Latest news with #SB172
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Health care titles and eyeball wars
Florida Capitol The Florida Senate Rules Committee tackled health care scopes of practice and a longstanding fight between optometrists and ophthalmologist once coined the 'eyeball wars.' The latest iteration of the battle is contained in SB 172, a 10-page bill that broadens the state's authority to prosecute professionals regulated by the Department of Health who mislead, deceive, or fraudulently misrepresent their qualifications to the public. The Rules Committee approved the bill by a 22-1 vote. It now heads to the full Senate for consideration. The bill would amend legislative intent language to make clear the public health, safety, and welfare could be harmed by health care providers who misrepresent their ability to practice a profession. Although he voted for the bill, Sen. Jason Pizzo, an attorney, noted the broad regulatory power it would give the Florida Department of Health when prosecuting health care providers for advertising. 'If a person engages in the unlawful practice of law, it's because they actually took up a matter, conducted a transaction, gave advice, all of that stuff. I guess very specifically for legislative intent, the wording of your bill sort of suggests just using the title alone — without actually like seeing a patient or engaging in any conduct or behavior — standing alone just using the titles is the unlawful practice of medicine,' he said. In addition, the bill amends the laws regulating allopathic physicians, referred to as 'M.D.s,' and osteopathic physicians, referred to as 'D.O.s,' to include a list of 39 specialities practitioners are authorized to call themselves. It would be a violation for any other health care professionals to use those titles. The bill provides exceptions for chiropractic physicians, podiatric physicians, dentists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and anesthesiology assistants, allowing them to call themselves by certain titles already in their practice acts or included in their specialty certifications. There is no exception for optometrists, who are often referred to as eye doctors or, according to Florida Optometric Association lobbyist David Ramba, optometric physician. The list of 39 protected titles does not include the term physician or medical doctor but includes a variety of specialties such as anesthesiologist; cardiologist; dermatologist; endocrinologist; and gastroenterologist. It also includes the term surgeon. The optometrists did not publicly oppose the bill in committee Tuesday but Ramba said the group isn't on board. 'The bill says we can use whatever titles are in our practice act. Never before in state law has it required titles to be in a practice act or even in state law. Since the Senate has blocked any optometry practice act updates since 2013, we are opposed to legislation that would not allow us to use titles commonly used in the field such as 'optometric physician,'' he said. Scope of practice refers to the range of health care services authorized by statute and the educational requirements these providers must attain. Proposals to change scope of practice can be some of the most controversial bills legislators deal with, as they balance economic interests against patient care. Sen. Don Gaetz iconically dubbed the long-standing fight between optometrists and ophthalmologists and the care the two professions can offer patients as the 'eyeball wars' in the mid-2000s, when he served as Senate president. Sen. Kathleen Passidomo said she's been working on this for nearly a decade. A 2023 version of the bill was passed when Passidomo was Senate president but it was vetoed by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Pizzo asked whether there were assurances that this year's version of the bill wouldn't be vetoed. Passidomo said, 'We shall see.' Before the governor could approve the bill, it first it has to pass. As the 2025 session approaches its midway point, the House companion, HB 1341, has yet to be heard. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Nevada could be the next state to require overtime pay for farm workers
(Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) Some Nevada agriculture workers are subjected to grueling 12-hour days without overtime pay, living in shabby employer-provided housing, and dealing with unsafe work environments, state lawmakers were told Monday. Senate Bill 172, heard Monday at the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, seeks to bolster protections for farm workers and amend Nevada's overtime pay laws to include agriculture workers. Democratic state Sen. Edgar Flores, who sponsored the bill, said the legislation would establish an Agricultural Workers' Bill of Rights similar to versions passed in Colorado, Oregon, California and Washington. SB 172, if passed, would mandate break time requirements, raise standards for employer-provided housing, outline protections for whistleblowers, allow workers to collectively bargain and create an advisory committee to oversee implementation. In its most recent biennial report, the Nevada Department of Agriculture estimates there are 8,000 agricultural workers in the state. Make the Road Nevada has recently collected stories from farmworkers in Nevada to better understand some of the working conditions, which prompted several provisions included in the bill.. Noé Orosco, the government affairs manager with Make the Road Nevada, read a letter by an anonymous farm worker to lawmakers on Monday describing 10 workers being forced to share a two-bedroom trailer provided by the employer that lacked heating and air conditioning. The worker omitted his name out of fear of retaliation. Orosco said one of the workers the organization interviewed told their employer about living conditions, which included the trailer deteriorating, seeking to get the problem remedied. 'We were given just 15 days to vacate the premises,' Orosco read to lawmakers. 'However, only two days later, we were abruptly told that we had to leave immediately. Just like that, we were left unemployed and unhoused.' Make the Road provided Nevada Current with three additional letters of workers describing living and working conditions at unnamed farms. One worker wrote that they rarely had access to protective glasses, gloves or other basic equipment needed to handle hazardous chemicals. 'A former coworker once voiced concerns about the lack of protective gear, hoping for a safer work environment. Instead of addressing the issue, the boss fired him,' according to another letter. Another letter described being pressured to work through break times. 'When we do take breaks, we are sometimes rushed back to work before we have had a chance to properly rest or eat,' one worker wrote. Flores said while he knows there are agricultural employers who are treating their workers fairly, 'we've heard from other workers that they are not getting the same kind of love and treatment.' Agricultural workers are exempted from federal overtime law, although some states have enacted their own requirements. Nevada law exempts agriculture workers from the state's minimum wage and overtime pay laws, which requires workers to be paid one and a half times their pay rate if working more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week. The legislation would remove agricultural workers from the list of exemptions. Flores said he expects the overtime pay provisions to be 'the biggest point of contention' within the legislation. Numerous agriculture employers and farm owners opposed the bill and urged lawmakers to reject the legislation, warning of economic harm if it were to pass. Charles Turner, who owns Desert Hills Dairy in Lyon County, said agriculture workers are exempt from overtime laws due to the unique nature of agriculture work.' He said that if the state removed the exemption it 'would place undue financial and logistical strain on farmers and ranchers.' 'Nevada's agricultural industry operates on tight margins, competing with states and countries that have lower labor costs,' Turner said. While Flores said he was open to making changes to the language, he argued the state needs to address the issue of overtime pay for farm workers. 'As a business owner, I have been in that situation where I paid my staff and not myself, and it was scary,' he said. 'It's something employers do often. I think all of us in those circumstances can agree that the right answer is not to say we're not going to pay employees what they are owed.' Republican state Sen. John Ellison of Elko said many business owners, including him, allow workers who need to leave early to make up time later in the week to ensure they get 40 hours. Cecilia Alonso with the National Farm Workers union said Nevada's overtime laws fail to acknowledge workloads carried by farm workers. 'Unlike other industries, Nevada's farm workers are not entitled to the same overtime wage protections, despite working 10 to 12 hour shifts, six or even seven days a week,' Alonso said. 'These are grueling, physical, demanding jobs without proper compensation.' Ellison also objected to some of the bill's housing provisions, saying they would effectively require employers to tear down buildings and construct new facilities. 'Right now, advocates and service providers are not allowed to visit farm worker housing to provide information on legal rights, health care and worker protections,' Alonso said. 'Many farm workers live in employer farm worker housing, where their isolation makes them more vulnerable to exploitation, wage theft and unsafe conditions.' The bill, she said, merely seeks to offer additional protections. The committee took no action on the bill.
