Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Training Child Abuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends 'Inexpedient to Legislate' for bill to mandate child‑abuse training for certain clinicians
Summary
The House Committee on Executive Departments and Administration voted 9‑7 to recommend inexpedient to legislate on House Bill 493, a proposal to require continuing‑education training on child‑abuse recognition for physician assistants and nurse practitioners after debate over scope and regulatory authority.
The House Committee on Executive Departments and Administration voted 9‑7 to recommend “Inexpedient to Legislate” for House Bill 493, a proposal to require continuing‑education training on child‑abuse recognition for physician assistants and nurse practitioners.
Supporters of the bill argued the state has a problem identifying adverse childhood experiences and cited expert testimony presented during the hearing. Representative Schmidt said the testimony showed a statewide problem, saying, “we have a problem with so called ACEs, adverse childhood experiences in the state of New Hampshire,” and urged that the committee retain the bill to address the issue. Sponsors and proponents pointed to testimony from Dr. Wendy Gladstone and other experts who had described missed cases and the need for standardized training.
Opponents said the bill as written was poorly drafted, would improperly place substantive licensure requirements in statute rather than in the existing professional boards’ rule‑making processes, and could narrow available training choices or create unforeseen costs. Representative Lamb noted differences among other states — citing one‑time training in New York and Massachusetts and a smaller requirement in Iowa — and told the committee that only 59 providers had taken the cited training since it began, raising questions about course availability and potential cost if the training were mandated.
Representative Pearson and others argued the Board of Medicine and Board of Nursing are the appropriate forums to set specialty continuing‑education requirements, noting the board of medicine requires 100 hours of continuing education every two years and can set more specific course standards in rulemaking. Representative Pearson said the committee should be cautious about overriding professional boards’ authority.
After debate, the committee voted to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate) by a roll call tally of 9 yeas and 7 nays. Members who supported the ITL motion said the bill required substantial rewriting and that existing professional boards were the proper venue for detailed training standards; members opposing ITL said the testimony showed an urgent clinical gap that merited legislative attention. Committee members indicated a minority report would be filed by proponents who wished to retain the bill for further work.
The committee did not take further action on details such as funding, the specific courses to be required, or implementation timing; sponsors and opponents discussed potential amendments but the ITL motion precluded amendment during that vote.
