[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6208746,"mediaKeyId","3740829-3e9b807a140668a626ba9252ecebc893","parentId",3740829,"title","Board takes positions on several bills — supports AB260, AB836, AB876 and AB1400; opposes AB985","audioSeconds",2643,"startMs",6661000,"endMs",9304000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3740829-3e9b807a140668a626ba9252ecebc893&start=6661&end=9304","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3740829-3e9b807a140668a626ba9252ecebc893/thumbnail_6661000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6208746/California/Board-takes-positions-on-several-bills-supports-AB260-AB836-AB876-and-AB1400-opposes-AB985","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208746-e2b5fd805a2f45a0346d3409440e61b3/orig.mp4?Expires=1773737106&Signature=hNtIIJANe5GlECmo8-0cSOHfAR5ZyW9sQQ~p335S5fIrReMnD5-mSZLfS56VZ3Vpz0QxzChBwFqK9Rd~zl3HsYdRdVTXHdi9FgcVi7q6Lr5Prn3uXAA-klB66-8xKUL-IuaHH1bJjQpPVk0QOMvOJ7rRVjOwOmoSwovgy~3pfsKUOSN0ZDUH6ScnPZ6p04z4aQtNbqM5Nt89wpkj37lQPb3X6tXJbgQo64i360py8zR3-cbyCEkzqDxRdl-7QuPn3DdzGpPBqMPGvZJ4SaRJBcbHVhK~scFDTYZmumrfcwZ8KZjwxCzRsptRDT9QdmTAcsQvsACB~Q~iQ~0X78fXjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California Board of Registered Nursing","date","2025-06-10T16:55:55.213Z","article","The California Board of Registered Nursing reviewed a slate of health‑sector bills May 29 and took formal positions after committee discussion and public comment.

Votes and actions recorded at the meeting (roll‑call votes):
- AB260 (reproductive health protections, sponsor: Assemblymember Aguiar‑Curry): Board voted to support. The bill would repeal certain criminal provisions and add Business and Professions Code sections (discussed at the meeting as sections 687 and 850.3) shielding healing‑arts providers from civil/criminal discipline solely for prescribing or furnishing FDA‑approved abortion medication except in narrow public‑safety circumstances. The bill would also delete a clause from Business & Professions Code section 2761 that had allowed discipline for aiding or abetting an unlawful abortion; board made a motion to support AB260 and approved it by roll call.
- AB836 (Midwifery Workforce Training Act): Board voted to support. The bill would direct the state health workforce agency (HCAI) to fund and commission a study identifying opportunities and barriers for building midwifery education capacity statewide to improve access to maternity and reproductive services.
- AB876 (Nurse Anesthetist Scope of Practice clarification): Board voted to support. The bill clarifies statutory language around Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) practice and includes a reference to the California Society of Anesthesiologists v. Brown case in a declaratory clause. The board’s prior approval of similar clarifying language and testimony from CRNA representatives were part of the record; the board approved support after discussion.
- AB985 (Anesthesiologist Assistant Practice Act): Board voted to oppose. The bill would create a licensed title “Anesthesiologist Assistant” under a new statutory pathway requiring specialized education and national certification and would locate the new practitioner under the supervision of an anesthesiologist. Board members expressed concern the bill is incomplete, raises implementation and licensure questions, and could muddy scope boundaries for CRNAs; the board voted to oppose.
- AB1400 (Community College BSN pilot): Board voted to support. The bill would enable a pilot allowing select California community colleges to offer a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) program; proponents argued it would expand affordable access and pipeline capacity.

Discussion highlights and public comment:
- AB876: CRNA advocates and legal counsel explained the bill is intended to codify and clarify long‑standing practice and remove confusion that has led to survey and enforcement actions in some facilities. Speakers urged support to protect patient access in rural and underserved counties where CRNAs are sole anesthesia providers.
- AB985: Board members and CRNA opponents argued the bill lacks a comprehensive licensure/regulatory framework (no state educational programs, unclear oversight/board owner) and could create workforce and patient‑safety issues. The board’s opposition motion passed after public comment from CRNA representatives and others.
- AB1400: Community college leaders and educators provided public comment supporting the pilot to expand BSN access in geographically isolated and lower‑income communities.

Board counsel noted fiscal analyses from committee reports where available; several agencies described anticipated minor or absorbable administrative impacts and the bills’ budgets where relevant.

What the board did not do: The board did not attempt to rewrite any bill language; it recorded support or opposition and will communicate positions to legislative staff and the sponsoring members’ offices as appropriate.

