State medical board regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures

Samreen Choudhry, Natalie A. Kim, Jason Gillum, Sukanya Ambavaram, Ernie Williamson, Simon S Yoo, Robert P. Dellavalle, Murad Alam*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There is little information regarding commonalities, differences, and trends in the regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures (MICP) across different state medical boards in the United States. Objective: We sought to assess current state medical board regulations regarding MICP, so as to better understand current and emerging trends in rules regarding delegation, and management of patient complaints. Methods: We conducted structured interviews with officials at US allopathic medical boards, supplemented with information from board World Wide Web sites. Results: A total of 31 (62%) boards participated. Most (20 boards; 63% of total respondents) reported that all MICP can be delegated at the physician's discretion and responsibility to at least one category of nonphysician; 7 states were expecting changes in delegation rules; and 4 states had very specific delegation requirements. Approximately equal numbers of boards required some general supervision of nonphysicians (14, 45%), or required some type of on-site supervision (13, 42%); a small number explicitly permitted off-site supervision (4, 13%). There was variation in the number of physician assistants one physician could supervise. Most boards (15 states) required some type of mandatory reporting, but not necessarily of incidents involving MICP. Very few (4) required reporting of both office- and nonoffice-based MICP incidents. Western states had liberal delegation and supervision requirements; these requirements were more stringent in Southern states. Limitations: Not all boards participated in this study. Conclusion: There is substantial variation in board regulation of MICP. Many boards are promulgating new rules. Medical boards also have limited ability to regulate nonphysicians.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)86-91
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Volume66
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2012

Fingerprint

Cosmetics
Mandatory Reporting
Physicians
Physician Assistants
Internet
Interviews

Keywords

  • botulinum toxins
  • dermatology
  • formal
  • lasers
  • physician assistants
  • social control

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dermatology

Cite this

Choudhry, Samreen ; Kim, Natalie A. ; Gillum, Jason ; Ambavaram, Sukanya ; Williamson, Ernie ; Yoo, Simon S ; Dellavalle, Robert P. ; Alam, Murad. / State medical board regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. In: Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2012 ; Vol. 66, No. 1. pp. 86-91.
@article{a898b09f34c548babce6d7039a8160f9,
title = "State medical board regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures",
abstract = "Background: There is little information regarding commonalities, differences, and trends in the regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures (MICP) across different state medical boards in the United States. Objective: We sought to assess current state medical board regulations regarding MICP, so as to better understand current and emerging trends in rules regarding delegation, and management of patient complaints. Methods: We conducted structured interviews with officials at US allopathic medical boards, supplemented with information from board World Wide Web sites. Results: A total of 31 (62{\%}) boards participated. Most (20 boards; 63{\%} of total respondents) reported that all MICP can be delegated at the physician's discretion and responsibility to at least one category of nonphysician; 7 states were expecting changes in delegation rules; and 4 states had very specific delegation requirements. Approximately equal numbers of boards required some general supervision of nonphysicians (14, 45{\%}), or required some type of on-site supervision (13, 42{\%}); a small number explicitly permitted off-site supervision (4, 13{\%}). There was variation in the number of physician assistants one physician could supervise. Most boards (15 states) required some type of mandatory reporting, but not necessarily of incidents involving MICP. Very few (4) required reporting of both office- and nonoffice-based MICP incidents. Western states had liberal delegation and supervision requirements; these requirements were more stringent in Southern states. Limitations: Not all boards participated in this study. Conclusion: There is substantial variation in board regulation of MICP. Many boards are promulgating new rules. Medical boards also have limited ability to regulate nonphysicians.",
keywords = "botulinum toxins, dermatology, formal, lasers, physician assistants, social control",
author = "Samreen Choudhry and Kim, {Natalie A.} and Jason Gillum and Sukanya Ambavaram and Ernie Williamson and Yoo, {Simon S} and Dellavalle, {Robert P.} and Murad Alam",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaad.2011.01.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "86--91",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology",
issn = "0190-9622",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "1",

}

State medical board regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. / Choudhry, Samreen; Kim, Natalie A.; Gillum, Jason; Ambavaram, Sukanya; Williamson, Ernie; Yoo, Simon S; Dellavalle, Robert P.; Alam, Murad.

In: Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Vol. 66, No. 1, 01.01.2012, p. 86-91.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - State medical board regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures

AU - Choudhry, Samreen

AU - Kim, Natalie A.

AU - Gillum, Jason

AU - Ambavaram, Sukanya

AU - Williamson, Ernie

AU - Yoo, Simon S

AU - Dellavalle, Robert P.

AU - Alam, Murad

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - Background: There is little information regarding commonalities, differences, and trends in the regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures (MICP) across different state medical boards in the United States. Objective: We sought to assess current state medical board regulations regarding MICP, so as to better understand current and emerging trends in rules regarding delegation, and management of patient complaints. Methods: We conducted structured interviews with officials at US allopathic medical boards, supplemented with information from board World Wide Web sites. Results: A total of 31 (62%) boards participated. Most (20 boards; 63% of total respondents) reported that all MICP can be delegated at the physician's discretion and responsibility to at least one category of nonphysician; 7 states were expecting changes in delegation rules; and 4 states had very specific delegation requirements. Approximately equal numbers of boards required some general supervision of nonphysicians (14, 45%), or required some type of on-site supervision (13, 42%); a small number explicitly permitted off-site supervision (4, 13%). There was variation in the number of physician assistants one physician could supervise. Most boards (15 states) required some type of mandatory reporting, but not necessarily of incidents involving MICP. Very few (4) required reporting of both office- and nonoffice-based MICP incidents. Western states had liberal delegation and supervision requirements; these requirements were more stringent in Southern states. Limitations: Not all boards participated in this study. Conclusion: There is substantial variation in board regulation of MICP. Many boards are promulgating new rules. Medical boards also have limited ability to regulate nonphysicians.

AB - Background: There is little information regarding commonalities, differences, and trends in the regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures (MICP) across different state medical boards in the United States. Objective: We sought to assess current state medical board regulations regarding MICP, so as to better understand current and emerging trends in rules regarding delegation, and management of patient complaints. Methods: We conducted structured interviews with officials at US allopathic medical boards, supplemented with information from board World Wide Web sites. Results: A total of 31 (62%) boards participated. Most (20 boards; 63% of total respondents) reported that all MICP can be delegated at the physician's discretion and responsibility to at least one category of nonphysician; 7 states were expecting changes in delegation rules; and 4 states had very specific delegation requirements. Approximately equal numbers of boards required some general supervision of nonphysicians (14, 45%), or required some type of on-site supervision (13, 42%); a small number explicitly permitted off-site supervision (4, 13%). There was variation in the number of physician assistants one physician could supervise. Most boards (15 states) required some type of mandatory reporting, but not necessarily of incidents involving MICP. Very few (4) required reporting of both office- and nonoffice-based MICP incidents. Western states had liberal delegation and supervision requirements; these requirements were more stringent in Southern states. Limitations: Not all boards participated in this study. Conclusion: There is substantial variation in board regulation of MICP. Many boards are promulgating new rules. Medical boards also have limited ability to regulate nonphysicians.

KW - botulinum toxins

KW - dermatology

KW - formal

KW - lasers

KW - physician assistants

KW - social control

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=83655163883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=83655163883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.01.009

DO - 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.01.009

M3 - Article

VL - 66

SP - 86

EP - 91

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

SN - 0190-9622

IS - 1

ER -