysis (invasive procedure) to be omitted from that amendment.
q Lobbyists produced a photo of skin damage (below) from an alleged laser treatment which was passed around to key legislators. The photo was not documented, and equipment used was not a laser for hair removal. FMA & FSD lobbyists told legislators that a Florida electrologist had done the damage with a hair removal laser. It placed fear in the hearts of the legislature, and the electrologists were dead within hours. This was all false information. None of this was true.
THIS PHOTOGRAPH HAS BEEN CIRCULATED BY THE FLORIDA SOCIETY OF DERMATOLOGISTS (FSD) FOR MANY MONTHS.
THEY HAVE STATED THAT IT WAS DONE BY AN ELECTROLOGIST USING A HAIR REMOVAL LASER.
THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION ACCOMPANYING THIS PHOTO!
PLEASE ASK FOR INFORMATION REGARDING
Ø WHAT TYPE OF LASER WAS USED — We suspect that this photo was taken after a vascular (vein removal) laser treatment!
Ø WHAT SETTINGS WERE USED ON THE EQUIPMENT? — How high was the fluence level?
Ø WHO PERFORMED THIS TREATMENT? — A physician or some other tech?
Ø WHAT KIND OF TRAINING DID THIS OPERATOR HAVE?
PHOTOS SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
WITHOUT COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION!
q Amendment 458.42 (below) passed during the last few hours of the legislative session. FSD and FMA rejoiced because they believed that they had been successful in bypassing the BOM research and their decisions.
q This language has been interpreted in several ways over the years. Electrologists were told that the meaning of this amendment is not clear. No one would listen to electrologists when they stated that they are not regulated under Chapter 458, but the BOM was told by their assistant attorney general counsel that it meant that electrologists would have to operate with a physician on site during laser treatments.
458.42 Definitions (3) PROTOCOLS REQUIRING DIRECT SUPERVISION.--All protocols relating to electrolysis or electrology using laser or light-based hair removal or reduction by persons other than physicians licensed under this chapter or chapter 459 shall require the person performing such service to be appropriately trained and work only under the direct supervision and responsibility of a physician licensed under this chapter or chapter 459.
q FSD published a newsletter which states that they have fought many battles, which included the Florida Board of Medicine and the Florida Legislature. They brag about how they have been successful in ensuring “that electrologists would not be allowed to independently perform laser hair removal.” (below) If there had ever been any question about their agenda or their intent with rule promulgation, this statement certainly cleared the air! They have never mentioned consumer safety, but rather the need to eliminate the private practices of electrologists.
q June 1 BOM meeting, electrologists are told by the BOM that due to the new legislative change, we must incorporate “direct supervision” language into our rules.
q Prior to the August BOM meeting, the new electrolysis attorney, Allen Grossman, provided us with the only definition for “direct supervision and responsibility” which is found in Florida statutes in 458.3485 for medical assistants. (below) The rules committee adopted this language for electrologists, and recommended the same to the full Board. The Board agreed and passed this language.
64B8-2.001 Definitions (6) The phrase “direct responsibility,” as defined by the Board of Medical Examiners, and as used in Section 458.3458, Florida Statutes, shall mean that the responsible physician need not be physically present on the premises but must be within close physical proximity and easily accessible.
q The FSD and FMA have now realized that in their hasty effort to take over the hair removal profession, they made a poor choice in choosing language (“direct supervision and responsibility”) when they passed this now bad amendment in 478.42. They requested a rules meeting which was held on September 21 in an attempt to coax the BOM to ‘revisit’ the definitions of various supervision. Specifically, they requested the Board to re-define “direct supervision & responsibility” to read as follows:
64B8-2.001 Definitions (1) The phrase "direct supervision and control" as used in Section 458.303, F.S., and the phrase "direct supervision and responsibility" as used in Section 458.3485, F.S., shall be interpreted to require the following:
The physical presence of the supervising physician on the premises so that the supervising physician is immediately available when needed.
(2)-(5) No Change
(6) The phrase “direct responsibility,” as defined by the Board of Medical Examiners, and as used in Section 458.3485, Florida Statutes, shall mean that the responsible physician need not be physically present on the premises but must be within close physical proximity and easily accessible.
A change to adopt the above definition would have affected the relationship that medical assistants have in all medical clinics in the state. If they had been successful in requiring a physician on site for laser hair removal, then it would also require a physician on site for all procedures performed by medical assistants!
q This change was discussed at the rules meeting of 9-21-00, but was promptly dropped when the consequences of changing this rule was revealed! None of the physicians on the committee wanted to be responsible for requiring an MD to be on site while medical assistants were performing their regular duties in medical clinics.
q October 6, the Board again decided that the language in 458.3485 for medical assistants could be used for electrologists and therefore the ongoing rule making would be reconsidered in light of this new statute language.
December 2, BOM hosts a rules hearing at the request of the FSD. The BOM paid the expenses to bring the electrolysis council members to that meeting. The FSD and FMA did not even bother to attend the hearing!
CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PAGE 3