Documents and references: During the session counsel cited Business and Professions Code provisions and relevant appellate authority (CSA v Brown) in the AB876 discussion. The board requested staff coordinate with the committee and legislative liaisons on next steps.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board Of Registered Nursing - Board Meeting- May 29, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Registered Nursing voted May 29 to support a package of bills on reproductive‑health protections, midwifery workforce study, nurse‑anesthetist statutory clarification and community college BSN pilots, and to oppose a bill creating an anesthesiologist‑assistant licensure pathway.","taxTitle","California Board of Registered Nursing, Boards and Commissions, Executive, California","taxId",76752,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208750,"Board hears updates on executive‑office reviews of intervention work‑access and terminations",264,6980000,7244000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3740829-3e9b807a140668a626ba9252ecebc893&start=6980&end=7244","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3740829-3e9b807a140668a626ba9252ecebc893/thumbnail_6980000.jpg","/articles/6208750/California/Board-hears-updates-on-executiveoffice-reviews-of-intervention-workaccess-and-terminations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208750-9c11647eef3f8bf0c0a8aefbf56e713e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773737106&Signature=MtCilrOF9u-zsMKtURaop9aknnxAESY0HpDp7hpeM7dOWNU4-Pr5Bt2BoviGPUjlzGehacFiAfI-efmsWeL7y-xOho4nPneX33llANzabpRyLYdq1Ro6P7rUOZCH1V~tdnjwJ2kh-J0vhqJ7CcwHOk2XuZw15BP~KeolubPIMFBZ5J2fmCYXnKlOJRKU0G8yjXZfLR9HzFwhu2-6Jn6Ht6TVx4XHi1Flhd5ARSvYoX-T-XrwI~rSfukAFVU8Jx9E2~4wQ9HF4Miclua38cb4UKO4LNWymCN1fVYx1efCn6wVdfrgG31EJ7gR8DV7YgYLE~e5mxiOa46yuNW7q4b1Lw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board staff told the Enforcement Investigations and Intervention Committee on May 29 that the Executive Officer (EO) is re‑reviewing Intervention Evaluation Committee (IEC) recommendations that require participants to return to clinical RN positions or to work with medication access and is also reviewing IEC‑recommended terminations for “failure to derive benefit.”

What the board heard: Yvonne (Intervention program staff) reported the EO has approved some IEC requests for return‑to‑work with or without narcotics access where supporting evidence existed; other IEC recommendations were returned to committee when staff determined the record did not support the requirement.

Why it matters: Several public commenters and board members flagged concern that IECs were inconsistently imposing requirements that a participant return to patient care and potentially have narcotics access. Board counsel and management stressed that such requirements are case‑by‑case and that the EO’s re‑review process is intended to ensure IEC recommendations have appropriate supporting evidence.

Clarifying details and discussion:
- EO reviews: Staff said EO review has resulted in some approvals and some returns to IECs when documentation or safety evidence was not present. The EO is now reviewing recommended terminations for “failure to derive benefit” (a regulatory ground for termination when a participant does not make demonstrable recovery progress).
- “Failure to derive benefit” examples from discussion: participants who have not shown measurable recovery progress after extended program participation, participants with continuous sobriety but “no recovery efforts,” or those who decline treatment and do not engage in recommended recovery activities; staff emphasized determinations are fact‑specific and may take many months to resolve when participants are in residential or intensive treatments.
- Case management communications: Several public commenters said they had inconsistent messages from case managers at the vendor (Premier Health Group); staff requested that participants who feel misinformed should contact BRN intervention staff via the intervention inbox.
- Work with access is not an across‑the‑board requirement: Staff and counsel reiterated that requiring work with narcotics access has not been a universal requirement and is imposed only when supported by the individual’s recovery plan and safety evidence; some IEC recommendations for access were returned on re‑review when evidence was lacking.

Public comment: Multiple intervention participants described difficulty getting stable case‑manager assignments during the vendor transition and asked for clearer, written guidance about how EO re‑reviews would be handled. The board committed to clarifying lines of communication and the paperwork participants should file.

