03-19-09 Update on 7 States

American Association of Sleep Technologists
..............
American Association for Respiratory Care
..............
American Society of Electroneurodiagnostic Technologists

Moderators: SCNVsleep, labman2

03-19-09 Update on 7 States

Postby strawberri » Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:35 pm

Just received this update....thought I would share ~ Berri

Issue Date:
March 19, 2009
The AAST has been proactively involved in dealing with state government issues that affect our members. The following is an update of the legislative and regulatory activity in the following states:


California
Senate Bill 132, a bill to establish educational and training requirements for sleep technologists, was introduced into the General Assembly on February 9 and referred to the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. A hearing has been tentatively scheduled for March 23. AAST will be working with the California Sleep Society to develop testimony, letters of support, and other documents for this hearing.

Senate Bill 132 presents the same language that was in Senate Bill 1526. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB1526 last year in response to a protracted, contentious debate over the California state budget. The Governor chose to veto SB 1526 along with 137 other bills in order to send a message to the state legislature. The Governor's veto was completely unrelated to the merits of the bill, which had passed the legislature with a significant bipartisan majority, and was based solely on political reasons.

Georgia
AAST is working with the Georgia Association of Sleep Professionals (GASP) on developing language to establish educational and training requirements for sleep technologist. Senate Bill 252 and House Bill 675 were introduced into the Georgia General Assembly the first week of March. The bill has the support of the Georgia Society for Respiratory Care.

The impetus for this legislation began last fall when the Georgia Composite State Board of Medical Examiners issued a statement in their Newsletter which could have expanded the respiratory care practice act in a manner that would define the work of sleep technologists as respiratory care.

The AAST submitted a letter to the Board urging them to take the necessary time to fully understand the implications of any action which would formalize this position. In response, the Board referred this matter to the Attorney General's (AG) office who sent a letter informing the Board that the information in the 2008 Newsletter needed to be corrected. The Georgia legislative initiative is an outgrowth of this activity.

Hawaii
On January 28, 2009, nine bills pertaining to licensing requirements for respiratory care practitioners were introduced in the Hawaii State Legislature. One of these bills (SB 1332) is under active consideration and there are problems with its inadequate exemption language. AAST is working with the Hawaii Sleep Society to address this issue.

Currently, only Hawaii and Alaska do not license respiratory care practitioners.

Iowa
Over the last few months AAST worked closely with the Board of Registered Polysomnographic Technologists (BRPT) on the development of a letter to the Iowa Board of Respiratory Care (IBRC) to address nebulous language contained in the Iowa code pertaining to sleep technologist examination requirements.

On January 7, the BRPT submitted a letter to the IRBC for their February meeting. The letter requested that the Board approve the BRPT as a testing body in the state of Iowa.

On February 16 the IRBC sent a letter to the BRPT informing them that the Board approves the BRPT as a testing body offering the examination for awarding the credential of Registered Polysomnographic Technologist.

We are looking at states with similar testing authority legislation and we will continue working with the BRPT to seek similar clarifications.

Maryland
We are working with our members in Maryland and the Maryland Board of Physicians on Senate Bill 433 (SB 433), which would postpone the initial licensure deadline for sleep technologists from October 1, 2009 until 2012.

The Maryland Board of Physicians sent a letter to AAST President, Jon Atkinson, which they concurred with our position that the implementation of the October 1, 2009 licensure deadline would lead to either a significant decrease in the availability of sleep studies in Maryland, or to a large pool of unlicensed personnel practicing in spite of the law. Therefore, the Board supports legislation postponing the deadline until 2012.

The SB 433 was referred to Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee and was heard by the Committee on February 18. AAST submitted a letter to the Committee in support for the bill. The Committee has until March 24 to take action on the bill.

We will continue working with our members in Maryland to pass this important piece of legislation.

Minnesota
Recently Senate Bill 685 (SF 685) and its companion bill House Bill 1077 (HF 1077) were introduced into the Minnesota Legislature. The bill amends the Respiratory Care Practice Act by changing the conditions for respiratory therapists from "registered" to "licensed." However, the legislation also includes an amendment which would change the exemption language for sleep technologists.

The proposed amendments would require sleep technologists to first pass an examination certified by the National Commission for Health Certifying Agencies or an equivalent as determined by the board before performing any sleep related duties.

Under the current Act, health care practitioners are allowed to perform duties as long as they do not hold themselves out as respiratory care practitioners. If SF 685/HF 1077 is passed, sleep technologists would be required to first pass the BRPT exam before they are allowed to work in a sleep facility.

