Pharmacy Examining Board
Subject:
Phar Code - Relating to collaborative practice of a pharmacist with a practitioner.
Description of policy issues:
Objective of the rule:
The objective of the rule is to provide guidelines to pharmacists for the type of activities which they may be delegated by a practitioner that do not conflict with the traditional role of the pharmacist in the health care delivery system. Currently, no standards exist defining what duties may be delegated, the requirements for supervision by a practitioner and the protocols for a validly-delegated task.
Policy analysis:
As one additional step in assuring positive patient outcomes, and to further eliminate adverse drug events and medication errors, the role of the pharmacist in the delivery of health care services can be expanded. A pharmacist acting under the supervision of a practitioner can carry out delegated tasks from the practitioner pursuant to strict protocols. The traditional role of the pharmacist in prescription drug compounding, dispensing and consultation can be expanded to include:
• Initiating, modifying, and monitoring drug therapy;
• Ordering and performing laboratory tests;
• Assessing patients' responses to therapy;
• Educating and counseling patients; and
• Administering medications in a prearranged collaboration with a practitioner.
Such a policy of pharmacist participation in providing patient care will better serve the health, safety and welfare of patients.
Statutory authority:
Sections 15.08 (5) (b), 227.11 (2), 450.02 (2) and (3) (e) and 448.03 (2) (e), Stats.
Estimate of the amount of state employee time and any other resources that will be necessary to develop the rule:
100 hours.
Personnel Commission
Subject:
SS. PC 1.02 (10) and 1.05 (2) - Relating to the filing and service of documents by fax but not email transmission.
Description of policy issues:
Objective of the rules:
The proposed rules provide that in proceedings before the Commission documents may be served and filed by the use of facsimile (fax) machines, but not by the use of email.
Existing policies:
The existing rules provide at s. PC 1.02 (10) that “`Filing' means the physical receipt of a document at the commission's office." This rule is unclear as to whether documents can be filed by fax transmission or email. The existing rules also provide at s. PC 1.05 (2) that : “Papers may be served either personally or by mail. Service by mail is complete upon mailing. That is, for purposes of service, the effective date is the date of mailing, not receipt. Filing is complete on receipt." This rule is unclear as to whether documents can be served or filed by fax transmission or email.
New policies:
The new rules would explicitly state that filing and service of documents can be effected by the use of fax transmission, but not by email transmission.
Analysis of policy alternatives:
The alternatives with regard to this subject matter are:
• Continue with the current rules. Because the present rules are somewhat ambiguous, this is not really a substantive alternative.
• Amend the rules to permit service and filing by fax. This would take advantage of current technology and facilitate access to the Commission by a medium that is more expedient than mail and other forms of delivery. Fax transmissions can be more secure than mail in the sense that all fax transmissions generate a receipt, while postal and similar receipts are only generated when a more expensive type of service is used. Also, the statutes now permit filing by fax in judicial proceedings if approved by the local court. However, allowing filing by fax could encourage last minute service and filing, and possibly game playing. There is a possibility of poor document quality. It also shifts the logistical burden for producing documents to the Commission and to the parties that receive fax transmissions. There is also a theoretical possibility that the use of fax would generate disputes (e. g., the commission's fax machine is not working when someone is trying to submit something) that are more problematical than those that are generated by the current use of more traditional means of document transmittal. However, it is also possible that this kind of dispute would be less problematical than those that currently arise under the use of more traditional means of document transmittal.
• Amend the rules to prohibit filing and service by fax. This involves the obverse of the policy considerations discussed above.
• Amend the rules to permit service and filing by email. This approach involves policy considerations somewhat similar to those raised by the use of fax transmission. In addition, email might be considered less secure than fax transmission because it does not generate a hard copy unless the recipient prints the document. Email is probably more prone to formatting problems during transmission. Email does not transmit a copy of a signature. It is not clear what would be involved by the use of electronic signatures. The court system doesn't seem to have accepted this medium of communication to the extent that the judiciary has accepted fax use.
• Amend the rules to prohibit service and filing by email. This involves the obverse of the policy considerations discussed above.
Statutory authority for rules:
Sections 227.11 (2) (b) and 230.45 (1) (i), Stats.
