Utah State Bulletin, January 15, 2012, Vol. 2012, No. 2

FIVE-YEAR NOTICES OF REVIEW AND STATEMENTS OF CONTINUATION DAR File No. 35552106(1)(a) provides that the Division may adopt and enforcerules to administer Title 58. Subsection 58-70a-201(3)provides that the Physician Assistant Licensing Board's dutiesand responsibilities shall be in accordance with Section 58-1-202. Subsection 58-1-202(1)(a) provides that one of theduties of each board is to recommend appropriate rules to theDivision Director. This rule was enacted to clarify theprovisions of Title 58, Chapter 70a, with respect to physicianassistants.SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURINGAND SINCE THE LAST FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RULEFROM INTERESTED PERSONS SUPPORTING OROPPOSING THE RULE: Since this rule was last reviewed inFebruary 2007, it has been amended two times. The Divisionreceived an 08/02/2010 email from Paul Harrison, MD, inwhich he expressed opposition to the increase in number ofphysician assistants that can be supervised by a physicianfrom two to four. Dr. Harrison believed that increasing thenumber of physician assistants that could be supervised byone physician would increase errors in diagnosis andtreatment. The proposed amendments filed in July 2010were as a result of statute amendments made to Title 58,Chapter 70a, in S.B. 139 during the 2010 General Session.The Physician Assistant Licensing Board and Divisionreviewed Dr. Harrison's written comments with extensivediscussion during the Board's 09/13/2010 meeting. During theSeptember 2010 board meeting and discussion of this matter,the Division indicated that if a supervising physician isrequesting to supervise three or four physician assistants, thesupervising physician must submit an explanation regardingjustification on how the physician will supervise the additionalphysician assistants and maintain patient care and safety.During the board meeting, the Division and Board bothindicated that allowing an increase in the number of physicianassistants to be supervised by one physician would be helpfulto the profession and especially those in rural areas. Afterthe lengthy discussion regarding Dr. Harrison's writtencomment, the proposed amendments were approved with nofurther changes.REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OFTHE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS WHY THE AGENCYDISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THERULE, IF ANY: This rule should be continued as it provides amechanism to inform potential licensees of the requirementsfor licensure as allowed under statutory authority provided inTitle 58, Chapter 70a, with respect to physician assistants.The rule should also be continued as it provides informationto ensure applicants for licensure are adequately trained andmeet minimum licensure requirements and provideslicensees with information concerning unprofessionalconduct, definitions and ethical standards relating to theprofession.THE FULL TEXT OF THIS RULE MAY BE INSPECTED,DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS, AT:COMMERCEOCCUPATIONAL AND PROFESSIONALLICENSINGHEBER M WELLS BLDG160 E 300 SSALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-2316or at the Division of Administrative Rules.DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:♦ Noel Taxin by phone at 801-530-6621, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by Internet E-mail at ntaxin@utah.govAUTHORIZED BY: Mark Steinagel, DirectorEFFECTIVE: 12/19/2011Insurance, AdministrationR590-102Insurance Department Fee PaymentRuleFIVE-YEAR NOTICE OF REVIEW AND STATEMENTOF CONTINUATIONDAR FILE NO.: 35587FILED: 12/29/2011NOTICE OF REVIEW AND STATEMENT OFCONTINUATIONCONCISE EXPLANATION OF THE PARTICULARSTATUTORY PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH THE RULE ISENACTED AND HOW THESE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZEOR REQUIRE THE RULE: Section 31A-3-103 requires thedepartment to set regulatory fees and publish them as a list.The subsections referred to in the rule need to be changedfrom Subsection (4) and (5) to Subsection (3). This changewill be made immediately.SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURINGAND SINCE THE LAST FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RULEFROM INTERESTED PERSONS SUPPORTING OROPPOSING THE RULE: This rule has been updated severaltimes during the past five years. At no time has thedepartment received written comments regarding this rule orthe proposed changes made during this period of time.REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OFTHE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS WHY THE AGENCYDISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THERULE, IF ANY: This rule is necessary because it isspecifically required by law and because it makes it easy forthe public to see all the fees charged by the department andprovides regular opportunities for them to make commentregarding changes to this schedule. Therefore, this ruleshould be continued.112 UTAH STATE BULLETIN, January 15, 2012, Vol. 2012, No. 2