To meet the 18 hours of "other topics" relevant to the licensed occupation, applicants can complete courses and activities of the following subjects: (1) Business management, estimating, and job costing; (2) Design and building science; (3) Contracts, liability, and risk management; (4) Marketing and sales; (5) Project management and scheduling; (6) Carpentry, concrete, swimming pool installation, waterproofing a basement, excavation, insulation work, masonry work, painting and decorating, roofing, siding and gutters, screen or storm sash insulation, tile and marble work, or house wrecking; (7) Accounting and safekeeping for monies received from a customer, including the requirements of building contract fund; (8) Accounting, finance, and taxes; (9) Personnel Management; (10) Communication and customer service; (11) Environmental or land use analysis; (12) Life safety; (13) "Green" building; (14) Zoning and governance policies and procedures; or (15) Mold, lead, asbestos, or other hazardous material mitigation (2011 MR 3, R 338.1564 (2)).
All elevator inspectors must be certified competent by the Elevator Safety Board of the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. There are two types of elevator inspectors: general elevator inspectors who are employed by the State and special elevator inspectors who are employed by insurance companies or municipalities. In addition to being certified, special elevator inspectors must also be commissioned by the Department. Initial commissions for special elevator inspectors are valid for one year. These commissions must be renewed annually.
Applicants for both the general elevator inspector and special elevator inspector certifications must pass (with a score of 70%) the two-part examination of the Elevator Safety Board [Authority: MI Statutes 1967 PA 227]. Applicants may prepare for the examination by studying the ASME A17.1-2007, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators; ASME A18.1-2008, Safety Standard for Platform Lifts and Stairway Chairlifts; the Michigan Elevator Laws and Rules; 1967 PA 227; 1976 PA 333; the current Michigan Electrical Code, NFPA 70; ASME A90.1-2003, Safety Standards for Belt Manlifts; and the ANSI A10.4-2007, Safety Requirements for Personnel Hoists.
Individuals seeking a journey plumber's license in Michigan must pass an examination provided by the State Plumbing Board and the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (MI PA 733 of 2002, Sections
338.3533
and
338.3535
). Examinations are currently provided and administered by the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. Michigan does not offer a credential equivalent to the journeyman plumber-restricted appliance license.
Minnesota:
Home inspectors are not regulated by the State of Minnesota.
A review of the rules and statutes pertaining to the renewal of trades credentials in Minnesota found no instance of a continuing education cycle that does not align with the credential renewal cycle (MN Rules 4716.0205 – Plumber Licensing and Apprentice Registration; and MN Rules 3800.3602 – Board of Electricity Licensing).
Anyone who contracts or offers to contract with a homeowner to construct or improve "residential real estate" must be licensed as a residential building contractor or a residential remodeler unless they meet one of the specified exemptions. A residential building contractor can build new homes and work on existing structures, whereas a remodeler can only work on existing structures.
Licenses are issued to the residential contracting business entity, though each business entity must have an individual who acts as the "qualifying person" for the company's license. In order to be a qualifying person, the individual must be an owner or officer of the company or a managing employee of the company and must pass a written exam.
To renew a license, the company's qualifying person must complete 14 hours of appropriate and related knowledge in residential construction, including applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations at an approved continuing education program during the biennial renewal cycle. Course content must demonstrate significant intellectual or practical content and deal with matters directly related to residential construction, workforce safety, or the business of running a company in the residential construction industry. One of the 14 hours must include instruction related to energy codes or energy conservation measures applicable to residential structures. Courses not approved by DLI may be accepted for credit by submitting an individual course application and a certificate of completion along with all course materials (Minnesota Statutes 326B.0981, 326B.821).
Current Minnesota rules specify that any person performing elevator inspections hired after January 29, 2007, must be certified by an ASME accredited organization as a qualified elevator inspector (QEI) within 18 months of the employment start date [MN Rules 1307.0067 subp. 13.].
An applicant for a plumber's license in Minnesota must pass an examination given by the provided by the Department of Labor and Industry in March and September of each year (MN Rules 4716.0020). Minnesota does not offer a credential equivalent to the journeyman plumber-restricted appliance license.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The proposed rule change provides clarity for registered home inspectors with regards to continuing education requirements for registration renewal. The proposed rule change is based on the results from a recent audit conducted by the Department assessing compliance with the continuing education requirements in ch.
SPS 135
.
