Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Radiology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes radiology-practice changes after debate over who is responsible for imaging results
Summary
Lawmakers debated whether physicians should share responsibility for imaging ordered by physical therapists before the Utah House passed second substitute House Bill 382, a measure clarifying radiology practitioner practices and coordination requirements. The bill passed 40–27 and was sent to the Senate.
Lawmakers on the Utah House floor on March 1 argued over whether a physician who did not order an imaging test should bear responsibility for that test's results before approving the chamber's passage of second substitute House Bill 382.
Proponents told colleagues the bill removes an unnecessary hurdle for patients by allowing qualified physical therapists to order imaging when they have an ongoing, affirmative relationship with a coordinating physician, which supporters said would reduce extra office visits and speed care. Opponents said the change risks unclear lines of responsibility for potentially serious findings, warning that sharing responsibility could make critical test results less likely to be acted on promptly.
The sponsor described the measure's coordination requirement as an affirmative agreement between therapist and physician intended to maintain patient safety. Dissenting lawmakers said that in their clinical experience, the longstanding rule — that the clinician who orders the test is responsible for following up on results — protects patients by assigning a single accountable party.
After floor debate and questions about how the agreement between providers would be documented and enforced, the House voted to pass HB382, 40 yes to 27 no. The bill was transmitted to the Senate for further consideration.
Next steps: HB382 will go to the Senate and may be subject to further amendment there. The House debate highlighted concerns state lawmakers may raise again about liability and implementation details should the Senate consider changes.
