Fluoroscopy: temporary permit.
The implementation of AB 356 is significant as it eases access to fluoroscopic x-ray operations by allowing qualified medical professionals to work within a structured regulatory framework while they obtain full permits. The bill stipulates that the temporary permits will provide similar rights as standard fluoroscopy permits, valid for a maximum duration of 12 months. The fee for these temporary permits is set at $58, with provisions allowing for future adjustments according to administrative costs. Notably, the bill also clarifies that there will be no state mandates for local agency reimbursements related to costs arising from this change in law.
Assembly Bill No. 356 introduces a temporary permit system for physicians and podiatrists in California to use fluoroscopic x-ray equipment. This bill amends Section 107110 of the Health and Safety Code by allowing the State Department of Public Health to issue one-time, non-renewable temporary permits to those who meet specific qualifications, including holding a valid medical license and having at least 40 hours of experience using fluoroscopic equipment. The temporary permits aim to facilitate the operation or supervision of fluoroscopy by qualified practitioners who may not yet have completed the standard certification process required under the Radiologic Technology Act.
Generally, discussions surrounding the bill indicated a supportive sentiment among medical entities that highlighted the need for more flexible paths to certification, particularly in light of potential shortages in licensed practitioners. However, concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of experience required and the implications for patient safety, as allowing more individuals temporary access to fluoroscopic technology could pose risks if not properly regulated and trained.
The primary contention surrounding AB 356 revolves around the balance between expanding access to medical technology and ensuring patient safety. Critics fear that granting temporary permits could lead to inadequate oversight and potential misuse of fluoroscopic equipment, which is associated with significant health risks due to radiation exposure. Proponents counter that this measure appropriately enables skilled practitioners to provide necessary services without compromising public health standards, provided that stringent conditions are met. These discussions reflect ongoing debates regarding regulatory frameworks that can address both practitioner accessibility and patient safety.