You are invited to read the entire text of SB 697, but there are several changes to the note in SB 697 that can influence your practice and have an impact on risk management: the new law removes these requirements. Instead, it says: „Surveillance, as defined in this subdivision, should not be interpreted as requiring the physical presence of the physician, but requires: (A) respect for appropriate supervision, as agreed in the practice agreement. (B) the physician and surgeon are available by telephone or any other method of electronic communication at the time of the patient`s examination.” bus. Code No. 3501 (f) (1), amended by SB 697 (valid January 1, 2020). It is difficult to predict the impact of some of these changes on risks, claims and liability in 2020 and beyond. In the event of a claim, it is likely that the applicants` lawyers argue that each of the signatories of the practice agreement (doctors or/and health systems) will be responsible for the actions and omissions of the Palestinian Authority. Therefore, it`s never too early to start the discussion, so here are some ideas that will help you anticipate problems and anticipate risk reduction processes and methods. 4CAP`s `Leveraging Data: A Focused Review of Advanced Practice Professionals` is available on www.capphysicians.com/articles/new-data-dive-study-leveraging-data-focused-reviewadvanced-practice-professionals. Although an AP still needs to be supervised by a supervisory physician, the agreement between them regarding surveillance is now called a „practice agreement.” In addition, the practice agreement will be put in place through the collaboration between the doctor and the AP. The College also relaxes the ADP requirements for ordering or implementing drugs or devices; for those subject to this regulation, they do not need a practice agreement with a supervisory physician to prescribe controlled substance-based drugs. However, even after the College, a supervising physician must contain a patient-specific prescription for DEA ii or III drugs (all opiate narcotics and most benzodiazepines/anti-anxiolytics).
According to the sponsors of SB 697, the legal restrictions were excessively heavy and double for other protective measures incorporated into the health system. SB 697 and Section 3500 of the Business and Professions Code references, the „increasing shortage and misallocation of health services” and its objective of „promoting the effective use of the skills of physicians and surgeons . . . . allowing them to work with qualified ADPs to ensure a quality supply. The California Medical Association stated that „SB 697 allows greater autonomy for any medical practice with respect to its functional relationship with its P.A.” By eliminating perceived burdens and duplication, SB 697 puts more control in the hands of physicians and surgeons on PA surveillance methods. It is important that the new law does not require health care systems to replace their transfer of service agreements with behavioural agreements. See Bus – Prof.
Code 3502.3 (a) (3), amended by SB 697 (valid January 1, 2020). Instead, practical agreements are only needed if new agreements are reached after 1 January 2020. However, health systems may consider replacing all of their existing service agreements with PA agreements for the above reasons and avoiding different types of PA agreements in the same health system, based solely on the date the PA agreement was developed. If SB 697 is signed by the Governor, the Palestinian Authority`s practice will be streamlined by removing a number of administrative obstacles, including the termination of a transfer of services agreement with a particular physician.