Current through September 17, 2024
The Nebraska Regulation of Health Professions Act sets out
criteria for the regulation of a profession not currently allowed to practice
in Nebraska. These are professions currently not credentialed and currently not
allowed to practice in Nebraska. The review body must determine whether the
following criteria are met.
004.01
CRITERION ONE. Absence of a separate regulated
profession creates a situation of harm or danger to the health, safety, or
welfare of the public. The review body must apply the following standards in
determining whether this criterion is met:
(A)
The public is suffering harm or danger, which is clearly and directly
attributable to the absence of the separately regulated health profession under
review, and that this harm or danger is of sufficient magnitude to warrant
state intervention.
(B) The
Documentation of harm or danger to the public must be sufficient to demonstrate
that the harm or danger is clear, that it is attributable to the absence of the
separate regulated health profession in question. Evaluation of harm or danger
is based on the highest level of evidence available.
(C) Harm or danger to the health, safety, or
welfare of the public may occur in physical, emotional, or social contexts and
as such all of these can be considered.
(D) Harm or danger to the public must be of
sufficient extent and severity to warrant governmental intervention. A certain
level of harm or danger attributable to human error and uncontrollable factors
will always occur within any health care field.
004.02
CRITERION TWO.
Creation of a separate regulated profession would not create a
significant new danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The
review body must apply the following standards in determining whether this
criterion is met:
(A) Any harm or danger that
might result from the creation of the separate regulated profession would not
be outweighed by the benefits of providing legal access to the profession in
question.
(B) Documentation of harm
or danger to the public must be sufficient to demonstrate that the harm or
danger is clear, that it is attributable to the creation of the separate
regulated profession in question, and that it is serious and extensive.
Evaluation of harm or danger is based on the highest level of evidence
available.
(C) Evidence supporting
the status guo must clearly demonstrate how and why this situation protects the
public from harm or danger.
(D)
Evidence must show the benefits of creating the new regulated health profession
clearly to be greater in extent and impact than any harm or danger that would
be created.
(E) If regulation of
the profession would require a scope of practice to be defined, the scope of
practice must be coordinated with those of regulated professions to minimize
fragmentation of the health care system.
(F) Regulation of the profession must not
lead to unnecessary limitations on the utilization of personnel by employers or
to underutilization of qualified personnel.
(G) Regulation of the profession must not
result in an unnecessary reduction in competition.
004.03
CRITERION THREE.
Creation of a separate regulated profession would benefit the
health, safety, or welfare of the public. The review body must use the
following to determine if this criterion is met.
(A) The creation of a separate regulated
profession would likely produce widespread benefits for the public, and that
the amount and extent of the benefits would outweigh any possible harm or
danger that might be caused by creating this newly credentialed and legalized
profession.
(B) Documentation of
benefits to the public must be sufficient to demonstrate that there is a
realistic expectation of their occurrence following enactment of the desired
legislation, and that they will be of significant amount and extent. Evaluation
of benefits to the public is based on the highest level of evidence
available.
(C) The extent and
amount of benefit to the public must clearly outweigh any potential harm or
danger to the public that might be brought about by the creation of a separate
regulated profession.
(D) Benefits
to the public may occur in physical, emotional, economic, or social contexts
and as such all of these can be considered.
(E) Whether the education and training
requirements set forth in the proposal are necessary and adeguate for safe and
effective practice.
004.04
CRITERION
FOUR. The public cannot be protected by a more effective
alternative. The review body must determine whether:
(A) The creation of the separately regulated
profession would be an effective remedy to the harm or danger identified, and
that no other evident means of dealing with this harm or danger, including the
status guo, would provide a more effective alternative.
(B) Viable alternatives to the proposal have
been identified and, if available, if the alternative are able to address the
same harm or danger raised in the applicant proposal.
(C) Evidence supporting the proposal shows
that its enactment would clearly, specifically, and directly solve or alleviate
the problems, including harm or danger to the public, that are used to justify
the application.
(D) Protection of
the public must be interpreted as protecting it both from any harm or danger
caused by absence of the profession, and from any harm or danger caused by
permitting the separate practice of the profession.
(E) Any and all evident alternatives to the
proposal might provide the same or greater problem-solving potential as the
proposal, while being more cost-effective or less restrictive. Alternatives may
include different levels or types of state credentialing or regulation of the
profession, maintenance of the status guo, and other potential solutions.
Reviewers are not limited to evaluating only alternatives presented to them by
the applicant group; they can actively seek to identify and analyze potential
alternatives. The recommendations of the reviewing body must reflect their best
assessment of the most likely solution to the problems identified.
(F) The costs of the proposal, and of any
alternatives considered, must be evaluated for unnessessary financial burden to
the public.