What the board did not decide: No regulatory changes were adopted at the meeting; EO re‑review remains an internal oversight step and program staff said they will continue to report when systemic problems are identified.","Board staff reported that the Executive Officer has re‑reviewed IEC recommendations that asked for participants to return to RN work with medication access; some IEC requests were approved, others were returned for lack of supporting evidence. The EO is also reviewing IEC recommendations for program termination citing \"failure to derive benefit.\"",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208756,"Board asks staff to study outsourcing nurse support‑group management after Birchwood presentation",4459,2311000,6770000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3740829-3e9b807a140668a626ba9252ecebc893&start=2311&end=6770","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3740829-3e9b807a140668a626ba9252ecebc893/thumbnail_2311000.jpg","/articles/6208756/California/Board-asks-staff-to-study-outsourcing-nurse-supportgroup-management-after-Birchwood-presentation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208756-dfbaa82b3c96d1df9bb9176fb32489b3/orig.mp4?Expires=1773737106&Signature=fP8TkLo6vc0ceW38LGJdKPbNtD8a9U7p0pwHV6bOp3Q1Jgy2OAazEc8f7HYmfB1uxP4JUwcRuhGkMl753ZlOkVEEL5EJzPcZzGNE2-yhB4LIbsmgvVFMc9dU9p5U6Iy3-~ocWZZp9Yklh3quiLT9Z5sAyHMQ0bXzDO8vdqd8Dr6mZXzz24jN5ez1UQG5SZeZuPMOpyZZYhxxbL5bQhwI-UNHHbOSCxB2X6avcTPg6MxvfkNInVvJtDXgTsBlWVV6OL4903iLHSNH0sFk3kcya6S7GyxLUnm0f4xcRZ1Etrnm48l0XD4YHrkfJ0ZElc9ZU6xpNjvk8ewt4aHWB7WYZw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","After a full presentation from Birchwood Solutions on May 29, the Board of Registered Nursing directed staff to study the availability and sustainability of outsourcing nurse support‑group management and return with a report to the Enforcement Investigations and Intervention Committee.

What the board heard: Birchwood Solutions’ founder, Elizabeth Temple, described a turnkey model the company has operated since 2011 for alternative‑to‑discipline and licensing programs. Birchwood’s platform runs professionally facilitated, confidential weekly support groups (online and, when used, local in‑person groups), tracks attendance and compliance, vets and trains facilitators, audits reports, and maintains a secure portal for case managers.

Why it matters: Participants and case managers rely on nurse support groups for recovery support and monitoring in intervention programs. Birchwood argued the model improves accessibility and compliance by moving groups online, consolidating facilitator training and oversight, and providing standardized reporting to case managers.

Key points from the presentation and discussion:
- Cost and financial assistance: Birchwood said participant fees are generally participant‑paid (no cost to the board), with typical options of $125/month, $360/quarter, or $1,400 annually. Birchwood maintains an internal scholarship/financial assistance program and said no participant has been turned away for inability to pay.
- Attendance and modality: Birchwood reported that groups they manage rapidly shifted from local to online formats and that online groups showed improved attendance compliance and participant‑reported comfort. Template survey results shown by Birchwood indicated participants reported online groups as at least as effective and more convenient than local groups during their implementations.
- Facilitator management: Birchwood vets, trains and pays facilitators as contractors (base pay cited as $50 per group, with uplifts for higher degrees or tenure). Facilitators receive monthly or quarterly supervision and annual performance evaluations; groups are capped at 10 assigned participants plus two flex seats for make‑ups.
- Program oversight and reporting: Birchwood said it provides weekly noncompliance and attendance reports to case managers, cross‑checking facilitator attendance reports against online logs or physical sign‑in sheets for accuracy.

Board direction and vote: Board member Cormack asked about reappointment/application procedures; staff said they will formalize a reappointment review process. Committee Chair Wynne moved to direct staff to further investigate availability and sustainability of support‑group management and bring a proposal back to the next Enforcement Investigations and Intervention Committee meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

Public concerns: Some participants who spoke in public comment praised the concept but raised concerns about participant costs, potential loss of an open forum to raise program complaints, the structure and perceived professionalism of groups, and the effect of removing holiday cancellations. Birchwood and staff said boards may choose whether to subsidize participant fees and that Birchwood’s policies emphasize safety, confidentiality and facilitator training.

Next steps: The board directed staff to analyze contracting or procurement options, the feasibility of adopting an outsourced model for BRN’s intervention population, and the possibility of partial subsidies or a financial assistance policy. Staff will return to committee with a recommended proposal.","Birchwood Solutions presented an online facilitator‑led support group management model and the board directed staff to further investigate whether outsourcing support‑group management is feasible and sustainable for BRN’s intervention program.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208761,"Board adds oral‑fluid testing to random drug‑testing options for probation and intervention participants",1933,203000,2136000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3740829-3e9b807a140668a626ba9252ecebc893&start=203&end=2136","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3740829-3e9b807a140668a626ba9252ecebc893/thumbnail_203000.jpg","/articles/6208761/California/Board-adds-oralfluid-testing-to-random-drugtesting-options-for-probation-and-intervention-participants","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208761-c0781961d395df4c768fab5eb63160eb/orig.mp4?Expires=1773737106&Signature=TGvMjc~eChg17CamfuxsjMDy2lxWUzn-lShfsppbjuvgNHWNkk2Ulme68B8BpjGV0j6-TiLqXz0kyBNsuKco3TTklOvV~EjOgq41BMPYgkbLAdfPCwp0am8zu7WyXDg3Fa1lBRgbQRWGGpWy15JMed~fKU8zI2oipHr7HUAcsq6iOd0m-47ySSJFQJ06ly9E5ispagPq5pwprNK2u6FFjbid~RTIvWkahZnQmykKwLwpi79dfR98TywRi70Cw6hO-3uqeoxYvIU0eAQZVohAB1M~5SSnhIItObABv118nmHsoanEp5G5dhYkTflqhhXCdnTjy6lGLVjmS3WAE3RBjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California Board of Registered Nursing voted unanimously May 29 to permit oral‑fluid (commonly called saliva) testing as an acceptable method for random drug testing for probationers and intervention‑program participants, after a technical presentation from Vault Health and its medical review officer.