Department rules were evaluated to find opportunities to increase efficiencies in the processes relating to the issuance and renewal of credentials. It was determined that the credential renewal process could be made less burdensome while maintaining professional integrity by aligning the continuing education and renewal cycles.
Department standards for approval of continuing education courses required to renew a dwelling contractor qualifier certification are unclear resulting in confusion and wasted resources for potential course providers. The proposed rule change would provide greater clarity with regards to Department standards for course approval facilitating a more transparent and consistent approval process. Expert advice from the Contractor Certification Council informed the proposed rule change.
Section
SPS 305.64 (2) (b)
currently requires applicants for elevator inspector licensure to provide proof of certification from an ASME accredited organization. Since ASME will be discontinuing the QEI accreditation program, this change updates the rule to reflect that applicants will be required to provide evidence of certification from a Department approved independent agency.
The proposed rule change provides applicants seeking to obtain a journeyman plumber-restricted license with more testing options to receive licensure.
Adjacent states' requirements were also reviewed.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis
The rule was posted currently for public comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule, including how this proposed rule may affect businesses, local government units and individuals, for a period of 14 days. No comments were received relating to the economic impact of the rule.
Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary
These proposed rules do not have an economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at
Tom.Engels@wisconsin.gov
, or by calling (608) 266-8608.
Agency Contact Person
Katie Paff, Program and Policy Analyst, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone 608-261-4472; email at
Kathleen.Paff@wisconsin.gov
.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA-2049 (R03/2012)
|
Division of Executive Budget and Finance
101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
FAX: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
SPS 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 305, 323, 332, 334, 361
|
3. Subject
|
Relating to trades licenses, certifications, and registrations of trades credentials; continuing education requirements of home inspectors; and rule changes affected by 2013 Wisconsin Act 20
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽
GPR
⍽
FED
X
PRO
⍽
PRS
⍽
SEG
⍽
SEG-S
|
20.165 (2) (j)
|
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
⍽
No Fiscal Effect
⍽
Indeterminate
|
⍽
Increase Existing Revenues
⍽
Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽
Increase Costs
X
Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽
Decrease Cost
|
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
|
⍽
State's Economy
⍽
Local Government Units
|
⍽
Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽
Public Utility Rate Payers
⍽
Small Businesses
(if checked, complete Attachment A)
|
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽
Yes
X
No
|
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
|
A recent audit revealed confusion among registered home inspectors in Wisconsin with regards to the continuing education requirements for registration renewal. This proposed rule change would provide clarity for registered home inspectors.
Chapter SPS 305 establishes licensing, certification, and registration requirements for a variety of building-related trades, both for individuals and businesses. Current rules require most renewal applicants to complete all continuing education requirements 3 months prior to the expiration of the license, certification or registration. The proposed rule change would align the renewal and continuing education cycle allowing applicants to complete continuing education requirements up to the expiration date of the credential.
Department standards for approval of continuing education courses required to renew a dwelling contractor qualifier certification are unclear resulting in confusion and wasted resources for potential course providers.
The ASME QEI Accreditation Program accredits organizations that certify elevator inspectors in accordance with the ASME QEI-1 Standard. Department rule, SPS 305.64 (2) (b), currently requires applicants for an elevator inspector license to submit evidence of certification by an American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) accredited organization as a qualified elevator inspector (QEI). ASME is discontinuing the QEI Accreditation Program. The proposed rule change removes reference to ASME accreditation and requires applicants for an elevator inspector license to submit evidence of certification based on the QEI-1 standard from an independent organization acceptable to the Department.
Current Department administrative rules require applicants seeking to obtain a journeyman plumber-restricted appliance license to take and pass an examination administered by the Department. The proposed rule change would allow applicants the option of taking an examination administered by an entity approved by the Department. The proposed rule change would also repeal rules that are no longer effective and reorganize rules related to the two different restricted plumbing licenses for greater clarity including separating the rules for journeyman plumber-restricted appliance license holders into a separate rule section.
|
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
|
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
None. This rule does not affect local government units.
|
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
This rule will not have an economic or fiscal impact on businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The proposed rule change provides clarity for registered home inspectors with regards to continuing education requirements for registration renewal. The proposed rule change is based on the results from a recent audit conducted by the Department assessing compliance with the continuing education requirements in ch. SPS 135. By not amending the rules in this manner, home inspectors may inadvertently fail to meet the requirements and as a result may not be able to practice as home inspectors.
