Speech-Language Pathologist and Audiologist Licensing
Advisory Council Meeting
January 27, 2012
Attendance
Members
Sally Gorski, MA, CCC-SLP
Heidi Hueffmeier, CCC-SLP
Justyn Pisa, AuD
Melissa Ferrello, AuD
Jerry Meinders, HID
Katherine Driskell
Staff
Tom Hiendlmayr
Gloria Rudolph
Barbara Miller
Absent Members
Mark DeRuiter, PhD, CCC-A/SLP
Jill Arvidson, MST, CCC-SLP
Josephine Helmbrecht, AuD
Lori Mayo
Jason Schlotthauer
I.
Introductions
Introductions were done by those in attendance.
II.
Review and Approve Minutes from October 28, 2011
The Minutes were approved as written.
III.
Review/Adoption of Agenda
Hiendlmayr stated that item 6B (Yellow Pages Advertising under Audiology by NonAudiologist) was proposed by Helmbrecht, and due to her absence, the item would be
discussed at the next meeting. The Agenda was adopted with the one change.
IV.
Staff Reports
A. Credentialing Report
Rudolph presented the Credentialing Activity Report as of December 31, 2011. She
stated the numbers of practitioners holding full licensure in speech-language pathology
are 1,362, in audiology are 406, and dual licensure are two for a total of 1,770. The
numbers of practitioners holding clinical fellowship or doctoral externship licenses in
speech-language pathology are 105 and in audiology are 13 for a total of 118. The
numbers of practitioners holding a 90-day temporary license in speech-language
pathology are zero and in audiology are two, for a total of two. There are 1,890 licensees
in total. Rudolph stated that the current renewal is for licenses expiring January 31, 2012,
and the renewal notices were mailed in November 2011. Pisa inquired if the CE audit
goes out after the renewal? Rudolph responded that the audits are not mailed until after
the CE due date, which is in February. Meinders asked for the number of hearing
instruments certified. Hiendlmayr responded that currently there are about 190 certified
hearing instrument dispensers.
B. Exam Report – November 3, 2011 Exam Results
Rudolph presented the November 3, 2011 Hearing Instrument Dispenser Exam report
1
created by Patti Fuller. The exam was offered November 3, 2011, and the exam results
were mailed on November 28, 2011. Rudolph stated that there were 12 new examinees
taking the practical exam for the first time. Of those 12 new examinees, seven passed the
practical exam (six audiologists and one non-audiologist) and five non-audiologists failed
one or more portions. Rudolph stated that eight examinees retested the practical exam. Of
those eight retesting, five examinees passed their retest (four audiologists and one nonaudiologist) and three failed their retest (one audiologist and two non-audiologists). The
one audiologist failure consisted of audiometry. Driskell inquired how many times can a
person take the exam? Hiendlmayr responded three times. If a person fails three times
within a two year period, then they have to wait a year before they can take the exam
again, and then they have to retake all parts of the exam. On the retests, they only retake
the portions that they failed.
C. Investigations and Enforcement Report
Hiendlmayr presented the Investigations and Enforcement Report for Audiologists for the
first half of Fiscal Year 2012. He stated that there were 39 intakes received. Of those 39
intakes, 11 were allegations, 12 were application intakes and 16 were inquiries for
information. Four investigations were opened as the result of allegations. The complaint
allegations involve: one illegal practice; one alleging conduct likely deceive or defraud
the public; one failure to comply with legal requirements as an employer, supervisor, or
trainee; and one failure to provide a refund or right amount of refund within 30 days. Five
investigations were closed: two were dismissed with advisements; one for lack of
jurisdiction; one for an uncooperative person to provide information; and one deceased
practitioner. No enforcement actions were opened or closed. Currently there are 17
investigations open involving 17 practitioners and eight enforcement actions open for a
total 25 pending actions.
Hiendlmayr presented the Investigations and Enforcement Report for Speech-Language
Pathology for the first half of Fiscal Year 2012. Hiendlmayr stated that there were 16
intakes. Of those 16 intakes, 13 were application intakes, two were queries for
information, and one was a public action check. Three investigations were opened as the
result of application intakes. The allegations involved: one intentional submission of false
or misleading information to the Department, one discipline by another jurisdiction, and
one failure to cooperate with an investigation. Two investigations were closed, and they
were both referred to enforcement. Two enforcement actions were opened, and one
enforcement action was closed with a civil penalty and conditional license. Currently
there are 20 investigations open involving 19 practitioners and eight enforcement actions
open for a total of 28 pending actions.
C. Budget and Expenditure Reports
Hiendlmayr stated there are no handouts because the State is changing its accounting
system, and the new system is not yet able to report out financial information. He stated
the Department’s finance division is working to produce some reports, but for example
fee receipt reports are not accessible. He stated the data is in the system, but they cannot
pull the data out. When the reports become available, he will be able to present the
expenditure and revenue line items. Meinders inquired if the information becomes
available before the next meeting if Hiendlmayr could email the information to the
2
council members? Hiendlmayr responded that he could do that.
V.
Old Business
A. Audiology Assistants (ongoing discussion)
Hiendlmayr stated there is a lot of discussion in the professional community about
audiology assistants. He noted Helmbrecht is not here, and she usually gives an update on
this topic. Hiendlmayr stated current discussions are related to what support personnel do
and not do in relation to the audiology and dispensing regulations, and that may be a
precursor to narrowing down on a scope of practice for these individuals. He stated there
are regulations in other states that the professional community can look to as perhaps
models or indications of a direction to go in. Hiendlmayr stated he does not think there is
any proposal coming forward at this point to set any sort of standards or requirements for
audiology assistants.
