House Health and Welfare approves multi-agency licensing rule rewrites, rejects one temporary pharmacy rule

The Idaho House Health and Welfare Committee reviewed and voted on a package of rule dockets from the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses affecting pharmacy, medicine, physician assistants and several allied health professions, rejecting one temporary pharmacy chapter and approving the remainder with targeted exceptions.

The votes on the dockets affect how boards organize rule chapters, where licensure and practice standards are located, and how fees and reporting requirements are administered. The committee’s actions ranged from voice votes approving consolidated chapters to a roll-call decision on a disputed physicians assistant provision.

Nikki Chopsky, bureau chief for the Health Professions Bureau at the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses and executive officer for several of the presenting boards, told the committee the division and boards followed open‑meeting and negotiated‑rulemaking processes: "The division and the board held 5 open public, open public board meetings, 2 negotiated rule making hearings, and 1 public hearing." She detailed that the pharmacy rewrite included more than 35 changes, reorganizing definitions, licensure sections, practice standards and the prescription drug monitoring reporting rule.

A temporary Board of Pharmacy rule chapter that the board asked to be allowed to expire was the first contested item. Following the board’s request to take no action (thereby allowing the temporary chapter to expire upon sine die), Representative Redmond moved to reject the temporary docket; the motion passed on voice vote. The committee then considered the Board of Pharmacy’s ongoing zero‑based regulation (ZBR) rewrite of its main chapter (docket 2436012402). Chopsky summarized substantive changes — including moving duplicative fee language into a single fee rule, updating controlled‑substance reporting to end‑of-business‑day, and adopting a standard‑of‑care approach for some compounding and sterile‑prep provisions — and asked the committee to adopt the chapter as final. Representative Redmond moved approval with the exception of new rule 200.14(e)(i) and (ii); that motion carried on voice vote.

The committee approved consolidated and rewritten chapters for the Idaho State Board of Medicine (combining two prior chapters into one) and several advisory boards formed under recent law consolidations. John Price and bureau staff said the chaper rewrites followed the division’s standard format (legal authority, scope, definitions, licensure, practice standards, discipline and fees) and removed duplicative text.

The physician assistant (PA) docket drew the most sustained debate. Chopsky explained that statute requires the rule to identify the acceptable examination and that the professional certifying test in use nationally is the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination, known as PANCE. "P A N C E. That is the exam that we use," she said. Representative Redmond moved to accept the PA docket with the exception of the rule naming the exam; Representative McCann offered a substitute motion to accept the docket without that exception. The substitute motion was put to roll call and failed by an 8–7 count. The committee then approved the original motion to accept the PA docket with the exception of the section that would have named the PANCE exam in rule (the committee thus left the identification of the exam out of the adopted rule). Members debating the issue framed their disagreement around concerns about language on a national certifying body’s website referencing diversity, equity and inclusion and whether naming the national exam in rule was necessary or appropriate when statute already requires an exam.

Advisory‑board‑level dockets for athletic trainers, respiratory therapists, dietitians and naturopathic doctors — all part of the Allied Health Advisory Board since last session’s consolidation law — were presented by bureau staff (Oren/Warren Duffin). Each chapter rewrite removed duplicative text, simplified language and struck an inactive license renewal fee that staff said was inconsistent with Idaho Code 67‑26‑14. The committee voice‑voted to approve those dockets.

Committee members asked presenters about fee and cash‑balance implications. Chopsky said the PA advisory committee’s FY24 cash balance was $215,356.11 and that the advisory committee recommended a 15.5% fee reduction to the Board of Medicine; the board will review that recommendation at its next meeting with renewals occurring in July. Duffin reported that the respiratory therapy account ended FY24 with $286,793.63, about 117% of operating expenses.

Other substantive edits described in presentations included: combining scattered definition sections into a single definitions rule; moving continuing‑education requirements to be measured by a licensee’s active practice setting; changing annual inventory requirements for controlled‑substance inventories to biennial inventories in line with federal requirements; and updating reporting timeframes for adverse events and criminal convictions.

Representative Redmond and others commended bureau staff. Redmond said of Chopsky’s work on pharmacy: "I first off want to really commend and appreciate, Doctor. Chopsky. I think that, throughout the country you're known as an incredible leader in this space and I really do appreciate all the work you've done to make pharmacy a really good place in the state of Idaho." Representative McCann summarized her substitute position on the PA exam, saying that if the named exam is the only available national standard, naming it in rule reflected that practical reality.

The committee concluded the agenda after approving the remaining dockets and confirmed it would meet the next morning at 8:00 a.m. for short introductions before going to the floor at 8:30 a.m.

Ending note: the committee’s votes reorganize and in many cases streamline the content and location of licensure, practice and discipline rules across the boards; the most visible policy dispute during the session centered on whether to name the national PA certifying exam in rule amid concerns raised about language from the national certifying organization.