Relates to registered radiologic technologists working within a collaborative practice agreement with a licensed physician
This bill amends New York’s Public Health Law to create a formal “collaborative practice agreement” framework for registered radiologic technologists working with licensed physicians. Under the bill, radiologic technologists could administer intravenous contrast media as part of x-ray or imaging procedures when operating under a written agreement and practice protocols with a physician, in addition to the existing authority for certain contrast administration under direct supervision. The bill also defines “collaborative practice agreement” in statute and ties it to new requirements in the Public Health Law.
The agreement must be signed and maintained by both parties, reviewed annually, and include protocols addressing medically compromised patients, specific medical conditions, age- and procedure-specific practices, and response to adverse reactions. Before providing services under such an agreement, the technologist must give patients a written notice that the services are not being provided by or under the direct or personal supervision of a physician. The bill also limits technologists to one collaborative agreement at a time, requires filing an application and fee with the Department of Health, and conditions participation on maintaining an intravenous contrast administration certificate and completing relevant training in radiology life support, emergencies, and risk management.
The bill would expand the circumstances under which radiologic technologists may administer intravenous contrast media in New York, while also establishing new statutory oversight, documentation, training, and patient-notice requirements. It would amend definitions in the Public Health Law and add a new subdivision governing collaborative practice agreements, thereby creating a regulated pathway for this practice outside of direct physician supervision in specified settings. The Department of Health would be responsible for administering the application process and could be involved in setting the fee and overseeing compliance.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears generally supportive of expanding professional practice flexibility for radiologic technologists while preserving patient safety safeguards. The bill was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Health, with no recorded votes or committee transcript available in the provided materials. The structure of the bill suggests an effort to balance access and operational efficiency with oversight, training, and supervision requirements.
The main points of potential contention are patient safety, the degree of physician oversight, and the scope of independent practice for radiologic technologists. Supporters are likely to emphasize improved workflow, access, and the ability to perform imaging procedures more efficiently under standardized protocols. Opponents or cautious stakeholders may focus on the reduced requirement for direct or personal supervision, the adequacy of training and emergency response protocols, and whether collaborative agreements provide sufficient safeguards for medically complex patients. The bill also places responsibility on facilities and collaborating physicians to ensure appropriate clinical oversight and operational capability, which may be a practical concern for implementation.