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
SPONSOR: |
King |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
615 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Body Art Safe Practices Act |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
|
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
$140.0 See Narrative |
|
GF/OSF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
REVENUE
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
Indeterminate |
|
Recurring |
OSF |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
Relates to: HB 480
Department
of Health (DOH)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
HB bill 615 provides
for the licensure of body art establishments.
The bill establishes a new fund, the Body Art Safe Practices Fund, and a
$150 licensing fee.
Significant
Issues
The practices
of tattooing, body piercing, and scarification are largely unregulated in the
State of
As written, this bill could not be administered by the
Division of Health Improvement’s Health Facility Licensing and Certification
Bureau (DHI/HFL&C). The bill assumes the $150 licensure fees and renewal
fees can fund the prescribed activities. However, the current HFL&C staff
is not sufficient in numbers to take on these duties. In addition, funding
would be needed for the process of identifying body art establishments,
determining surveyor workload and establishing regulations and training
surveyors. It is unknown whether a $150 licensure fee would be sufficient to
maintain such a program after initial start-up.
Lastly, HFL&C is able to impose sanctions
including civil monetary penalties necessary to enforce its regulations. This
bill provides for DOH to impose penalties through District Court. DOH specifies
that this is not a practical or cost effective approach to affecting the
operations of non-compliant body art establishments. The $500 civil monetary
penalty is insufficient to impact egregious licensure violations. DOH notes
that the ability of body art
establishments to appeal Department findings to district court is also not
practical.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Although HB 615 states that it makes an appropriation, there
is no appropriation specified. HB 615
would establish a Body Art Safe Practices Fund in the state treasury that
includes the deposit of license fees, charges and fines. Whereas it is conceivable that some program
activities could be maintained by this fund, no resources are made available
through the bill to establish the program.
HFL&C currently licenses diagnostic and treatment
centers. On average, one surveyor can survey one and one half centers a week,
including write up of findings. The number of body art establishments is
unknown. Approximately 25-30 body art
establishments could be surveyed a year by one surveyor. The number of body art
establishments and their locations would determine the total number of
surveyors needed. However, that figure is currently unknown. When employee
benefits and qualified personnel such as nurses are considered, the department estimates
$60,000 or more per surveyor FTE. In addition, administrative staff of
potentially two (2) would be required for the records processing and retention
requirements of the act. Those positions should be estimated at $40,000 per
FTE. The total estimated fiscal impact to
comply with the requirements of the bill is $140.0.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
DOH indicates that an authorized FTE increase and an
appropriation would be required for DOH HFL&C to license body art
establishments. Current HFL&C staff
is not sufficient in numbers to take on these duties, nor is it trained in the
particulars to administer the act. The process of identifying body art
establishments, determining surveyor workload, establishing regulations and
training surveyors would need an appropriation for the start up alone.
Determining a fee structure would require solid information gathering prior to
implementing such a program.
RELATIONSHIP
HB615 relates to HB
480. The significant difference in HB615
is the establishment of a $150 license fee, and an appeal process to District
Court by body art establishments aggrieved by Department decisions. The bill also establishes a body art safe
practices fund (from collected licensure fees) available to the Department to
cover the costs of the licensure process. In addition, HB 615 lacks the
parental notification section contained in HB 480.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
In the case of tattooing and body piercing, foreign bodies
are introduced into body tissues that are susceptible to infection. By analogy to medical and dental procedures,
it is important that instruments that penetrate susceptible body tissues should
be free of materials capable of transmitting infectious diseases. Of particular importance are blood borne
viral infections that can establish serious chronic diseases including HIV,
hepatitis B and hepatitis C. It is also
possible to develop serious bacterial infections as a result of piercing the
skin, including Staphylococcal and Streptococcal infections. In some instances, these infections can be
life threatening. Although the risk
attributable to tattooing in the transmission of hepatitis and HIV infection is
not known, there are several lines of evidence that support the plausibility
that body art procedures could transmit these infections
Currently
the HFL&C Bureau is not permitted to use its licensure fees to support its
activities. These fees go to a separate fund not used by DOH. This act would
run counter to that practice.
BD/njw