Department rules were evaluated to find opportunities to increase efficiencies in the processes relating to the issuance and renewal of credentials. It was determined that the credential renewal process could be made less burdensome while maintaining professional integrity by aligning the continuing education and renewal cycles.
The proposed rule change would provide greater clarity with regards to Department standards for course approval facilitating a more transparent and consistent approval process.
Implementing this rule provides clarity with regards to licensure requirements for elevator inspectors once ASME discontinues its accreditation program.
The proposed rule change would provide more exam options for the licensed journeyman plumber-restricted appliance credential.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Implementing the rule would provide for a less burdensome and more transparent credential application and renewal process for trades professionals and home inspectors in the future.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
None.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
A review of the rules and statutes pertaining to the renewal of trades credentials in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota found no instance of a continuing education cycle that does not align with the credential renewal cycle.
Michigan and Minnesota specify the approved topic areas for pre-licensure and continuing competency courses for dwelling contractor qualifiers. Applicants in these states must complete a certain number of hours in specific topic areas and are allowed to take other courses in a variety of other topic areas. In Iowa, coursework is not required for initial registration or renewal for dwelling contractor qualifiers. The state of Illinois does not regulate dwelling contractor qualifiers.
Illinois, Iowa and Michigan have not yet updated their code to reflect the discontinuation of the ASME QEI Accreditation Program. The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs directly certifies elevator inspectors in Michigan.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Katie Paff
|
608-261-4472
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
Notice of Hearing
Safety and Professional Services —
Controlled Substances Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Controlled Substances Board in s.
961.335 (8)
, Wis. Stats., and interpreting s.
961.335
, Wis. Stats., the Controlled Substances Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to create section
CSB 3.045
, relating to granting a limited special use authorization and denial of a special use authorization.
Hearing Information
Date:
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Location:
1400 East Washington Avenue
(enter at 55 North Dickinson Street)
Room 121A
Madison, Wisconsin
Appearances at the Hearing
Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Place where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submission
Comments may be submitted to Sharon Henes, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to
Sharon.Henes@wisconsin.gov
. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on
March 4, 2014
, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Rule
Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Sharon Henes, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at
Sharon.Henes@wisconsin.gov
.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The controlled substances board may promulgate rules relating to the granting of special use permits including, but not limited to, requirements for the keeping and disclosure of records, filing of applications, and suspension or revocation of permits.
Related statute or rule
Section
961.335
, Wis. Stats., and ch.
CSB 3
, Wis. Admin. Code
Plain language analysis
The proposed rule states the basis for denying or limiting a special use authorization which is based upon consideration of public health and safety. It includes consideration of the following: an act which causes a violation which would result in suspension or revocation under current rules; making false statements on an application; violating federal or state statutes related to have the ability to have controlled substances special use and an act which shows the person would be unable to safely use the SUA due to alcohol or other substance use.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
Federal regulations requires any person who possesses, manufactures, distributes or dispenses any controlled substances to register with the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control.
The proposed rule included the criteria used by the federal government in granting/denying a DEA registration because once the special use authorization permit is granted, the person would also need DEA registration.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois:
In Illinois a registration to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance or purchase, store, or administer euthanasia drugs may be denied, refused renewal, suspended or revoked if a person: provided false or fraudulent material information in any application; has been convicted of a felon related to any controlled substance; has had their federal DEA registration suspended or revoked; has been convicted of bribery, perjury or other infamous crime; violated any provision of the controlled substances act; or failed to provide effective controls against the diversion of controlled substances in other than legitimate medical, scientific or industrial channels.
Iowa:
In Iowa, a registration to manufacture, distribute, dispense, prescribe, import or export, conduct research or instructional activities or conducts chemical analysis with controlled substances in Iowa may be denied if the board determines that the issuance of the registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. In determining the public interest, the board shall consider the following factors: maintenance of effective controls against diversion of controlled substances into other than legitimate medical, scientific or industrial channels; compliance with applicable state and local law; any convictions related to any controlled substance; past experience in the manufacture or distribution of controlled substances, and the existence in the applicant's establishment of effective controls against diversion; furnishing false or fraudulent material in any application for registration; suspension or revocation of the federal DEA registration; and any other factors relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety.
