Section 172-4-004 - CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR A PROFESSION NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED TO PRACTICE IN NEBRASKA The Nebraska Regulation of Health Professions Act sets out criteria for the regulation of a profession not currently allowed to practice in Nebraska. These are professions currently not credentialed and currently not allowed to practice in Nebraska. The review body must determine whether the following criteria are met.
004.01CRITERION ONE. Absence of a separate regulated profession creates a situation of harm or danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The review body must apply the following standards in determining whether this criterion is met:(A) The public is suffering harm or danger, which is clearly and directly attributable to the absence of the separately regulated health profession under review, and that this harm or danger is of sufficient magnitude to warrant state intervention.(B) The Documentation of harm or danger to the public must be sufficient to demonstrate that the harm or danger is clear, that it is attributable to the absence of the separate regulated health profession in question. Evaluation of harm or danger is based on the highest level of evidence available.(C) Harm or danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the public may occur in physical, emotional, or social contexts and as such all of these can be considered.(D) Harm or danger to the public must be of sufficient extent and severity to warrant governmental intervention. A certain level of harm or danger attributable to human error and uncontrollable factors will always occur within any health care field.004.02CRITERION TWO. Creation of a separate regulated profession would not create a significant new danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The review body must apply the following standards in determining whether this criterion is met: (A) Any harm or danger that might result from the creation of the separate regulated profession would not be outweighed by the benefits of providing legal access to the profession in question.(B) Documentation of harm or danger to the public must be sufficient to demonstrate that the harm or danger is clear, that it is attributable to the creation of the separate regulated profession in question, and that it is serious and extensive. Evaluation of harm or danger is based on the highest level of evidence available.(C) Evidence supporting the status guo must clearly demonstrate how and why this situation protects the public from harm or danger.(D) Evidence must show the benefits of creating the new regulated health profession clearly to be greater in extent and impact than any harm or danger that would be created.(E) If regulation of the profession would require a scope of practice to be defined, the scope of practice must be coordinated with those of regulated professions to minimize fragmentation of the health care system.(F) Regulation of the profession must not lead to unnecessary limitations on the utilization of personnel by employers or to underutilization of qualified personnel.(G) Regulation of the profession must not result in an unnecessary reduction in competition.004.03CRITERION THREE. Creation of a separate regulated profession would benefit the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The review body must use the following to determine if this criterion is met. (A) The creation of a separate regulated profession would likely produce widespread benefits for the public, and that the amount and extent of the benefits would outweigh any possible harm or danger that might be caused by creating this newly credentialed and legalized profession.(B) Documentation of benefits to the public must be sufficient to demonstrate that there is a realistic expectation of their occurrence following enactment of the desired legislation, and that they will be of significant amount and extent. Evaluation of benefits to the public is based on the highest level of evidence available.(C) The extent and amount of benefit to the public must clearly outweigh any potential harm or danger to the public that might be brought about by the creation of a separate regulated profession.(D) Benefits to the public may occur in physical, emotional, economic, or social contexts and as such all of these can be considered.(E) Whether the education and training requirements set forth in the proposal are necessary and adeguate for safe and effective practice.004.04CRITERION FOUR. The public cannot be protected by a more effective alternative. The review body must determine whether: (A) The creation of the separately regulated profession would be an effective remedy to the harm or danger identified, and that no other evident means of dealing with this harm or danger, including the status guo, would provide a more effective alternative.(B) Viable alternatives to the proposal have been identified and, if available, if the alternative are able to address the same harm or danger raised in the applicant proposal.(C) Evidence supporting the proposal shows that its enactment would clearly, specifically, and directly solve or alleviate the problems, including harm or danger to the public, that are used to justify the application.(D) Protection of the public must be interpreted as protecting it both from any harm or danger caused by absence of the profession, and from any harm or danger caused by permitting the separate practice of the profession.(E) Any and all evident alternatives to the proposal might provide the same or greater problem-solving potential as the proposal, while being more cost-effective or less restrictive. Alternatives may include different levels or types of state credentialing or regulation of the profession, maintenance of the status guo, and other potential solutions. Reviewers are not limited to evaluating only alternatives presented to them by the applicant group; they can actively seek to identify and analyze potential alternatives. The recommendations of the reviewing body must reflect their best assessment of the most likely solution to the problems identified.(F) The costs of the proposal, and of any alternatives considered, must be evaluated for unnessessary financial burden to the public.172 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 4, § 004
Amended effective 1/10/2021