[1]NOTE:
As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the
standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative
Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information
in this report when used in any other situation.
Only the most recent
FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the
LFC’s office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
|
SPONSOR: |
Hamilton |
DATE TYPED: |
02/07/02 |
HB |
415 |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Naprapathic Practice Act |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
J. Sandoval |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation Contained |
Estimated Additional Impact |
Recurring or Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY02 |
FY03 |
FY02 |
FY03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$50.0 |
Recurring |
OSF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate
Expenditure Decreases)
REVENUE
|
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years
Impact |
Recurring or Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
|
FY02 |
FY03 |
|
|
|
|
|
$5.0 |
$15.0 |
Recurring |
OSF |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
Duplicates SB 384
Health Policy Commission
Regulation and Licensing Department
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Bill 415 enacts the Naprapathic
Practice Act and describes exceptions to licensure, the practice of naprapathy,
education and professional qualifications, application procedures, designation
as a naprapath, and license display.
Created is the Naprapathic Practice Board, to be comprised of five
members, all residents of New Mexico, of which three would be Naprapaths
licensed in New Mexico or another state.
Board members would be appointed by the Governor for four-year terms and
would report to the superintendent of the Regulation and Licensing Department. A naprapathy fund is created in the state
treasury through licensure fees collected that shall not exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000) per individual. Any
unexpended or unencumbered balance at the end of each fiscal year would not
revert to the general fund. Finally,
this bill describes administrative hearings, offenses and criminal penalties
for those who practice naprapathy without a license, and civil penalties for anyone
who intentionally violates the provisions of the Naprapathic Practice Act.
Significant
Issues
There is no sunset review date established for the Naprapathic Practice Act.
According to the Advocate Healthcare’s website, “Naprapathy is considered to be alternative medicine like chiropractic, acupuncture, and massage therapy. It uses therapeutic and rehabilitative exercise, postural counseling, nutritional counseling, and the use of the effective properties of physical measures of heat, cold, light, water, radiant energy, electricity, sound and air, and assistive devices for the purpose of preventing, correcting, or alleviating a physical.”
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
According to the
Regulation and Licensing Department, the naprapathy fund “…is unlikely to cover
the cost of establishing and operating a regulatory board for naprapathy. It is estimated that the cost of setting up
a naprapathy board, drafting regulations, conducting hearings, and attending to
the various tasks necessary to set up a viable regulation program would cost
about $50K in the first year and slightly less on a recurring basis. This includes ½ an Admin III FTE, four
boards meetings/hearings, and the overhead associated with setting up a new
capability. Revenues would be something
like $5K in the first year, assuming ten licensees at $500 per license, and
grow to three or four times that within two to three years. Because revenues in the foreseeable future
will not cover the majority of the cost of regulating naprapathy, this unfunded
requirement will have to be covered from limited RLD resources, which are
particularly tight...”
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
According to the
Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD), “During the first year of operations
for a new regulatory board, a great deal of time is spent sorting through
candidates and nominating people to serve on the board, conducting board
meetings to lay out what the board will do and how it will operate, drafting
regulations and conducting hearings to secure public input, arranging testing
for applicants, and a myriad of other details.
No resources are provided to accomplish any of these tasks. If RLD must a undertake this labor-intensive
startup process by diverting FTE and funding from other tasks performed in
support of existing Boards & Commissions (B&Cs), performance measures
and our relationship with existing B&Cs will deteriorate appreciably.”
CONFLICT/DUPLICATION/COMPANIONSHIP/RELATIONSHIP
House Bill 415
duplicates Senate Bill 384.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
According to the Regulation and Licensing
Department, “In the course of evaluating the naprapathy sunrise application,
one of our board chairmen brought up the possibility of creating a natural medicine
“umbrella” board to consolidate regulation of natural medicine-type
(non-medical degree) professions with similar treatment philosophies and
methodologies. Such a board would prove
especially helpful in evaluating new applicants with natural medicine
approaches. They would be charged with
the responsibility of establishing criteria for inclusion, formulating
procedures for the evaluation process, and considering best regulatory
practices in other states/countries.
Canada has employed such an approach to good effect.”
Two states have licensed Naprapathic practices: Illinois
and Ohio. “Certification
for naprapathy as a limited branch of medicine by the State Medical Board in
Ohio was discontinued after March 2, 1992, but naprapaths certified before that
date may continue to practice under rules promulgated by the Board” (http://www.healthy.net/public/legal-lg/regulations).
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
[1]Begin typing on the * in replace mode. Do not add or delete spaces.