Skip to main content

Florida Bill That Would Ease Physician/Nurse Practitioner Supervisory Requirements Would Benefit States’ Health Care Consumers

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission has sent comments to Florida State Representative Daphne Campbell, at her request, regarding House Bill (H.B) 4103, which would remove some of the constraints on the supervisory arrangements between doctors and advanced registered nurse practitioners (ARNPs) that are now required under Florida law. According to the comments, the proposed bill appears to represent a pro-competitive improvement in the law – one that is likely to benefit Florida health care consumers.

H.B. 4103 would rescind certain restrictive supervision requirements for ARNPs and physician assistants in Florida that were adopted in 2006, while retaining the general supervision requirements that predate the 2006 legislation. According to the FTC staff’s comments, the 2006 legislation imposed administrative costs and other restrictions on doctors who supervise ARNPs. By removing some of these restrictions, H.B. 4103 is likely to reduce the costs of basic health care services provided by ARNPs, and some of those cost savings may be passed on to Florida health care consumers. In addition, the bill would make it easier for health care providers to offer basic health care through ARNP-staffed clinics. For those reasons, the FTC staff agrees with the Florida Department of Health, which found that H.B. 4103 “would allow more access to healthcare.”

The Commission vote approving the staff comments was 5-0. They were sent to Florida State Representative Campbell on March 23, 2011. Copies of the comments can be found now on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. V110004; the staff contact is Daniel J. Gilman, Office of Policy Planning, 202-326-3136.)

Copies of the document mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180


(FYI 17.2011.wpd)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...