REGULATORY ANALYSIS
For Proposed Amendments to
Standards for Hospitals and Health Facilities
6 CCR 1011-1
Chapter II - General Licensure Standards
Chapter IX - Community Clinics and Community Clinics and Emergency Centers
Adopted by the Board of Health on November 17, 2010
1.
A description of the classes of persons who will be affected by the proposed rule,
including classes that will bear the costs of the proposed rule and classes that will
benefit from the proposed rule.
The proposed regulations will impact existing community clinics that add an
anesthetizing location or community clinics with an anesthetizing location that are
seeking an initial license. It is not anticipated that this rule will add costs because it is a
clarification of existing requirements.
2.
To the extent practicable, a description of the probable quantitative and qualitative
impact of the proposed rule, economic or otherwise, upon affected classes of
persons.
Existing rule provides that community clinics "that cause any patient to require assistance
from others in order to safely evacuate during an emergency" must have a 2-hour firewall
requirement. Upon further review of the services provided in community clinics, it was
determined that only those facilities administering anesthesia (and with anesthetizing
locations) render persons incapable of self-evacuation. The proposed amendment
amends the current requirement to reflect this finding. This regulatory clarification is not
expected to have a significant qualitative or quantitative impact.
3.
The probable costs to the agency and to any other agency of the implementation and
enforcement of the proposed rule and any anticipated effect on state revenues.
Since the proposed regulation reflects a clarification of existing rule, there are no
anticipated additional costs associated with implementation or enforcement.
4.
A comparison of the probable costs and benefits of the proposed rule to the
probable costs and benefits of inaction.
Action is being taken to clarify the 2-hour firewall requirement. Inaction would mean that
the regulations would be less clear.
1
5.
A determination of whether there are less costly methods or less intrusive methods
for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule.
No less costly or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule
were found.
6.
A description of any alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed
rule that were seriously considered by the agency and the reasons why they were
rejected in favor of the proposed rule.
No alternative methods of achieving the purpose of the proposed rule were found.
7.
To the extent practicable, a quantification of the data used in the analysis; the
analysis must take into account both short-term and long-term consequences.
In both the short- as well as the long-term, it is anticipated that the clarification will make
it easier for facilities to understand how to achieve compliance with the two-hour firewall
requirement and for the Department to enforce it.
2