Proposed Changes in Law for Washington State Laser

I decided to perform a search on the Washington State Legislature for proposed law changes in Laser Hair Removal and found that there are law changes.

Defines Laser, light, radio-frequency & plasma (LLRP Devices) as Medical Devices

Provides that a Physician or Physician Assistant must use LLRP device in accordance with standard medical practice.

Use of an LLRP device is the practice of medicine.

Requires Physician or PA to be trained in physics, safety & techniques prior to using device

Physician or PA must take patient’s medical history, perform Physical examination, Make an appropriate diagnosis, recommend appropriate treatment, obtain patient’s informed consent including instructions that a non-physician may operate the LLRP. Provide instructions for emergency and Follow Up care, and prepare medical record prior to authorizing treatment with such a device.

Does permit a physician or PA to delegate use of the device to a properly trained & licensed professional under certain circumstances, but Physician or PA must develop a specific protocol for the professional to follow

Prohibits physician from delegating LLRP for use on the globe of the eye.

Requires delegating physician to be on the immediate premises during the initial treatment.

Physician may be temporarily absent during treatments with established patients, provided a local back up physician agrees in writing to treat complications and is reachable by phone and can see patient within 1 hour.

Physician’s Assistant must be on the premises during all treatments with LLRP.

Regardless of who operates LLRP, the physician is responsible for the patients safety.

Physician must establish a QA program

Use of devices to penetrate & alter human tissue other than to topically penetrate the skin constitutes surgery and is outside the scope of these rules.


I am wondering how these rule changes compare to the laws of other states.

You can view Ohio’s laser hair removal rules by clicking below and going to page 8-9:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:-HQPwS4qXuIJ:www.med.ohio.gov/pdf/Newsletters/Winter04.pdf+your+report+winter+spring+2004&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

I could pursue certification for using laser since I’m already licensed in two out of four classes of people that can operate a laser in Ohio. My electrologist license is under the tiltle C.T. meaning, Cosmetic Therapist. So, if I take a 50 hour course, I can operate a laser under the wing of a physician. I also have an active registered nurse license and R.N.'s are another group that can operate a laser under a physicians wing. The other two catogories are LPN (licensed practical nurse) which I use to be years ago and physicians assistant. They can also operate a light based apparatus, with a 50 hour course under their belt.

I’m glad it has been defined who can operate a laser in the state of Ohio as there was much confusion in the beginning when laser was catching fire.

Dee

The whole issue revolves around a number of particulars.

First, many states lump all laser procedures into the same bucket, regardless of the effect of the laser. So an ablative laser is the same as a non-ablative laser. Or, as in Ohio, they lump lasers in with plasma devices. Yet, the data is clear that there are significant differences between laser applications.

Second, much of the current regulatory climate for laser hair removal can be traced to the American Society of Dermatologic Surgeons who have gone on an active campaign across the country to limit the non-physician use of lasers. Though they talk about “patient safety” in private meetings it is really about turf and economic issues.

Third, because the ASDS is composed of physicians they have been able to subvert the physician licensing system (which is composed of physicians) to support their position.

Finally, it is interesting that there is no real push to bring electrolysis under the same umbrella. It would be hard to do because historically electrolysis has been around for a number of years and there are many court cases throughout the country that affirm a person’s right to have electrolysis and specifically deny it as the practice of medicine. The other reason there has been no real push is that there is no compelling economic reason for physicians to want to be in that arena. They are content to leave it alone. But here is the kicker, other than the mechanism of delivery (needles versus laser) what is the real difference between electrolysis and laser hair removal? I would argue, that it isn’t much. Not enough to call one the practice of medicine and the other not the practice of medicine.

But aren’t these the same people who have made it practice of medicine without a license to make, or sell a piece of leather between two popcicle sticks as a toe straightener/stretcher, as doing so could correct a hammer toe, and deny some physician the reward of a costly joint replacement surgery?

Aren’t these the same people who force companies making DMSO to lable it as if contact with human skin would make it melt and sizzle, when it is in fact the base element in many medications?

Arent these the same people who tried and failed to make ALL VITAMINS PPRESCRIPTION ONLY?

Yeah, its all about the money and limiting access.