Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Podiatric board adds 'podiatric surgeon' to statute, removes transfer exam requirement and backs change to classification language
Summary
The board voted to ask that Business and Professions Code section 2474 include 'podiatric surgeon' and to strike a transfer requirement in section 2488; it also authorized staff to seek legislative changes to prevent DPMs from being classified as ancillary providers for health-plan reimbursement.
The Podiatric Medical Board of California voted on multiple legislative items during its Jan. 23, 2025 meeting, approving changes to state code language and authorizing staff to pursue legislation on how doctors of podiatric medicine (DPMs) are classified for reimbursement.
The board unanimously approved a motion to ask that Business and Professions Code section 2474 be amended to add the term “podiatric surgeon” to the list of public descriptions of podiatric practitioners. The motion carried after roll-call votes in which President Doctor Lee, Doctor Glaser, Doctor Patel and Doctor McAloon recorded “accept.”
Kathleen Cooper, legislative program staff, explained the proposal would be brought forward in the board’s sunset report and noted the wording for the change would appear in the attachment materials. “Last year, there was some legislation that required the word doctor… we would like to add podiatric surgeon because it’s very important to our DPMs that they have the word surgeon in there,” Cooper said.
The board also voted to remove a transfer-to-California requirement under Business and Professions Code section 2488 that effectively required applicants coming from other states to submit a Part 3 examination portion. Board members said the rule currently creates a barrier for experienced practitioners seeking to transfer their licenses. A motion to strike subsection b of 2488 passed by unanimous recorded vote.
Both items (2474 and 2488) were discussed as part of the board’s sunset materials. Cooper said the changes would be included in the sunset documentation she will submit to legislative staff. The board also acknowledged AB 1501 as its sunset bill number and said staff will track the measure.
On a separate but related policy item, the board voted to authorize staff to seek legislative changes to prevent DPMs from being classified or treated as ancillary providers in any health-care setting or for health-plan reimbursement purposes. The motion’s final wording directed staff to pursue changes “given the importance of Californians being able to access adequate podiatric care, the shortage of DPMs, and significant portions of California that lack access to adequate podiatric care.” Doctor McLuhan moved the item and Doctor Glaser seconded; the motion passed by roll-call vote with the same board members recorded as “accept.”
Ryan Spencer, representing the California Podiatric Medical Association, told the board that being labeled ancillary has administrative and reimbursement consequences and supported the board’s efforts. “Often they can work it through, but it is unnecessary burden,” Spencer said. He cited examples of commercial payers applying lower fee schedule percentages to DPMs than to MDs in the same practice.
The board also noted a Special Olympics volunteer opportunity and said staff would help publicize the event through the newsletter and communications channels.
Ending: Staff will include the approved language changes in the board’s sunset packet and begin drafting legislative language and outreach materials to advance the ancillary-classification change.