We are working with our members in Minnesota to have SF 685/HF 1077 change the exemption language back to an acceptable form.

Tennessee
The American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC) has introduced Senate Bill 726, which would negatively amend the newly established Polysomnographic Practice Act.

If passed, the bill would make several changes to the Act which would include:


Require that licensed sleep technologists and technicians work under the direct supervision of a licensed physician.


Eliminate all Accredited Sleep Technologist Programs (A-STEP) in the state.


Eliminate the ability of a sleep technologist to provide "education of a patient regarding the treatment regimen that assists the patient in improving the patient's sleep."


Delete the requirement that a licensed respiratory therapist provides sleep-related services only if they have the RPSGT credential.

We are currently working with the Tennessee Sleep Society and the Tennessee Society for Respiratory Care to develop talking points, letters, and other pieces of communication to address this legislation.

State Society Update

AAST continues to move forward establishing a state sleep society in states that do not currently have a society. The purpose of the sleep society initiative is to strengthen the sleep care community in the state, and to provide a forum that will serve to educate members and protect the profession from any issues that may affect their practice.

At the start of this initiative there were 18 state sleep societies. Currently there are 28 societies. Beginning April 2009 we will be working with 10 new states: Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah.
User avatar
strawberri
Moderator
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:58 am
Location: 100% Eastern Kentucky Hillbilly

Re: 03-19-09 Update on 7 States

Postby MrBig » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:46 am

strawberri wrote:Beginning April 2009 we will be working with 10 new states: Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah.


Image
User avatar
MrBig
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: New Atlantis

Postby ReDEyEz » Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:51 am

I love that AARC/TN thinks that they should have the right to run a sleep study without an RPSGT credential. When exactly did they get trained in EEG, EMG, and EKG?
User avatar
ReDEyEz
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:59 am

Postby strawberri » Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:25 am

Wondered about that myself!
User avatar
strawberri
Moderator
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:58 am
Location: 100% Eastern Kentucky Hillbilly

Postby MrBig » Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:43 am

ReDEyEz wrote:I love that AARC/TN thinks that they should have the right to run a sleep study without an RPSGT credential. When exactly did they get trained in EEG, EMG, and EKG?


I saw a job opening for a Sleep Tech in NY today online. It required you be a RRT or LVN. Really? An LVN? So.....you can be a RPSGT with tons of experience but they'll hire a LVN who knows nothing about anything a sleep tech does. I just don't understand some of these people.
User avatar
MrBig
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: New Atlantis

Postby somnonaut » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:26 pm

Just got the NBRC post card sent to the lab spouting the terribficness of thei new Sleep crednetial. I wrote "RETURN TO SENDER, NO SUCH VALID CRENTIAL" on it and put it back in the mail.
User avatar
somnonaut
Senior Member
 
Posts: 14160
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:03 pm
Location: http://tinyurl.com/righteousdude

Postby Sleepladypalmdesert » Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:39 pm

I actually heard that the new test will have only 150 questions and none relating to respiratory care due to the fact that they are already RCPs. My question...how many of those questions will be related to neurology, filters, etc.

My guess is that it will be a watered down test which will allow the "credentialing" of a large number of RCPs. Those with this credential will be so poorly trained that, in time, the RPSGT credential will still be that credential held in highest regard.
User avatar
Sleepladypalmdesert
Senior Member
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:18 am

Postby MrBig » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:32 pm

somnonaut wrote:Just got the NBRC post card sent to the lab spouting the terribficness of thei new Sleep crednetial. I wrote "RETURN TO SENDER, NO SUCH VALID CRENTIAL" on it and put it back in the mail.




*insert high five here*
User avatar
MrBig
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: New Atlantis

Postby tcr104 » Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:25 am

maybe we should petition the BRPT to make an add on respiratory credential for sleep Techs?? :wink:

Anyhow, this sleep "GED" is worthless in my lab.



