Michigan House Bill HB5683

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/24
• Refer: 4/25/24
• Report Pass: 6/18/24
• Engrossed: 6/26/24
• Refer: 6/26/24
• Report Pass: 10/10/24
• Refer: 10/10/24
• Report Pass: 10/23/24
• Enrolled: 11/12/24
• Chaptered: 12/3/24
• Passed: 12/3/24

Caption

Health occupations: other; the performance of certain exfoliation procedures; require to be under the supervision of a physician. Amends 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.1101 - 333.25211) by adding sec. 16276a. TIE BAR WITH: HB 5684'24

Impact

The enactment of HB5683 will enhance the regulation of health occupations in the state of Michigan. It amends the Public Health Code to ensure that medical exfoliation procedures – which include techniques such as dermaplaning and microdermabrasion – cannot be performed unless there is physician oversight. This change aims to protect patients by enforcing professional standards and ensuring that individuals receiving such treatments are adequately informed and consent to the procedures conducted by licensed professionals.

Summary

House Bill 5683 requires that all medical exfoliation procedures be performed under the supervision of a licensed physician. The bill specifically addresses the legal framework surrounding such cosmetic procedures, dictating that only qualified medical professionals may oversee or perform these treatments. This legislation is a response to growing concerns about the safety and professionalism involved in cosmetic skin procedures, particularly in light of the rise of non-medical providers offering these services without adequate supervision or training.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around HB5683 appears to be positive, with strong support from medical professionals who believe that greater oversight is essential for patient safety. Lawmakers who attested to the bill emphasized the importance of maintaining high standards within the cosmetic treatment industry, which can directly affect public health and consumer trust. However, there could be a minority of dissenters who feel that the legislation may create unnecessary barriers for practitioners who provide these services within a regulated framework.

Contention

Notable points of contention revolve around the implications for existing practitioners who may not meet the new requirements under this bill. Concerns include the potential reduction in accessibility for patients seeking cosmetic treatments and the burden placed on practitioners who will need to adapt to the new supervision requirements. Additionally, the tie-bar with HB5684 suggests there are interconnected regulations being considered that could further influence or complicate the enforcement and application of HB5683.