B. Dispenser Training and Education Workgroup Update
Hiendlmayr explained that a group of audiologists, hearing instrument dispensers,
manufacturers, and consumers have been working together to look at what training and
education is available for hearing instrument dispensing. Currently, there is no
requirement in statute for education or skill training in order to take the exam, and the
Department has significant failure rates on the exam. The outcome of the workgroup
efforts could be, on one hand, having recommendations that would eventually go into
legislation or, on the other hand, could be information available to people wanting to
prepare for the exam. So far, the Department has put on their website a detailed list of the
skills and knowledge areas for hearing instrument dispensing. The next thing the
workgroup undertook is to look at educational courses that could match with important
skills and necessary knowledge areas to safely and competently dispense hearing
instruments. The workgroup created a subcommittee to review the coursework, and the
subcommittee decided to survey non-audiologist individuals who have taken and passed
the hearing instrument exam to find out what they did to learn the skills to safely
dispense. The Department sent out the survey this last month, and there was a 50%
response rate. In the next week, the survey results will be analyzed, and soon the
subcommittee will meet to go over that information. The next step of the process will be
for subcommittee to go back to the full workgroup with information about courses and
the survey results.
C. Proposed Legislation
Hiendlmayr stated at the last meeting the Program presented proposed draft language that
would require licensees to notify the Department about changes in employer name and
address, and that language is continuing to go forward as part of the Department’s
housekeeping bill.
D. Credential Verification Website Update
Rudolph stated the credential verification lookup now lists people who have been denied
licensure due to noncompliance or not responding to requests for documentation. She
stated that when the Department sends out a denial letter, the letter states that a person
has 30 days to respond, if they do not respond within 30 days their application becomes
officially denied, and the denial information is public.
3
E. Online Hearing Aid Dispensing Update
Hiendlmayr stated this item was kept on the agenda because there was a lot of discussion
about it at the last meeting. He stated they have no new developments to report, and the
Department will continue to monitor activity in other states and responses of professional
associations in letters and journals. Meinders heard a rumor that Best Buy chose not to
sell devices. Pisa responded that he saw PSAs had been removed from their website, but
he does not know what that means exactly. Pisa stated UnitedHealth posted employment
ads for audiologists across the country, and so he is guessing that some changes might
have happened due to the initial backlash. He noted that the Minnesota Academy of
Audiology (MAA) is monitoring the situation. Meinders stated the International Hearing
Society (IHS) put out a pretty strong statement.
VI.
New Business
A. HF 1846 – SLP Assistants
Hiendlmayr presented House File 1846, which is a bill that affects speech-language
pathology assistants and was introduced earlier this month. He stated that he believes the
bill is being brought forward by Minnesota Speech-Language-Hearing Association
(MSHA). Hiendlmayr does not have a lot of information on this. He thinks the bill might
be trying to increase the number of assistants who might be under supervision in the
schools, but he is unsure why there is a change to remove a person with a bachelor’s
degree as being eligible to be a speech-language pathology assistant. Gorski stated
MSHA recently sponsored a town hall meeting, and they briefly touched on this with the
lobbyist. She stated there is not an educational program in place for assistants in
Minnesota, and so she is unsure about the proposed changes in this bill. Pisa stated he is
reading the bill as being more restrictive to about who can function as an assistant. Gorski
stated she is going to contact MSHA for more information about this bill.
B. Yellow Pages Advertising under Audiology by Non-Audiologists
This agenda item will be discussed at the next advisory council meeting.
C. Sunset Advisory Commission
Hiendlmayr stated last session legislation was passed that created a Sunset Commission
to review executive branch agencies according to a schedule. The way the law operates is
an agency that is scheduled for a sunset review is to cease operations unless the
legislature acts to continue or reauthorize its operation. The first agencies reviewed were
the health licensing boards and a number of councils and commissions. So all the
licensing boards would be scheduled to cease their operations in 2013 unless the
legislature was to act and authorize their continued existence and operation. The
Commission completed its work in terms of presenting for approval and adoption their
written recommendations to the legislature, and the recommendation was to not sunset
any of the licensing boards. A concern was whether or not they would recommend
something like taking all the health licensing boards and put them in the Health
Department or taking the licensing activities in the Health Department and put them with
the licensing boards. The current recommendation was that when the Sunset Commission
reviews MDH and its licensing activities that they look at the health licensing boards
again in terms of whether there is overlap or whether there should be any redesign of
4
activities. There were also some other recommendations that affect the MDH. One is that
the Commission took cognizance that the OET e-licensing surcharge seemed to be double
charging licensees since many of the health licensing boards had created their own online
renewal program, and that there was a lot of disagreement between the licensing boards
and OET about the e-licensing scope and results. So a recommendation was to require the
boards and OET to meet and resolve some of the problems. Another recommendation had
to do with past transfers from the state government special revenue fund to the general
fund, and the Sunset Commission’s recommendation was that does not occur in the
future. Hiendlmayr believes some positives came out of the process, and he noted that it
still remains to be seen what the legislature ends up doing with those recommendations.
D. New Member Orientation
Hiendlmayr met with Hueffmeier, Ferrello, and Driskell for new member orientation.
Next Meeting
April 20, 2012
2:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Snelling Office Park
Minnesota Room
1645 Energy Park Drive
Saint Paul, MN 55108
L:\HOP\CREDENTIAL\SLPA\ADV_COUN\MINUTES\2012\Jan 27.docx
5