August 18, 2019

HB 17-1121: Requiring Criminal History Checks for Professional Health Care Workers with Prescriptive Authority

On January 20, 2017, Rep. Janet Buckner introduced HB 17-1121, “Concerning Certain Health Care Professions Regulated by the Department of Regulatory Agencies, and, in Connection Therewith, Requiring Criminal History Record Checks for Individuals with Prescriptive Authority and Certified Nurse Aides, Repealing the Nurse Licensure Compact, and Enacting the Enhanced Nurse Licensure Compact.”

Patient Safety Act

The bill requires applicants for initial licensure or certification, as well as current licensees and certificate holders, to submit to a fingerprint-based criminal history record check for:

  • Podiatrists (sections 1 and 2);
  • Dentists and dental hygienists (sections 3 and 4);
  • Medical doctors, physician assistants, and anesthesiologists (sections 5 and 6);
  • Nurses (sections 7 and 8);
  • Certified nurse aides (sections 10 and 11);
  • Optometrists (sections 13 through 15); and
  • Veterinarians (sections 16 through 18).

Section 9 of the bill eliminates the nurse alternative to discipline program.

Section 12 of the bill requires an employer of a certified nurse aide (CNA) to report whenever a CNA is terminated from employment or resigns in lieu of termination, within 30 days after the termination or resignation. The state board of nursing is authorized to fine an employer that fails to report the termination or resignation.

Section 19 amends the ‘Medical Transparency Act of 2010’ to include a person applying for nurse licensure under the ‘Enhanced Nurse Licensure Compact’ within the definition of ‘applicant’.

Section 20 of the bill repeals the current ‘Nurse Licensure Compact’ and adopts the ‘Enhanced Nurse Licensure Compact’.

The bill was introduced in the House and assigned to the Health, Insurance, & Environment Committee. It is scheduled for hearing in committee at 1:30 p.m. on February 16, 2017.

HB 14-1183: Requiring Director of Registrations to Reinstate Expired Professional Licenses for Returning Service Members

On January 29, 2014, Rep. Rhonda Fields and Sen. Matt Jones introduced HB 14-1183 – Concerning the Reinstatement of the Authority for Active Military Personnel to Practice Professionally. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill requires the director of the division of registrations in the department of regulatory agencies to reinstate the expired license, certificate, or registration of any active military personnel pursuant to specific requirements.

The bill was given final approval by the House on Feb. 17; the bill is assigned to the Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee.

SB 14-133: Creating the Private Investigators Licensure Act

On Monday, January 27, 2014, Sen. Linda Newell introduced SB 14-133 – Concerning the Regulation of Private Investigators by the Department of Regulatory Agencies. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Under the current “Private Investigators Voluntary Licensure Act” (voluntary act), a private investigator, at his or her option, may apply for a license from the division of professions and occupations (division) in the department of regulatory agencies and, upon satisfaction of the criteria for licensure, the director of the division is to issue a license to the private investigator. Only a person who obtains a license from the division may refer to himself or herself as a licensed private investigator, but no private investigator is required to be licensed by the division.

The bill repeals the voluntary licensure program and creates the “Private Investigators Licensure Act,” which establishes a new mandatory licensure program under which all persons conducting private investigations in this state must obtain a license from the division starting June 1, 2015. The definition of “private investigation”, as it was defined under the voluntary act, is expanded to include investigations pertaining to the following:

  • The location or recovery of lost or stolen property;
  • The affiliation, connection, or relationship of any person, firm, or corporation with any organization, society, or association or with any official, representative, or member of an organization, society, or association;
  • The conduct, honesty, efficiency, loyalty, or activities of employees, persons seeking employment, agents, contractors, or subcontractors; and
  • The identity or apprehension of persons suspected of crimes or misdemeanors.

Under the mandatory licensure program, an applicant may apply for one of two types of licenses as follows:

  • Level I private investigator license, which requires the applicant to be at least 21 years of age, be lawfully present in the United States, and pass a jurisprudence examination to demonstrate his or her knowledge and understanding of laws and rules applicable to the practice; or
  • Level II private investigator license, which requires the applicant to satisfy the requirements applicable to a level I license and have an amount of verifiable, applicable experience as determined by the director.

All private investigator licensees must pass a fingerprint-based background check.

