State medical board regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures

• Published in: Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology Vol. 66; no. 1; pp. 86 - 91
• Main Authors: Choudhry, Samreen, BA, Kim, Natalie A., BA, Gillum, Jason, JD, Ambavaram, Sukanya, MD, Williamson, Ernie, MD, Yoo, Simon, MD, Dellavalle, Robert P., MD, PhD, MSPH, Alam, Murad, MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Mosby, Inc 01-01-2012; Elsevier
• Subjects: Allied Health Personnel; Biological and medical sciences; botulinum toxins; Cosmetic Techniques - standards; Dermatology; formal; Humans; lasers; Mandatory Reporting; Medical sciences; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - standards; physician assistants; social control; Specialty Boards; United States; United States; formal; lasers; physician assistants; dermatology; botulinum toxins; social control; Dermatology; Regulation(control)
• ISSN: 0190-9622; 1097-6787
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.01.009

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.