Board members heard detailed evidence about how oral‑fluid testing differs from urine, hair and blood testing and how programs should integrate multiple specimen types. Board Chair Tricia Wynne moved the motion to allow oral‑fluid testing; the motion was seconded and passed with votes from President Dolores Trujillo, Vice President Nilu Patel and other board members.

Why it matters: Board staff and members said oral‑fluid testing could make supervised collections more accessible and improve program compliance for participants who live far from collection sites. Vault Health described a “virtual monitored collection” workflow that lets participants use shipped kits and be monitored live by a collector through an online video connection.

Key facts and implementation details presented at the meeting:
- Vault Health said a typical virtual bundle is five test kits (two tubes per test to enable a split specimen), and the kit set (five tests + shipping supplies) costs $35. Vault’s head, Sean O’Neill, described an online scheduling and live‑monitoring process in which kits are opened on camera, the collector verifies oral‑cavity suitability and the participant seals and ships the sample within 24 hours.
- Medical review officer James Ferguson emphasized testing science differences: oral fluid is a distinct matrix (a mix of saliva and respiratory secretions) with a very short detection window for many drugs — typically 24–36 hours and in some cases up to 48 hours — and often detects parent compounds rather than urine metabolites. “We pretty much always call it oral fluid and not just saliva,” Ferguson said, noting variability of the specimen and the importance of mixing matrices for perspective on results.
- Ferguson and Vault staff warned that collection devices vary and laboratory certification is device‑specific; programs should confirm at least two certified labs can process the chosen device to support split‑specimen confirmation testing. They said oral‑fluid point‑of‑collection screening devices are highly sensitive but not sufficiently specific for forensic actions, and they do not recommend oral‑fluid point‑of‑collection screening for forensic programs.
- Turnaround times: Vault and Ferguson said screening negatives typically return rapidly; Vault estimated negatives reach labs and return in roughly two days assuming no shipping delays, with longer times for confirmatory testing on nonnegatives. Ferguson described a two‑stage screen/confirm laboratory workflow.
- Labs and devices: Vault identified the immunoassay devices’ manufacturer class (an Abbott immunoassay device) and said it uses independent labs (CRL and DrugScan) for confirmation. Vault said it does not use Abbott laboratories for testing even though Abbott supplies some collection devices.
- Not recommended uses: oral‑fluid testing is not recommended by Vault for alcohol biomarker testing (blood/PEth are preferred) and is not recommended as a stand‑alone point‑of‑collection forensic test.

Board action and next steps: The board voted to allow oral‑fluid testing as one tool in a mixed‑matrix random testing program. Vault and board staff explained the contractual step needed: an addendum to the board’s existing vendor contract that would add oral‑fluid testing under the same terms and conditions; only after that addendum is signed could Vault begin offering oral‑fluid collections as part of the program’s random schedule. Board counsel also warned about potential shipping and international logistics for participants traveling overseas.

Public comment and concerns: Public commenters asked how participants who already have informal permission to use virtual collections will be handled; staff said the contract addendum governs vendor capability and that probationers or intervention participants should contact their case manager or probation monitor about using virtual collections. Several board members pressed for clarity about lab certification and chain‑of‑custody issues.

What the board did not decide: The board did not change program rules beyond authorizing the vendor option and did not adopt new regulations. It left details such as when staff approval versus vendor discretion applies to the virtual option to operational guidance during the contract addendum process.

Ending note: Board members repeatedly emphasized oral fluid should be one of several random matrices used. Ferguson summarized the scientific message: “Follow‑up testing in a different matrix does not invalidate the previous result,” and recommended mixing matrices to provide perspective rather than to supplant other specimen types.","After a presentation from Vault Health and medical review officer Dr. James Ferguson, the Board of Registered Nursing voted unanimously to allow oral‑fluid (saliva) testing as an acceptable method for random drug testing in probation and intervention programs, subject to a contract addendum and program rules discussed at the meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board takes positions on several bills — supports AB260, AB836, AB876 and AB1400; opposes AB985

Board hears updates on executive‑office reviews of intervention work‑access and terminations

Board asks staff to study outsourcing nurse support‑group management after Birchwood presentation

Board adds oral‑fluid testing to random drug‑testing options for probation and intervention participants