Image
tcr104
Senior Member
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:48 pm

Advance Article

Postby ReDEyEz » Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:19 am

You know, I received the latest edition of Advance in the mail today and there was a section in it about the new SDS (sleep disorder specialty) credential that AARC has created, in that they want to have equal footing in sleep medicine, with RPSGT. I know we all know that CPAP somewhat might of gotten a start in Respiratory but what gives them the right to try and take something that has attained a life of it's own? It's obviously big enough to require a field unto itself. The article, "Street Cred" also mentions that they created this test specifically for RRTs and CRTs to give them an additional credential, "SDS" and when they debuted the exam in 2008, 16 RTs applied to take it -- and of those, only 8 "attempted" it. They expect a 350 person turn out for 2009. Now my question is, how do those numbers compare to those of BRPT's some 14,000 credentialed sleep technologists that have taken the exam and passed since 1979? And it's becoming apparent to me that it's not the RT's that are trying to take sleep... it's the AARC -- the governing body. So, I wonder if they have considered not only that sleep is a lot more than just sleep apnea and if they are qualified to train their techs in those other areas.... and also if they have considered the COUNTLESS number of RPSGTs they have caused to lose their jobs all over the country -- particularly in the crunch our country is in right now. I think it STINKS!
User avatar
ReDEyEz
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:59 am

Postby somnonaut » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:41 am

"I know we all know that CPAP somewhat might of gotten a start in Respiratory"

UH NO, as in not true. Sleep started from the Neurology field. Then Respiratory got its hand in it when CPAP was invented/rediscovered/whatever and a treatment for the disorder known as Obstrcutive Sleep Apnea was created and STARTED TO GET REIMBURSED. Right there the whole thing changed. I lived through it. The Pulmonologists started labs, and or getting hospitals to take it away from Neurology departments, saying that it needed a pulmonologist at the helm being that the only money making treatment was respiratory based. And only after the numbers really started taking off did RTs want any part of Sleep. DO not try to mix your rationale about sleep and RT with what is good for the field, or the right thing to do. That will not get you anywhere with the RTaliban. They want to take over sleep and have wanted to since the early 90's.
User avatar
somnonaut
Senior Member
 
Posts: 14160
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:03 pm
Location: http://tinyurl.com/righteousdude

Re: Advance Article

Postby Sleepladypalmdesert » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:45 am

ReDEyEz wrote:You know, I received the latest edition of Advance in the mail today and there was a section in it about the new SDS (sleep disorder specialty) credential that AARC has created, in that they want to have equal footing in sleep medicine, with RPSGT. I know we all know that CPAP somewhat might of gotten a start in Respiratory but what gives them the right to try and take something that has attained a life of it's own? It's obviously big enough to require a field unto itself. The article, "Street Cred" also mentions that they created this test specifically for RRTs and CRTs to give them an additional credential, "SDS" and when they debuted the exam in 2008, 16 RTs applied to take it -- and of those, only 8 "attempted" it. They expect a 350 person turn out for 2009. Now my question is, how do those numbers compare to those of BRPT's some 14,000 credentialed sleep technologists that have taken the exam and passed since 1979? And it's becoming apparent to me that it's not the RT's that are trying to take sleep... it's the AARC -- the governing body. So, I wonder if they have considered not only that sleep is a lot more than just sleep apnea and if they are qualified to train their techs in those other areas.... and also if they have considered the COUNTLESS number of RPSGTs they have caused to lose their jobs all over the country -- particularly in the crunch our country is in right now. I think it STINKS!


I did not notice how many of the 8 who "Attempted" it actually passed it....they don't publish that information, at least that I could find.
User avatar
Sleepladypalmdesert
Senior Member
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:18 am

Postby ReDEyEz » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:54 am

I know this one and that one have tried to stake claim to it since the beginning of time. I think it's total crap that anyone.. specifically Respiratory even thinks they have a right to it when Sleep already is standing on it's own two feet. They are busy trying to downplay the role of the RPSGT and replace it with their own trying to take away our credibility and it's total CRAP. I wonder why BRPT and AASM are trying to come at this so politically with proper letters and ettiquette when AARC is trying to draw blood?! What gives with our overhead?
User avatar
ReDEyEz
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:59 am

Postby LingLIng » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:05 am

somnonaut wrote:"I know we all know that CPAP somewhat might of gotten a start in Respiratory"

And only after the numbers really started taking off did RTs want any part of Sleep. DO not try to mix your rationale about sleep and RT with what is good for the field, or the right thing to do. That will not get you anywhere with the RTaliban. They want to take over sleep and have wanted to since the early 90's.




But, do you think they can actually do this? I mean, really? This new SDS credentialing is an eye opener, at least for me. That's one plus to living and working in Mississippi -- it usually takes awhile for things to make it down our way.
User avatar
LingLIng
Senior Member
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:47 am
Location: Mississippi

Postby LingLIng » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:07 am

And I'm sorry for the mix up in the quote. I didn't mean to make it look like Somno said that first part.
User avatar
LingLIng
Senior Member
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:47 am
Location: Mississippi

Next

Return to AAST/AARC/ASET

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron