1117 Notice of comments issued  

  • INDEPENDENT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION

    Notice of Comments Issued

    [32 Pa.B. 3050]

       Section 5(d) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(d)) provides that the designated standing Committees may issue comments within 20 days of the close of the public comment period, and the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) may issue comments within 10 days of the close of the Committee comment period. The Commission comments are based upon the criteria contained in section 5.1(h) and (i) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(h) and (i)).

       The Commission has issued comments on the following proposed regulation. The agency must consider these comments in preparing the final-form regulation. The final-form regulation must be submitted within 2 years of the close of the public comment period or it will be deemed withdrawn.

    Close of
    the PublicIRRC
    CommentComments
    Reg. No. Agency/Title Period Issued
    16A-539 State Board of
       Osteopathic Medicine
       Sexual Misconduct
    5/6/02 6/7/02
    (32 Pa.B. 1734 (April 6, 2002))

    ____

    State Board of Osteopathic Medicine Regulation No. 16A-539
    Sexual Misconduct
    June 7, 2002

       We submit for consideration the following objections and recommendations regarding this regulation. Each objection or recommendation includes a reference to the criteria in the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(h) and (i)) which have not been met. The State Board of Osteopathic Medicine (Board) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within 2 years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.

       We note that this regulation is identical to the State Board of Medicine's Regulation #16A-497 relating to sexual misconduct. We continue to have concerns with the same issues and as a result, our comments on the proposed regulations are similar.

    1.  Section 25.215. Sexual misconduct.--Clarity.

    General

       As proposed, § 25.215 contains both definitions and substantive regulatory provisions. To be consistent with regulatory framework existing in Chapter 25, the Board should create two separate sections. The definitions should remain in § 25.215. The substantive provisions should be placed in a separate section following the definitions.

    Subsection (a)

       This subsection defines ''immediate family member.'' It is unclear if the phrase ''other family member'' contained in the definition includes a relationship by blood, marriage or law. In addition, the inclusion of the phrase, ''with whom a patient resides'' in the definition limits the scope of this regulation. Finally, the definition does not address a patient's relationships with nonfamily members.

    Subsection (b)

       This subsection refers to ''Board regulated practitioner.'' The Board should define ''Board regulated practitioner'' by adding the term to the definitions section and referencing section 271.2 of the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act (63 P. S. § 271.2).

    Subsections (b)--(d)

       These subsections include the phrase ''and subjects the practitioner to disciplinary action.'' Where can the disciplinary action be found? A cross-reference to the appropriate citation for disciplinary action should be provided in the subsections.

    Subsection (d)

       The Board uses the phrase ''mental health disorder'' in this subsection. The meaning of this phrase is vague. The regulation should either define or reference the categories of mental health disorders. For instance, the Board could refer to patients who are diagnosed under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--IV (DSM-IV) or subsequent publications.

    2.  Behavioral examples.--Clarity.

       A commentator noted that the regulations proposed by the State Board of Medicine and the Board were too vague and provided several scenarios in which innocent behavior would be in violation of the regulation. Given this possibility, the Board should consider providing examples of the type of behavior it considers inappropriate.

    JOHN R. MCGINLEY, Jr.,   
    Chairperson

    [Pa.B. Doc. No. 02-1117. Filed for public inspection June 21, 2002, 9:00 a.m.]

Document Information