Authorizes radiologic technologists to perform radiography services under collaborative practice agreements; defines "collaborative practice agreement" as an agreement between a radiologic technologist and a licensed physician which does not require the direct supervision of the licensed physician when administering certain radiography services; sets forth requirements for collaborative practice agreements.
S10439 would amend the Public Health Law to create a new “collaborative practice agreement” framework for radiologic technologists and licensed physicians. Under the bill, radiologic technologists could perform certain radiography services, including intravenous administration of contrast media as part of an x-ray or imaging procedure, under a written agreement and protocol with a physician rather than under direct or personal supervision in every instance. The bill also adds a statutory definition of collaborative practice agreement and ties that definition to new requirements in section 3502 of the Public Health Law.
The bill sets detailed conditions for these agreements. They must be signed, maintained, and reviewed annually; address medically compromised patients, specific medical conditions, age- and procedure-specific protocols, and adverse reactions; and be available to the Department of Health on request. Before providing services under an agreement, the technologist must give the patient 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 such agreement at a time, requires department application and fees, and conditions participation on maintaining a state-issued intravenous contrast administration certificate and completing relevant training in radiology life support, emergency procedures, and risk management.
The bill would change current practice rules by allowing collaborative practice sites to operate without direct physician supervision, so long as supervision is provided through two-way, real-time audiovisual technology consistent with CMS guidance and the site has qualified on-site personnel to respond to adverse events. It also allows a physician to enter into multiple collaborative agreements, subject to the physician’s and facility’s ability to provide oversight and maintain patient safety. The measure would take effect one year after enactment, with immediate authorization for any necessary implementing regulations.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is procedural and supportive of expanding practice flexibility, though no committee transcript or vote record is available to show debate or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests an emphasis on access, operational efficiency, and maintaining safety standards through training, oversight, and protocol requirements. Because there is no recorded vote or hearing discussion in the provided materials, there is no documented public sentiment beyond the sponsor’s decision to advance the proposal.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on patient safety, the adequacy of remote supervision, and whether radiologic technologists should be permitted to administer contrast media without direct physician oversight. The bill attempts to address those concerns by requiring written protocols, annual review, patient notice, certification, and on-site emergency-ready staffing. Another possible issue is the balance of responsibility between physicians and technologists, since physicians may hold multiple agreements while technologists are limited to one, and the Department of Health would have to administer new applications, fees, and regulatory standards.
This bill would amend sections 3501 and 3502 of the Public Health Law to formally authorize radiologic technologists to work under collaborative practice agreements with physicians for certain radiography-related services, including intravenous contrast administration. It would create new statutory definitions and impose licensing, certification, training, notice, and oversight requirements, while also allowing remote physician supervision in specified circumstances. The Department of Health would likely need to establish application procedures, fees, and any implementing regulations needed to operationalize the new practice model.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to measure support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to expand clinical flexibility while preserving safety controls, suggesting a generally pragmatic and professional-regulatory tone rather than a highly partisan one. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials means sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the sponsor’s apparent support for the proposal.
The main likely contention is whether allowing radiologic technologists to administer intravenous contrast under a collaborative practice agreement, rather than direct physician supervision, sufficiently protects patients. Critics may question the adequacy of remote audiovisual oversight, the reliability of technologist training and certification, and the risk management provisions for adverse reactions. Supporters would likely emphasize improved workflow, access, and the bill’s safeguards, including written protocols, annual review, patient notification, and on-site emergency-capable staffing. Another possible point of debate is the administrative burden on physicians and facilities, especially the requirement to maintain and review agreements and comply with Department of Health oversight.