Estimates of staff time needed to develop rules and other resources needed to develop rules:
It is estimated that 40 hours of staff time would be needed to develop the rule. Other resources necessary to develop the rules would be clerical and related expenses of minimal cost.
Personnel Commission
Subject:
S. PC 2.01 - Relating to the time limit for filing complaints.
Description of policy issues:
Objective of the rules:
The proposed rule amends s. PC 2.01 to explicitly state that complaints under ss. 16.009 (5) (c) 2., 46.90 (4) (b), and 50.07 (3) (a) 2., Stats., are subject to the time limit for filing set forth in s. 111.39 (1), Stats.
Existing policies:
Existing s. PC 2.01 provides a cross-reference to s. 111.39 (1), Stats., but refers only to complaints under the elder abuse reporting law.
New policies:
The proposed rule involves no new policy, and is consistent with current statutory provisions.
Analysis of policy alternatives:
Since s. 230.45 (1) (j), Stats., provides that the Commission shall process complaints under ss. 16.009 (5) (c) 2., 46.90 (4) (b) or 50.07 (3) (a) 2., Stats., “in the same manner that employment discrimination complaints are processed under s. 111.39," it effectively incorporates by reference the 300 day time limit set forth in s. 111.39 (1), Stats., as to those bases of discrimination. The amendment clarifies that the 300 day time limit applies to complaints under all three subsections.
Statutory authority for rules:
Sections 227.11 (2) (b) and 230.45 (1) (i), Stats.
Estimates of staff time needed to develop rules and other resources needed to develop rules:
It is estimated that 10 hours of staff time would be needed to develop the rule. Other resources necessary to develop the rules would be clerical and related expenses of minimal cost.
Personnel Commission
Subject:
S. PC 3.02 (4) - Relating to the determination of poverty level.
Description of policy issues:
Objective of the rules:
The proposed rule would provide that in cases involving the application of s. PC 3.02 (4) (providing for a hardship exception to the requirement for the payment of fees with respect to certain kinds of appeals) the poverty level is to be determined by measuring the family's income, not just the income of the appellant.
Existing policies:
The existing rules provide at s. PC 3.02 (4) (b) 1. that the determination of poverty is measured by evaluating the appellant's income and resources under certain provisions of federal law.
New policies:
The new rules would provide that the determination of poverty is measured by evaluating, under certain provisions of federal law, the income of the appellant and his or her family, if any.
Analysis of policy alternatives:
The Commission could continue with the current rules, which would be more ambiguous than changing the rule.
Statutory authority for rules:
Sections 227.11 (2) (b) and 230.45 (1) (i), Stats.
Estimates of staff time needed to develop rules and other resources needed to develop rules:
It is estimated that 10 hours of staff time would be needed to develop the rule. Other resources necessary to develop the rules would be clerical and related expenses of minimal cost.
Transportation
Subject:
Ch. Trans 131 - Relating to operation of the vehicle emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) program.
Description of policy issues:
Description of the objective of the rule:
Chapter Trans 131 governs operation of the vehicle emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) program. DOT proposes to amend the rule to specify testing procedures for On-Board Diagnostic testing (termed OBD II testing).
Description of existing policies relevant to the rule and of new policies proposed to be included in the rule and an analysis of policy alternatives:
The current primary emission test is a transient tail pipe test, and for those vehicles which cannot perform a transient test, a 2-speed idle test is performed. The test is used to determine compliance with applicable vehicle exhaust emission limitations for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen. The OBD II test will measure and ensure the emission system in the vehicle is performing with established manufacturer's specifications. EPA will soon require states to test via the OBD II test. The Department, with the encouragement of the Department of Natural Resources, will begin OBD II testing in early 2001, with full implementation by mid-2001.
This rule amendment will specify testing procedures and failure criteria for the OBD II method of testing.
Statutory authority for the rule:
Sections 110.06, 110.20 (9) and 227.11 (2), Stats.
Estimates of the amount of time that state employees will spend developing the rule and of other resources necessary to develop the rule:
Approximately 300 hours of staff time including DOT and DNR staff, for development, hearings, and revision of rule draft.
