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 for other purposes.

 

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 in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

SPONSOR:

HJC

 

DATE TYPED:

3/6/03

 

HB

312/HJCS

 

SHORT TITLE:

Naprapathic Practice Act

 

SB

 

 

 

ANALYST:

Maloy

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

$20.0

 

 

Recurring

OSF

 

 

 

$64.0

Recurring

General Fund

 (Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

Relates to SB 255.

REVENUE

 

Estimated Revenue

Subsequent

Years Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

 

$20.0

 

Recurring

New-Naprapathic Fund

 (Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

LFC Files

 

Responses Received From

Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD)

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of Bill

 

  • The House Judiciary Committee Substitute for House Bill 312 creates the Naprapathic Practice Act.  Naprapathy is defined as: “diagnosis and treatment of persons with connective tissue disorders through the use of special techniques, including tissue manipulation, exercise, postural counseling and the application or use of heat, cold, light, water, radiant energy, electricity, sound and air and assistive devises.”

 

The bill defines naprapathy as not including: “surgery, acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine, pharmacology or invasive diagnostic testing.”  Also, a naprapath who is not licensed pursuant to the Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Practice Act shall not hold himself out as qualified to perform acupuncture or provide oriental medicine treatment.  Similarly, the bill provides that a naprapath shall not practice chiropractic services, physical therapy, occupational therapy unless appropriate licensed in these     

 

  • The proposed Naprapathic Practice Act outlines:

 

1.               the definition of the practice of naprapathy;

2.               licensing requirements, including education and training qualifications;

3.               exceptions to licensure;

4.               application procedures; and

5.               designation as a naprapath, as well as license display. 

 

·       The bill also creates the Naprapathic Practice Board.  This board is to be comprised of 5 members, 3 of whom are licensed naprapaths and 2 of whom are to be members of the general public with no financial interests in the profession of naprapathy.  Board members are to be appointed by the governor for four-year terms, and are to advise the superintendent (of the Regulation and Licensing Department) regarding licensure issues.      

 

The bill sets forth the powers and duties of the board in detail:

 

1.               hold hearing and develop rules for the superintendent to review and adopt;

2.               regulate licensure, and renewal of licensure of naprapraths, establishing minimum qualifications and experience requirements;

3.               prescribe the manner in which records of examinations and treatments shall be kept and maintained;

4.               establish rules governing professional conduct in the field;

5.               investigate complaints and pursue disciplinary actions;

6.               provide for the dissemination of information statewide to licensees;

7.               provide for the inspection of licensees’ premises;

8.               address reciprocity;

9.               set standards for advertising as a naprapath.; and

10.            the authority to  undertake any matter necessary for implementation of Naprapathic Practice Act.

 

·       Any person violating the Naprapathic Practice Act is guilty of a misdemeanor.  The civil penalty for a violation may be up to $1,000.

 

·       The bill contains a sunset clause providing that the board is terminated on July 1, 2011.

 

·       Finally, the bill is clear that nothing in the Act is to be construed to prevent a person qualified as a member of a recognized profession, the practice of which requires a license or is regulated pursuant to the laws of New Mexico, from rendering services within the scope of the person’s license or a state rule adopted to regulate the profession, providing the person does not represent himself to be a naprapath.  

 

    Significant Issues

 

  • Proponents of this legislation anticipate a licensure base of twenty in the first year and nearly forty the year following.  Upon enactment of this bill, proponents also plan to fully establish a naprapathic training school and plan to contribute in various ways to the southern part of the state.

 

  • Naprapathy is formally recognized and licensed only in Illinois.  For this reason, there is little knowledge of the profession, and how it should be regulated, in New Mexico. 

 

  • Presumably, this board is to be administratively attached to the Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD) in the same way existing boards are attached (a relationship currently being clarified through numerous pieces of legislation). However, while being administratively attached to RLD, most every board independently adopts its rules and regulations, determines the qualifications of its applicants for licensing, and sets its fees. This makes sense because the board members are the knowledgeable experts. 

 

Yet, in this bill, the board is put in the place of simply recommending rules and regulations to the Superintendent of RLD  See page 7, lines 3–5.  Also, the Superintendent is granted the authority to personally interview potential licensees to evaluate their qualifications, and to set the board’s license fees.  See page 6, lines 7-9 and page 10, lines 3-5.     

 

Granting this authority to the Superintendent of RLD is not likely the most prudent course.  The Superintendent may not possess the appropriate knowledge base / expertise to make the best decisions possible. 

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

·       The bill creates the naprapathy fund.  All fees collected pursuant to the Naprapathic Practice Act are OSFs and shall be deposited with the state treasure. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining in the fund at the end of a fiscal year shall not revert to the general fund. 

 

  • According to RLD, the proposed naprapathy fund should be adequate 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 $78.5 to $93.6 in the first year.  This includes funding for a full-time Administrator IV, travel expenses for four board meetings, travel for rule hearings statewide, and any overhead costs associated with setting up a new program. 

 

Revenues are estimated at approximately $20.0 in the first year, assuming that forty (40) licensees are issued a license at $500 per license.  RLD anticipates the need for an additional appropriation of $64.0 to the department from the general fund.

 

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

 

Did the proposed board follow the sunrise process?

 

SJM/njw:sb