Connecticut 2015 Regular Session

Connecticut House Bill HB06937

Introduced
2/26/15  
Refer
2/26/15  
Report Pass
3/23/15  
Report Pass
3/23/15  
Refer
3/27/15  
Report Pass
4/2/15  
Engrossed
5/13/15  
Report Pass
5/15/15  
Chaptered
6/15/15  
Chaptered
6/15/15  
Enrolled
6/17/15  
Enrolled
6/17/15  

Caption

An Act Concerning The Department Of Public Health's Recommendations Regarding The Definitions Of Sedation And General Anesthesia.

Impact

The implementation of HB 06937 is set to influence state laws by tightening the regulatory framework surrounding sedation practices in dentistry. By requiring permits for certain types of sedation, the bill aims to enhance patient safety across dental practices. The obsolescence of the previous definitions and the introduction of clearer ones are anticipated to help reduce ambiguity in dental operations, thereby fostering a more controlled environment for treatment. This legislative shift reflects the ongoing evolution of public health policies related to medical practices.

Summary

House Bill 06937 focuses on the definitions of sedation and general anesthesia as per the Department of Public Health's recommendations. The bill seeks to amend existing statutes to clarify various levels of sedation, including minimal, moderate, deep sedation, and general anesthesia. This legislation is intended to ensure that dentists operate within clear guidelines, which promote both patient safety and improved regulatory compliance in the dental field. As of October 1, 2015, dentists must obtain a permit to administer moderate sedation, deep sedation, or general anesthesia, making compliance with the new definitions mandatory.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB 06937 appears to be supportive among dental professionals and public health advocates who recognize the importance of stringent regulations for sedation practices. There is a general consensus that the bill will help maintain high standards of care within the dental profession. However, there may be some contention among practitioners regarding the administrative burdens imposed by the permitting process, particularly for smaller practices that may find compliance more challenging.

Contention

While the bill has garnered support, concerns have been raised about the potential impact on dental practices, especially for those who may now face additional regulatory requirements. Some practitioners have expressed apprehension that compliance costs and the need for permits could complicate their operations, particularly for those who administer sedation less frequently. The debate among industry stakeholders highlights a vital balancing act between maintaining patient safety and ensuring accessibility to necessary dental care.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB2017

Banks and credit unions: nonsufficient funds fees.

CA AB3069

Tied-house restrictions: advertising exceptions: City of Oceanside.

CA AB2174

Vehicles: removal from private property.

CA AB633

City of Laguna Woods: golf cart crossing zones.

CA SB1173

Transportation funds: De Luz Community Services District.

CA AB2526

Nurse anesthetists: general anesthesia or deep sedation.

WI SB612

Seasonally maintained highways.

WI AB649

Seasonally maintained highways.