Michigan:
Michigan has 7 different licenses for controlled substances based upon the purpose of the applicant. The license shall be granted unless the issuance of the license would be inconsistent with the public interest. In determining the public interest, the following shall be considered: maintenance of effective controls against diversion to other than legitimate and professionally recognized therapeutic, scientific, or industrial channels; compliance with applicable state and local law; conviction relating to a controlled substance; past experience in the manufacture or distribution of controlled substances and the existence in the applicant's establishment of effective controls against diversion; furnishing false or fraudulent material in an application for a controlled substance license; suspension or revocation of the federal dea registration; and any other factor relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety.
Minnesota:
In Minnesota, a person who engages in research, teaching or educational projects involving the use, study or testing of controlled substances is required to apply for a registration permit. The board may deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew any registration based upon the following: fraud or deception in connection with securing the registration; habitual indulgence in the use of narcotics, stimulants, or depressant drugs or habitual indulgence in intoxicating liquors in a manner which could cause conduct endangering public health; unprofessional conduct or conduct endangering public health; gross immorality; conviction of theft of drugs or the unauthorized use, possession or sale thereof; violation of the provisions of the rules of the board;
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The proposed rule states the basis for denying or limiting a special use authorization which is based upon consideration of public health and safety.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis
This rule was posted for economic impact comments for a period of 14 days and none were received.
Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary
This rule does not have an impact on small business.
Agency Contact Person
Sharon Henes, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone 608-261-2377; email at
Sharon.Henes@wisconsin.gov
.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA-2049 (R03/2012)
|
Division of Executive Budget and Finance
101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
FAX: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
CSB 3.045
|
3. Subject
|
Granting a limited special use authorization and denial of a special use authorization
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽
GPR
⍽
FED
X
PRO
⍽
PRS
⍽
SEG
⍽
SEG-S
|
20.165(1)(g)
|
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
X
No Fiscal Effect
⍽
Indeterminate
|
⍽
Increase Existing Revenues
⍽
Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽
Increase Costs
⍽
Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽
Decrease Cost
|
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
|
⍽
State's Economy
⍽
Local Government Units
|
⍽
Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽
Public Utility Rate Payers
⍽
Small Businesses
(if checked, complete Attachment A)
|
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽
Yes
X
No
|
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
|
The current rules do not provide a basis for which the controlled substances board may exercise its discretion and deny a person a special use authorization or grant a limited special use authorization.
|
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
|
This rule was posted for economic comments for a period of 14 days and no comments were received.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
None
|
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
None.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The benefit of implementing the rule is to give the applicant notice of the basis for which a denial or granting of a limited special use authorization may occur.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
The long range benefit is for applicants to have notice of the basis for which a denial or limited special use authorization may occur.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
The federal regulations require any person who possesses, manufactures, distributes or dispenses any controlled substances to register with the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control. A DEA registration may be denied for the following: providing false information on an application, conviction of a law relating to controlled substances, having a state license has been disciplined or has committed acts would render registration inconsistent with the public interest.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota list reasons for a denial of a registration or license related to controlled substances similar to Wisconsin's special use authorization permit.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Sharon Henes
|
(608) 261-2377
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
Notice of Hearing
Safety and Professional Services —
Dentistry Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Dentistry Examining Board in ss.
15.08 (5) (b)
and
227.11 (2) (a)
, Wis. Stats., and interpreting ss.
146.81
and
447.02
, Wis. Stats., the Dentistry Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to create Chapter
DE 8
, relating to patient dental records.
Hearing Information
Date:
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Time:
8:30 a.m.
Location:
1400 East Washington Avenue
(enter at 55 North Dickenson Street)
Room 121A
Madison, Wisconsin
Appearances at the Hearing
Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation, but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8366. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Place where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
Comments may be submitted to Jean MacCubbin, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, WI 53708-8366, or by email to
jean.maccubbin@wisconsin.gov
. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on
March 5, 2014,
or by email to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Rule
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Section
15.08 (5) (b)
, Stats., requires all examining boards to "
…
promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the trade or profession to which it pertains, and define and enforce professional conduct and unethical practices not inconsistent with the law relating to the particular trade or profession."
Section
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., authorizes all agencies to promulgate rules interpreting the statutes it enforces or administers, when deemed necessary to effectuate the purpose of such statutes.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
The proposed rule is to outline the minimum requirements for patient dental records. The rule considers ss.
146.81 (1)
and
(4)
, Stats., whereby dentist is defined as a healthcare provider and consequently required to maintain patient health records as specified in s.