The bill continues the exemptions authorized in the voluntary act and further exempts certain professionals, agencies, and activities from the act, including:

  • Collection and consumer reporting agencies;
  • Certified peace officers;
  • Government-employed investigators;
  • An accountant, certified fraud examiner, or employee or independent contractor of an accountant or fraud examiner who conducts forensic accounting, fraud investigations, or related analysis of financial transactions using information publicly available or supplied to the person;
  • A person serving process in accordance with rules of civil procedure or performing tasks associated with effecting service of process;
  • A licensed attorney, an employee of a licensed attorney, or a person providing paralegal services under contract with a licensed attorney;
  • A person recovering a fugitive; and
  • An agency, and its owner, employee, or independent contractor acting for the agency, that is conducting an investigation of a fire or explosion or an engineer-led investigation for cause analysis and failure analysis.

Licensees are required to post a surety bond in an amount determined by the director by rule. The bill establishes grounds for disciplining licensees, the methods of discipline available to the director, and disciplinary procedure.

The director is authorized to consult with stakeholders to obtain feedback and recommendations concerning the regulation of private investigators and the impacts of new technology on privacy. The director is also granted rule-making authority to implement and administer the act.

The “Private Investigators Licensure Act” and the functions of the director under the act are subject to repeal on Sept. 1, 2020, and prior to the repeal, the department of regulatory agencies is required to conduct a sunset review of the act.

The bill is assigned to the Judiciary Committee; the committee will consider the bill on Wednesday, Feb. 26 at 1:30 p.m.

SB 13-158: Continuing Requirement of Preparation of Cost-Benefit Analyses for Proposes Rules

On Monday, February 4, 2013, Sen. David Balmer introduced SB 13-158 – Concerning the Continuation of the Preparation of Cost-Benefit Analysis of Proposed Rules of Executive Branch Agencies, and, in Connection Therewith, Implementing the Recommendations of the 2012 Sunset Report of the Department of Regulatory Agencies. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill implements the recommendations of the sunset review and report on the requirements and procedures regarding the preparation of a cost-benefit analysis of proposed rules of state agencies, which recommended that the cost-benefit analysis of proposed rules be continued with modifications.

Under current law, an agency proposing rules pursuant to the “State Administrative Procedure Act” (APA) submits a draft of the proposed rules to the executive director of the department of regulatory agencies (DORA) who then determines whether proposed rules may have a negative impact on economic competitiveness or on small business and directs the agency to perform a cost-benefit analysis. The bill shifts the responsibility for deciding whether an agency needs to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of proposed rules from the executive director of DORA to the agency that is proposing rules. If an agency determines that the proposed rules have a significant negative impact on small business, job creation, or economic competitiveness, then the agency must prepare a cost-benefit analysis.

Under current law, the executive director of DORA decides whether a cost-benefit analysis is necessary no later than 20 days prior to the rule-making hearing, and the agency must complete the analysis and submit it to DORA no later than 5 days prior to the hearing, thereby limiting stakeholder input. The bill requires that the agency prepare the cost-benefit analysis prior to issuing the notice of rule-making. The bill requires the agency to submit the cost-benefit analysis and the draft of the proposed rules at the same time that the agency files the notice of rule-making with the secretary of state, thereby providing stakeholders and the public with the cost-benefit analysis and the proposed rules at an earlier time in the rule-making process.

The agency determines the proper methods for the cost-benefit analysis and may consult with representative groups regarding the cost-benefit analysis.

Under current law, a separate section of the APA provides the opportunity for any person, at least 15 days prior to the hearing, to request that the agency prepare a regulatory analysis of a proposed rule, which must be made available to the public at least 5 days prior to the rule-making hearing. The bill requires that the agency prepare a regulatory analysis for proposed rules that do not have a significant impact on small business, job creation, or economic competitiveness and for which the agency is not preparing a cost-benefit analysis. The bill requires that the agency prepare the regulatory analysis prior to issuing the notice of rule-making and to submit the regulatory analysis and the draft of the proposed rules at the same time that the agency files the notice of rule-making with the secretary of state.

The agency is not required to prepare a cost-benefit analysis or a regulatory analysis for proposed rules that implement specific requirements of legislation enacted by the general assembly or that implement requirements of federal law or federal rules.

The bill repeals the requirement that the preparation of the cost-benefit analysis be reviewed in the future through the sunset process. The bill is assigned to the Business, Labor, & Technology Committee.

