Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Occupational Licensure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House panel weighs licensure changes in HB 59, including physician‑PA title update and radiation‑expert rules
Summary
The House General Government Committee resumed its third hearing on House Bill 59, hearing requests to rename ‘physician assistant’ to ‘physician associate’ and objections from medical physicists to a proposed redefinition of 'Certified Radiation Expert' that could disqualify about one‑third of current practitioners.
The House General Government Committee resumed its third hearing on House Bill 59 and heard competing views on several occupational licensure proposals. Supporters of a title change for physician assistants said the update would improve clarity for patients, while medical physicists warned a separate redefinition of "Certified Radiation Expert" (CRE) could remove a substantive portion of the current workforce.
Proponents argued the PA title change is a narrow, non‑substantive modernization. Matthew Fredo, Government Affairs Chair of the Ohio Association of Physician Assistants, told the committee the proposed amendment "does not change our scope of practice" and "simply modernizes an outdated title so that it better reflects how today's PAs are educated, trained, and already practicing across Ohio." Fredo said the change aims to reduce patient confusion and align Ohio law with national practice.
Physician testimony reinforced that view. Dr. Anne Crickert said the title "physician associate improves clarity for patients" and stressed the change would not alter supervision or scope: "This change poses no threat to physicians or physician authority," she said.
Opponents focused on a different portion of HB 59 that would revise the definition and credentialing pathway for Ohio's Certified Radiation Experts. Michael Cox, president of Unicon Medical Physics, warned the bill's redefinition — as drafted — "would significantly increase, not reduce, the professional barriers for current CREs by requiring that all be certified by the American Board of Radiology or the American Board of Medical Physics." Cox said eliminating the existing education‑and‑experience pathway could render approximately one‑third of diagnostic and mammography CREs ineligible, creating workforce shortages and raising costs for hospitals and clinics.
Other medical physicists gave similar testimony. Kenneth Lovins described earning CRE status through Ohio's education‑and‑experience route and cautioned that removing that pathway would "close the door for any future radiation experts who would have chosen this pathway." Joshua Johnson of Ohio Medical Physics Consulting told lawmakers the change would "cut the majority of what [many consulting groups'] workload is in half" and drive up client costs because board‑certified physicists command higher compensation.
Sponsors and witnesses suggested alternatives. Cox and Lovins proposed grandfathering current CREs or retaining the education‑and‑experience option while shifting verification responsibilities to facilities and inspections rather than removing the pathway entirely.
What happens next: Committee members heard written testimony and asked sponsors to follow up. No floor action or binding votes were taken during the session; the committee concluded the hearing and adjourned.
