SVT Prevails in Montana

(5/04/01) The Montana Board of Radiologic Technologists decided unanimously to reject the proposed rule changes in their entirety. Members of the Board acknowledged that it was not their intent to include ultrasound modalities.The hearings officer acknowledged that the authority of the Board was "very questionable." He gave them three options: Adopt, reject or amend the proposed changes. A motion was made and seconded to "delete anything having to do with ultrasound." The public member of the Board expressed concern that the Board should reject the rules completely and start over because including "non-ionizing radiation" was beyond the scope of the Board. The hearings officer suggested if the Board planned to start over that it work with the various groups who appeared in opposition. A motion to reject the changes in their entirety was made and passed unanimously.

Joe Mazurek, JD, who represented SVT at the hearings, reports that "the Board does appear to have some interest in taking another look at the issue of uncredentialed people coming into the state and practicing. They did acknowledge that it would take a legislative change to extend beyond the sphere of ionizing radiation. We will need to keep our eyes and ears open
for such an effort."

Background

An amendment was recently introduced to the Board of Radiologic Technologists in Montana that would, among other things, allow the Board to exercise jurisdiction over ultrasound (non-ionizing radiation). SDMS joined SVT in retaining Arent Fox to prepare comments ((PDF, 18k) and testimony for the
hearing, held on May 9. When notified by SVT, the SVS/AAVS joined the battle, sending a similar comment note. Montana attorney Joe Mazurek, SVT member Kathryn McLain, AA AS RVT RDMS, and SDMS member Jean Rankin, RDMS RVS, attended the hearing and testified, in line with the written comments.

These three report that 54 written comments were submitted and over 30 people testified in person. Almost all opposed the amendment, largely on the grounds that the requirements for specialties would restrict hospitals' abilities to provide care, especially in the many rural areas and small towns in Montana. The next step is another hearing, on June 1, at which time the Board will announce whether it will adopt, amend, or reject this proposed amendment. In the meantime, SVT will be ensuring that any questions posed to us are fully answered and that the summary of the hearing accurately reflects our position and seeking alliance with the Montana Hospital Association, which has already testified against the proposed amendment. We will be represented again at the June 1 hearing.