TIMELINE OF EVENTS RELATED TO LASER HAIR REMOVAL REGULATIONS - Page 3
2001
q February 3, The BOM held yet another rules hearing at the request of the FSD. No vote was taken. Electrologists are still in limbo! Their rules package still has not passed! They are told that they still are not allowed to use light based technology because their rule package has not been passed. Chapter 478 – the electrolysis practice act – was changed to incorporate the use of new light based technology over 20 months prior to this. When statute 120.54 (1)(2)(b) (below) was brought to the attention of the BOM attorney, electrologists were told that this law did not apply to this case.
120.54 (1)(2)(b) Whenever an act of the legislature is enacted which requires implementation of the act by rules of an agency within the executive branch of state government, such rules shall be drafted and formally proposed as provided in this section within 180 days after the effective date of the act, unless the act provides otherwise.
q The same fraudulent photo that was used in the 2000 legislature appeared in the 02-03-01 BOM agenda.
q March 30, BOM meeting votes again to adopt the Medical Assistant language requiring no physician on site.
q Electrologists hold “Electrolysis Day” in the capital a few days prior to the beginning of the legislative session. Electrologists are able to demonstrate laser technology to Gov. Bush! (photo below)
q Our opposition sent the investigative services to the Capital to try to shut the electrologists down. Since they were in compliance with the current laws, the investigative services allowed the demonstration to continue.
q The legislative session began with electrologists submitting a bill that would allow general supervision for licensed electrologists using lasers for hair removal. (language below)
478.49(b) Practices under the general supervision of a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, which supervision follows written protocols that require easy accessibility and communication between the electrologist and the physician and that ensure patient safety when the physician is not physically present during the procedures.
q FMA & FSD again submit the same fraudulent photo of skin damage to the legislature. Electrologists were able to show that this photo is fraudulent and its purpose was intended to be misleading. We illustrated the smallest spot size available in the industry of laser hair removal equipment as a comparison to the photo that was shown. (comparison photos below)
 |
 |
| 8 mm spot size (smallest in the industry) |
9 X 9 mm spot size (this is the equipment that the FMA stated was used in the fraudulent photo) |
Fraudulent Photo
q Representative Siplin (attorney) examined the weak documentation that the FMA/FSD produced, and recommended that the photo be rejected as any credible evidence. He stated that this documentation would be thrown out of a court of law.
q An FMA & FSD dermatologist referred to electrologists as “monkeys” during his testimony at the House Health Care committee meeting.
q No documentation has ever been produced to indicate that consumers are in danger from electrologists who are trained, certified and using lasers for hair removal.
q FMA lobbyist, Tim Deratany announced that laser hair removal is now a more important issue to his clients than nursing home reform!
q FMA realizes that electrologists will win in the House; our bill is placed on their “radar screen”; our bill is dead within hours.
o Tattoos & permanent cosmetics (both invasive procedures) continue to be regulated under general supervision. The FMA believes that laser hair removal (a non-invasive procedure) is deemed to be more dangerous! The Mayo clinic states that laser hair removal is safer than electrolysis:
§ Volume 16, #3, 2000 – Mayo Clinical Update: “Laser hair removal is safer, more comfortable, and more effective than traditional electrolysis”. “Electrolysis may cause scarring, hypo-pigmentation, or hyper-pigmentation”.
q Two years have painfully dragged by and electrologists still don’t have a rules package passed. They are told that they cannot use light based equipment until this rules package is passed. They are again told that the statute below does not apply to their situation.
120.54 (1)(2)(b) Whenever an act of the legislature is enacted which requires implementation of the act by rules of an agency within the executive branch of state government, such rules shall be drafted and formally proposed as provided in this section within 180 days after the effective date of the act, unless the act provides otherwise.
q BOM continues to support supervision with no physician on site.
q FSD/FMA is not getting the cooperation from the BOM that they need to take over and monopolize the hair removal industry. They filed a lawsuit with an administrative law judge. The judge later dismissed the case.
q September 12, the rules package has finally passed with direct supervision and responsibility, requiring no physician on site!
o Additionally, electrologists are required to be nationally certified, complete an approved 30 hour training course, and have $100,000 of malpractice insurance.
CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PAGE 4