HB 13-1111: Adding Provisions for the Regulation of Naturopathic Doctors

On January 18, 2013, Rep. Joann Ginal and Sen. Linda Newell introduced HB 13-1111 – Concerning the Regulation of Naturopathic DoctorsThis summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Currently, naturopathic doctors are not regulated by the state and are not required to obtain a license to practice naturopathic medicine in Colorado. The bill requires naturopathic doctors to obtain a license to practice in Colorado on or after Jan. 1, 2014. The newly-created board of naturopathic medicine in the department of regulatory agencies (department) is tasked with all functions necessary to regulate naturopathic doctors, including adopting rules, establishing application procedures, approving education and training, and disciplining naturopathic doctors.

To be licensed by the state, a naturopathic doctor must:

  • Be at least 21 years of age;
  • Have a bachelor’s degree and a doctor of naturopathy degree from an approved naturopathic medical college;
  • Pass a competency-based naturopathic licensing examination; and
  • Not have had a license to practice as a naturopathic doctor or other health care license, registration, or certification refused, revoked, or suspended by another jurisdiction.

The bill prohibits a licensed naturopathic doctor from engaging in certain acts such as:

  • Prescribing, dispensing, administering, or injecting a controlled substance or device;
  • Performing surgical procedures;
  • Practicing the profession of, holding oneself out as, or claiming to be another licensed health care professional;
  • Using general or spinal anesthetics; or
  • Administering ionizing radioactive substances for therapeutic purposes.

Naturopathic doctors are required to make certain written disclosures to their patients, obtain a written acknowledgment from the patient that he or she has received the disclosures, and maintain the patient’s acknowledgment for seven years after services are rendered to the patient. Additionally, naturopathic doctors are to recommend that patients seeking treatment for cancer consult with an oncologist.

The bill grants title protection to licensed naturopathic doctors and creates penalties for unauthorized practice as a naturopathic doctor. The bill also establishes grounds for disciplining a licensed naturopathic doctor and sets forth the methods of and procedures for disciplining a licensee.

Naturopathic doctors are required to obtain professional liability insurance and are responsible for their acts and omissions in the practice of naturopathic medicine. Certain health care providers are shielded from liability resulting from a naturopathic doctor’s practice of naturopathic medicine but are liable for grossly negligent, willful, or wanton acts or omissions of a naturopathic doctor with whom they have a business or supervisory relationship.

The licensing of naturopathic doctors is subject to sunset review by the department and is set to repeal on Sept. 1, 2019. On Feb. 14, the Health, Insurance & Environment Committee amended the bill and sent it to the Finance Committee.

HB 13-1065: Allowing Professional Persons Licensed in Other States to Provide Mental Health Services

On January 9, 2013, Rep. Amy Stephens and Sen. Nancy Todd introduced HB 13-1065 – Concerning the Definition of Professional Persons under the Mental Health StatutesThis summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

As amended in the House, the bill amends the definition of “professional person,” for purposes of providing care and treatment to persons with a mental illness, to include a person who is providing medical or clinical services at a treatment facility in Colorado that is operated by the United States and who is licensed to practice medicine in another state or is a psychologist certified to practice in another state. The bill was approved by the House on February 4 and is assigned to the Health and Human Services Committee in the Senate.

HB 12-1210: Allowing a Person Who Holds a Professional License in Another State to Practice in Colorado

On January 30, 2012, Rep. Don Beezley and Sen. Cheri Jahn introduced HB 12-1210 – Concerning the Recognition of Professionals in Good Standing from Other States to Practice in Colorado. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill allows a person with a currently valid license, certificate, or registration (licensed, certificated or registered under 24-34-102 Division of Registrations) in good standing from another state to practice his or her profession in this state for up to nine months before the person has to meet the licensing, certification, or registration requirements in Colorado. For the person to be eligible to practice in this state, he or she shall have no other basis for disqualification from practice other than the lack of a license, certificate, or registration and shall apply for a license, certificate, or registration within 30 days after engaging in practice in Colorado. The bill prohibits a person from exceeding the scope of practice of this state and the state in which the license, certificate, or registration was issued. If a license, certificate, or registration is denied because education requirements are not met, the applicant is allowed up to one year to meet the requirements. The professional practicing in this state is required to disclose his or her license in writing in advance to any client or customer. Optometrists, physicians, and physician assistants are exempt from the bill. The bill passed 3rd and final reading in the House on February 29 and has been assigned to the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.