OBMI Board Meeting Notes - April 22, 2017

New Business:

1. Proposed rule to establish civil penalty schedule for employing an unlicensed person to perform imaging.  

• OBMI is drafting a proposal to fine facilities for employing an unlicensed person.  They voted to accept a proposal which would fine institutions based on the number of individual patients served.  The proposed fee schedule is as follows:
• • $5,000 if service was provided to no more than 50 patients.
  • $10,000 if service is provided to 51-100 individual patients
  • $20,000 if service is provided to 101-150 individual patients
  • $30,000 if service is provided to 151-200 individual patients
  • $50,000 if service is provided to more than 200 individual patients
• There was discussion on this as one of the board members felt like the fines were too harsh especially considering rural organizations, but the board ruled to proceed with the proposal noting the penalties need to be significant enough to detour facilities from using non licensed employees to operate imaging equipment.
  
• I asked if this would apply to current situation of APRN's reportedly using fluoroscopy while performing pain management injections and the reply was yes.
• Next steps:  This will go to public comment.  

2. Five year review of specified administrative rules, in accordance with ORS 183.405.

This was just a procedural item as they must review their administrative rules every 5 years.  No discussion to note.  

3.  Proposed policy for handling public records requests

• Policy on how to request public records including fees to obtain public records was approved.  Currently OBMI will only release the name and address of a licensee.  

4. Planning future election of Board Chair and Vice-Chair.

• This was an informational item from Ed that there will upcoming elections so for those board members who might be interested in serving ad chair or vice chair, they should let Ed know.

Old Business:

1. CT waiver request – follow-up question following the Board’s January action on CT waivers.

• Last meeting there was a request for a CT waiver from a rural hospital which was denied.  A CT tech from this facility has attempted to take her CT registry with ARRT three times and has failed.  ARRT will not allow her to sit for another test, but OBMI could sponsor her to take the ARRT test which would apply to Oregon only.  Meaning if she were to pass the exam administered by OBMI, but written by ARRT she would only be allowed to practice at her specific site and in Oregon.  She would not be able to practice anywhere else and would not be considered ARRT registered.  
• The board had mixed feelings on allowing her to test for a 4th time.
• Currently the facility has 9 CT techs.
• Next steps:   The board requesting the site prove that not having her employed has created a hardship.

2. Board action regarding possible rulemaking regarding supervision of temporary limited permit holders

• The rulemaking is still in process for supervision and the board suggested that the RAC meet again to clean up some of the language on the proposal.  
• Tom King reported an inspection with Pioneer Pacific's LXMO program in Wilsonville and it passed inspection.  He mentioned their organization of student records was lacking and the rooms were very messy which was concerning to him if students were picking up on these habits.  
• They held student interviews which reflected the organization concerns from instructors.  
• There was also much discussion on the extremely low pass rates and Rick Hoylman said these scores were unacceptable and the schools should be held accountable.
• Next steps:  Tom will continue to inspect LXMO schools and the board put in a request to the board's attorney to see if OBMI has the authority to hold the school accountable to their low registry scores. The attorney will investigate whether or not the board can step in and consider issuing sanctions against LXMO who have poor registry pass rates.  

3. APRNs providing verbal instructions during fluoroscopy procedure—update on SB 801.

• SB 801 legislation was pulled.  There has been no contact from ONA on the proposal.  

4.  Update on OBMI’s legislative concepts for the 2017 session in Salem. 

• HB 2267 for Opthalmic Sonography was signed by the Governor.  

5. Update on legislative action on the OBMI budget for the upcoming 2017-19 biennium.

• Informational only.  Nothing noted.  

The June 2016 issue of the Oregon Board of Medical Imaging newsletter is available now on the OBMI website. Articles include: 

• Beginning in 2017, you must have CT credential to perform computed tomography

• Rule proposed to establish a four dollar renewal surcharge to pay for health workforce database
  
• Board sponsors five legislative proposals for the 2017 session in Salem
  

• Volunteer to serve on the board of medical imaging
  

 You can find the newsletter here: http://www.oregon.gov/OBMI/docs/Newsletter-OBMI-June-2016.pdf

OBMI meeting held April 22, 2016

1. A privately owned orthopedic clinic out of Eugene made a request for an exemption to the CT credentialing requirement for R.T.s who operate low-dose CT equipment. Their facility has been researching a low-dose, weight bearing CT scanner for feet and ankles only. Due to the low radiation dose and the limited number of studies they would likely order, at least initially, the physicians in their group wondered if they could allow an RT to do the scanning at that machine in lieu of a credentialed CT technologist.

2. Following a random inspection of limited licensing educational facilities; the question arose if the students in these programs are being appropriately supervised during the clinical portion of their training. It was brought to the attention of the board that a number of years ago the state law was changed to indicate that students of limited licensed programs must apply for and pass the ARRT certification exam and then obtain a temporary permit from the OBMI before being allowed to enter the clinical part if their training. See OR Statue 337-010-0030

3. There was a suggestion during the public comment session to request that OBMI remove the need for applicants to disclose that they have had an arrest. Currently the board requires applicants to disclose arrest, convictions, warrants, etc. The person requesting this change felt that if an applicant wasn’t actually convicted of a charge then they shouldn't have to disclose the related arrest. However, from the board’s perspective applicants are being asked to honestly disclose all the information and as long as the background check lines up with what has been provided there is no further action taken by the board. This is more of an issue about integrity and disclosing the whole truth.

Upcoming OBMI meetings:

July 22, 2016

October 21. 2016

https://www.oregon.gov/OBMI/Pages/index.aspx