Advocacy Matters

Dear Fellow FSPS Members:

This past week was a momentous one for Florida Plastic Surgery, both in the courts and in the legislature.

FSPS Opposes Unsupervised Nurses Injecting Fillers

The FSPS this week filed a Motion to Intervene in a Board of Nursing Declaratory Statement. The FSPS position is that Florida law does not support a registered nurse injecting facial fillers without the direct supervision and involvement of a supervising physician.

Florida House Moves Major Legislation
While the Florida Senate this week addressed only budgetary items, the House was busy working on several pieces of major legislation.

In the House Quality Committee, the Committee voted to move forward with a bill that would allow certain ARNPs to practice without physician supervision and would allow out-of-state Telemedicine providers to practice without being held accountable to the Florida Board of Medicine. We opposed both such provisions and continue to work with the sponsor on the legislation.

In better news, the same Committee advanced FSPS-supported legislation that would allow the responsible use of a single opiate during Level I office procedures if (and only if) emergency medications were available. The Senate Health Policy Committee will address the same issue next Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the House Innovation Subcommittee passed legislation to allow for the establishment of physician-owned Recovery Care Centers.

All in all, it has been quite a week, and next week promises to be just as exciting, as both the House and Senate will address legislation banning mid-year formulary changes, while the Senate will tackle legislation that would make HMOs liable for medical malpractice to the extent that they dictate care and other legislation that would ban retroactive denials.

11th Circuit Rules Ban on Physician Free Speech re Guns Unconstitutional
In a major decision for all professional free speech, the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday ruled that Florida’s ban on physician’s speaking to their patients regarding guns was a violation of the physician’s First Amendment Right to Free Speech. While the Court did uphold a portion of the law that prohibits discrimination based upon a patient’s gun ownership (a point that was not disputed by the plaintiffs), all but one judge agreed that restrictions on what a physician and patients discuss are a violation of the First Amendment.

As of press time, the Scott administration is considering whether to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The FSPS will continue to keep you informed as events transpire. Should you have any questions or need help finding a qualified risk manager, please contact:

General Counsel 

Chris Nuland at nulandlaw@aol.com