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
| ||||
N 7
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Misconduct or unprofessional conduct
| ||||
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 policy problem addressed by the rule is to update and modernize the misconduct or unprofessional conduct rule which has not been updated since 1995.
| ||||
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 14 days for economic comments and none 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)
| ||||
This rule will not have an economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole. The rule addresses conduct of the licensee.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The benefit of implementing the rule is including current minimum standards of the profession necessary for the protection of the public. In addition, as a member state of the Nurse Licensure Compact, the benefit is to have consistency among the compact states as to what practices are construed as misconduct or unprofessional conduct.
The alternate to updating and modernizing the misconduct or unprofessional conduct rule is to continue with a current rule that creates uncertainty to the licensee as to what is misconduct or unprofessional conduct when a situation arises involving technology, practices or laws that were not in place in 1995.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The long range implication is notice provided to the licensees and public as to what constitutes unprofessional conduct.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
None
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
The grounds for disciplinary actions in our neighboring states include: behavior which crosses professional boundaries; sexual conduct; fraud; departure from or failure to conform to the standards of nursing; practicing outside the scope; obtaining, possessing or attempting to obtain a controlled substance outside the practice of nursing; unethical business practices; criminal convictions; violating confidentiality; obtaining money, property or services from a patient through the use of undue influence; failing to or inability to perform nursing with reasonable skill and safety; engaging in unethical practices; improper management of patient records; and improper supervision.
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Sharon Henes
|
(608) 261-2377
|
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
| ||||
N 9
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Nurse Licensure Compact
| ||||
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
| ||||
Wisconsin is a party of the Nurse Licensure Compact. The Nurse Licensure Compact requires the adoption of the uniform rules for facilitation and coordination of implementation of the compact.
| ||||
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 impact comments for 14 days and none 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)
| ||||
This rule will not have an economic or fiscal impact on specific 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 benefit of implement the rules is our continued participation in the Nurse Licensure Compact. The Nurse Licensure Compact allows nurses to practice across state lines. If Wisconsin were removed from the Nurse Licensure Compact, for failure to implement the uniform rules, there would be an economic impact on the state and nurses license in Wisconsin would be ineligible to practice out of state under their Wisconsin license.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The long range implication of implementing the rule is continual participation in the Nurse Licensure Compact.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
None
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
Iowa is a member of the Nurse Licensure Compact and have adopted the uniform rules. Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota are not current party states to the Nurse Licensure Compact.
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Sharon Henes, Administrative Rules Coordinator
|
(608) 261-2377
|