No. 35370 (5-year Review): Rule R156-71. Naturopathic Physician Practice Act Rule

DAR File No.: 35370
Filed: 10/20/2011 04:21:49 PM

NOTICE OF REVIEW AND STATEMENT OF CONTINUATION

Concise explanation of the particular statutory provisions under which the rule is enacted and how these provisions authorize or require the rule:

Title 58, Chapter 71, provides for the licensure of naturopathic physicians. Subsection 58-1-106(1)(a) provides that the Division may adopt and enforce rules to administer Title 58. Subsection 58-71-201(3)(a) provides that the Naturopathic Physician Licensing Board's duties and responsibilities shall be in accordance with Section 58-1-202. Subsection 58-1-202(1)(a) provides that one of the duties of each board is to recommend appropriate rules to the Division Director. This rule was enacted to clarify the provisions of Title 58, Chapter 71, with respect to naturopathic physicians.

Summary of written comments received during and since the last five-year review of the rule from interested persons supporting or opposing the rule:

Since this rule was last reviewed in 2007, it has been amended several times. The Division received a 06/01/2010 email from Michelle S. McOmber, Utah Medical Association, in which they opposed some of the proposed amendments to the naturopathic formulary listing in this rule. The Division also received the following written comments in which all supported the proposed amendments to the naturopathic formulary and provided reasons why the proposed amendments to the formulary should be made effective: a 06/12/2010 email from Benton Bramwell, ND; a 06/16/2010 email from Matthew Burnett, ND; a 06/16/2010 email from Jeff Wright, ND; and a 06/24/2010 email from Alisa Bangerter. The Division and the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Board reviewed and considered the written comments received and made the proposed amendments to the rule effective with no further changes. No other written comments have been received by the Division with respect to this rule since the last five-year review conducted in January 2007.

Reasoned justification for continuation of the rule, including reasons why the agency disagrees with comments in opposition to the rule, if any:

With respect to the opposing comments to proposed rule amendments which would allow licensed naturopathic physicians to prescribe various noncontrolled substance medications, including antidepressants, which were submitted by Michelle S. McOmber, Utah Medical Association, and Utah Psychiatric Association as referenced above, the Division's Director Mark Steinagel in a 06/29/2010 email to Ms. McOmber informed her that their association's comments had been distributed to members of the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Board at its June 2010 meeting. His email to Ms. McOmber continued that he had requested the naturopathic physician community to submit their comments in response. Mr. Steinagel's goal was to get as much information as possible that allow him to make an informed decisions with respect to the proposed rule amendments. He further indicated in the 06/29/2010 email to Ms. McOmber: "It is apparent to me from everyone's comments that there is some difference of opinion regarding the purpose and scope of the naturopathic physician practice. My goal is to review the rule at had and decide whether it meets statute. Based on my review, I can summarize the issue this way: (1) The Legislature created a license for naturopathic physicians with a different scope of practice from physicians or osteopathic physicians. (2) Natural medicine is defined in statute and includes the prescription of drugs: (i) that, except as provided in Subsection (8)(e) are not controlled substances as defined in Section 58-37-2; (ii) the prescription of which is consistent with the competent practice of naturopathic medicine; and (iii) the prescription of which is approved by the division in collaboration with the naturopathic formulary advisory peer committee. (3) The proposed rule change appears to meet (i) and (iii) so the main question is whether the prescription is consistent with the competent practice of naturopathic medicine. (4) The comments on either side of the issue seem to focus on the education and experience that a naturopathic physician receives and whether that education and experience prepare the naturopathic physician to prescribe these drugs." Following Mr. Steinagel's receipt of additional written comments from various members of the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Board in support of the proposed rule amendments as referenced above, he determined on behalf of the Division that the education and scope of practice of naturopathic physicians supported making the proposed rule amendments effective with no further changes despite the written comments in opposition submitted by the Utah Medical Association/Utah Psychiatric Association. This rule should be continued as it provides a mechanism to inform potential licensees of the requirements for licensure as allowed under statutory authority provided in Title 58, Chapter 71, with respect to naturopathic physicians. The rule should also be continued as it provides information to ensure applicants for licensure are adequately trained and meet minimum licensure requirements and provides licensees with information concerning unprofessional conduct, definitions, and ethical standards relating to the profession.

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Commerce
Occupational and Professional Licensing
HEBER M WELLS BLDG
160 E 300 S
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-2316

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

• Sally Stewart at the above address, by phone at 801-530-6179, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

Authorized by:

Mark Steinagel, Director

Effective:

10/20/2011

---