146.81 (4)
, Stats. No additional requirements are proposed in this newly created chapter.
SECTION 1. This section creates a new chapter, DE 8 patient dental records and substantially mirrors the patient health records as specified in ch.
Med 21
, Wisc. Admin. Code. Specific areas of compliance include: retention, confidentiality, destruction and falsification of records.
SECTION 2. This section identifies when in the rule-making process the rule shall become effective.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
An Internet-based search of the U.S. Code and Federal Register did not reveal any laws or proposals related to patient dental records, with the exception of the move to electronic records for Medicaid patients in 2016.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
An Internet-based search of the four adjacent states revealed the following:
Illinois:
In Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation oversees dentists; no rules requiring patient dental records were found.
Iowa:
In Iowa, chapter 27 of the Iowa code, 650—27.11 (153,272C), relates to record keeping. Patient dental records must be maintained for a minimum of six years after the date of last examination, prescription, or treatment and for a minor for 6 years after the age of majority. . Similar to other states, when electronic records are kept, a duplicate hard copy record or use of an unalterable electronic record must be maintained.
Michigan:
In Michigan the Board of Dentistry rule, 1120 (R 338.11101 - 338.11821), requires records to be maintained for 10 years after the last treatment. In addition charting of dental procedures and a listing of medications administered are two additional requirements unlike proposed in this rule.
Minnesota:
In Minnesota, the related rule is 3100.9600, record keeping. This rule requires records to be maintained for 7 years after the last treatment. In the case of a minor patient, the records must be maintained for 7 years beyond the age of majority. In addition an emergency contact, information related to any insurance coverage, and providing an electronic backup are three additional requirements unlike proposed in this rule.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
No factual data and analytical methodologies were used to draft these rules.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis
The issue of patient dental records was raised in the context of not having a retention policy and the impact on associated costs related to the amount of storage dentist and firms are currently are maintaining. Section
146.81 (4)
, Stats., provides a period for destruction of records 5 years after the date of the last entry, or for such longer period as may be otherwise required by law.
Pursuant to s. IV, 3. a., EO # 50, the rules herein were posted on both the state's and the department's administrative rules websites for 14 days in order to solicit comments regarding the rule's potential economic impact on businesses, business sectors, professional associations, local government units, or potentially interested parties.
It is expected that this proposed rule will result in a decrease expense at least in the cost of hard-copy record storage. No specific data was collected or analyzed to come to this conclusion.
Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary
These proposed rules do not have an economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at
Tom.Engels@wisconsin.gov
, or by calling (608) 266-8608.
Environmental Assessment/Statement
[if required]:
N/A
Agency Contact Person
Jean MacCubbin, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8366; telephone 608-266-0955 or telecommunications rely at 711; email at
Jean.MacCubbin@wisconsin.gov
.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA-2049 (R03/2012)
|
Division of Executive Budget and Finance
101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
FAX: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Ch. DE 8, Patient Dental Records
|
3. Subject
|
Dental Patient Records; record Retention, Record Guidelines
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽
GPR
⍽
FED
X
PRO
⍽
PRS
⍽
SEG
⍽
SEG-S
|
20.165(1)(g)
|
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
X
No Fiscal Effect
⍽
Indeterminate
|
⍽
Increase Existing Revenues
⍽
Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽
Increase Costs
⍽
Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽
Decrease Cost
|
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
|
⍽
State's Economy
⍽
Local Government Units
|
⍽
Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽
Public Utility Rate Payers
⍽
Small Businesses
(if checked, complete Attachment A)
|
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽
Yes
X
No
|
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
|
Currently there are no guidelines or policies on patient dental records retention in chs. DE 1 to 13. Licensees report that hard copy retention of records requires storage and in some cases, off-site storage. Electronic record storage is an option and hard-copy storage could be reduced depending on retention policies. In both cases, a reduction in cost is evitable in the long-term.
|
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
|
Licensed dentists and dental firms.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
None known.
|
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
There are no known adverse economic impacts on these specific businesses.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The rule considers s. 146.81 (4), Stats., patient health records, making the rules under the authority of the Dentistry Examining Board in compliance with state Statutes. An option would be to continue without guidelines on patient records.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
The overhead cost of hard copy record storage is expected to be reduced over time.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
None found.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
With the exception of the state of Illinois, the three adjacent states require dental records retained for periods of 5, 7 or 10 years.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Jean MacCubbin
|
608.266.0955
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
