New Regulations Could Affect the Scope of Practice for Colorado Estheticians!
Your action is needed! The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies – Barber/Cosmetology has submitted a proposal for new regulations that could affect the scope of practice for Colorado estheticians. Some parts of the proposed amendment, particularly the language that states estheticians would be “prohibited from performing a service and/or using an implement, device or product, or combination of same that penetrates or in any way affects a client’s skin that is beyond the stratum corneum,” could limit virtually all currently accepted modalities in our profession. The proposed amendment is available for your review on the state’s website at this link. You can also contact Ofelia Duran at 303-894-7794 or opr@dora.state.co.us for more information, or to provide your feedback about the proposed changes.
We urge you to attend the upcoming hearing on the proposed new regulations, so that our profession’s interests are represented in the proceedings. The hearing is set for Monday, October 1, 2012 at 10:00 am at 1560 Broadway, Conference Room 110A, Denver CO 80202.
Whether you can attend or not, please share this important information within your own networks through email, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and any other means!
Views: 1652
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Katie Armitage on
-
I'll be there!
-
Permalink Reply by Teri Kotantoulas on
-
Maybe ASCP can send this notice to all its Colorado members. I'll try to be there too!
-
Permalink Reply by Abram Herman on
-
We'll definitely be sending a communication to our Colorado members to get everyone involved--hope to see you there!
-
Permalink Reply by Stacy Webb on
-
I will be there!
-
Permalink Reply by Susanne Schmaling on
-
ASCP/AHP Opposes Proposed Colorado Rule Amendment
Associated Skin Care Professionals (ASCP) and Associated Hair Professionals (AHP) are concerned about the scope of practice terminology in the proposed amendment to Colorado’s existing rule.
A reduced scope of practice will be in effect if the proposed amendment is implemented. The proposed changes include the term “penetration of the stratum corneum.” This would prevent licensed professional estheticians and cosmetologists from providing treatments that are currently within their scope of practice. This can be interpreted as limiting individual practice and moving many standard treatments into review of the medical board, unfairly affecting small business growth and reducing the income earning potential of licensed professionals. Public safety is a foremost concern, and it is adequately addressed by current and proposed disinfection standards, core training curriculum, and liability insurance guidelines. Liability claims for this portion of the profession are historically low. Proposed compromise: Specify that estheticians and cosmetologists are prohibited from the use of a product, device, machine or other technique, or combination of the same, which “penetrates, destroys or alters the client's skin beyond the epidermis.”
A reduced scope of practice will also be in effect for certain modalities if the proposed amendment is implemented. The proposed changes will prohibit standard professional equipment and techniques, and do not reflect current scientific and regulatory guidelines. This would create an undue economic burden on licensed professionals and limit their liability insurance coverage. Public safety issues in this case are already adequately addressed by the increased requirement of additional training, as well as the professional standards currently required by insurance providers and associations. Proposed compromise: 1. Remove “retinoids” and specify “only cosmetic products and/or chemical substances that do not result in structural alteration or destruction of skin below the epidermis.” 5. “Any device or machine listed as FDA class II, III, IV ablative and fractional ablative medical devices or lasers.” 6. Could read “devices and machines classified as FDA class I, or exempt, are to be used in accordance with the manufacturer intended use.”
As associations that include professional liability insurance as a member benefit, ASCP and AHP can attest to the fact that both professions have the potential to harm a client if the practitioner does not have core competency in certain areas. In order for a member to receive liability coverage, they must have proof of additional training in that modality, be licensed by the state they are practicing in, and adhere to that state’s scope of practice. With more than 12,000 members nationwide, we can affirm that licensed professionals have low incidence of liability claims under the current scope of practice guidelines.
We respectfully ask that a compromise be made in the terminology of the rules, or delay a decision until all parties affected by the changes can provide additional facts and opinion.
Susanne Schmaling
-
Permalink Reply by Robyn Prazmark on
-
Thanks for your time in presenting our views so well. Where this coming from is more the issue. Sounds like DORA only wants us to do "feel good facials ! I treat acne and have a laser. I work inside a doctor's office. It will kill my business.
-
-
Hi Everyone,
I received a great reply from director Ofelia Duran. She received our information and is very grateful. The hearing for Oct 1 is cancelled and a new one will be scheduled in the future. I know a lot of people are upset and scared about this, I was too but know that ASCP is here for you and I truly do not believe that the director of DORA is trying to "go after estheticians". Is there other influences at play? that is definitely a possibility. Now is the time to get organized and involved. Make sure you sign up for DORA's mailing list on their website. To all of you who contacted me, I will be in touch with you today.
-
-
Thanks for the update, Susanne!
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Nathan on
-
Please provide contact info for the DORA mailing list and website. I am an esthetician in CA, but these kinds of legislation tend to move state to state.
Thank you.
Susan
-
Permalink Reply by Carrie Patrick on
-
The website is http://www.dora.state.co.us and if you click on "Professionals" you will find the thing where you can sign up to receive alerts from them.
You can also find contact info for every state board, D.C. and Puerto Rico here, http://www.ascpskincare.com/resources/legislative.php
-
Permalink Reply by Linda Hobart on
-
My letter to Ms Duran:
Dear Ms. Duran.RE: Proposed changes to Colorado Esthetician Scope of Practice,It is of great concern to me that DORA would limit my scope of practice so radically. If you did this, I would not have a practice. I work within the guidelines now and my business plan includes adding equipment that would require a Doctor's supervision, which I agree with and will provide. I am of the opinion if you have concerns, they must be founded. I have been informed that there is little cause to be concerned. The concern for the public is also ours as a collective.Perhaps it would more important to require CEU hours each year for estheticians instead of restricting our practice. I attend training on a regular basis, including webinars that ASCP provides. I love my work and want to be the best I can be. In my opinion, continuing education answers the concerns, not restricting scope of practice!Thank you for your time. I have clients scheduled on October 1 and am unable to attend. I am interested in my profession being treated like the growing, respectful entity it is. I hope DORA will consider my ideas and implement a program that is good for all.Sincerely,
-
-
Thanks to ASPC, especially Susanne! Looks like I was writing my email to Ms. Duran the same time you were posting your update. We must be vigilant and work with DORA. I would like to know if there are other forces at play. Is there someway to discern that? I am a pretty good detective, where would I start? I can take a deep breath and go to work!
Linda Hobart
The Skin Place
Longmont, CO 80501
theskinplace@gmail.com
© 2024 Created by ASCP.
Powered by
