Speech-Language Pathologist and Audiologist Licensing
Advisory Council Meeting
April 20, 2012
Attendance
Members
Jill Arvidson, MST, CCC-SLP
Sally Gorski, MA, CCC-SLP
Heidi Hueffmeier, CCC-SLP
Justyn Pisa, AuD
Josephine Helmbrecht, AuD
Melissa Ferrello, AuD
Staff
Tom Hiendlmayr
Gloria Rudolph
Barbara Miller
Absent Members
Mark DeRuiter, PhD, CCC-A/SLP
Jerry Meinders, HID
Katherine Driskell
Lori Mayo
Jason Schlotthauer
I.
Introductions
Introductions were done by those in attendance.
II.
Review and Approve Minutes from January 27, 2012
The Minutes were approved as written.
III.
Review/Adoption of Agenda
The Agenda was adopted as written.
IV.
Staff Reports
A. Credentialing Report
Rudolph presented the Credentialing Activity Report as of March 31, 2012. She stated
the numbers of practitioners holding full licensure in speech-language pathology are
1,355, in audiology are 404, and dual licensure are two for a total of 1,761. The numbers
of practitioners holding clinical fellowship or doctoral externship temporary licenses in
speech-language pathology are 94 and in audiology are 12 for a total of 106. The
numbers of practitioners holding a 90-day temporary license in speech-language
pathology are two and in audiology are two, for a total of four. There are 1,871 licensees
in total. Rudolph stated that the current renewal is for licenses expiring May 31, 2012,
and 442 renewal notices were mailed in March 6, 2012. Rudolph presented a report
showing SLP/Aud Monthly Stats for 7/1/06 to 3/31/12. She noted that the monthly
numbers fluctuate up and down some, but there has been an overall upward trend in the
number of licensees.
B. Exam Report – February 23, 2012 Exam Results
Rudolph presented the Hearing Instrument Dispenser Exam report created by Patti Fuller.
1
The exam was offered February 23, 2012, and the exam results were mailed on March 13,
2012. Rudolph stated that there were 19 new examinees taking the practical exam for the
first time. Of those 19 new examinees, seven passed the practical exam (five audiologists
and two non-audiologists) and 12 failed one or more portions (eight audiologists and four
non-audiologists. The eight audiologist failures consisted of: two audiometry and
earmold impressions, five earmold impressions, and one audiometry and hearing aid
fitting and servicing. Rudolph stated that eight examinees retested the practical exam. Of
those eight retesting, four examinees passed their retest (one audiologist and three nonaudiologists) and four non-audiologists failed their retest. Pisa inquired if something
systematic occurred during the exam because having seven audiologists failing earmold
impressions seemed alarming? Hiendlmayr agreed that there were a lot more failures
there than normal. Hiendlmayr observed the part of the earmold impression testing during
that exam, and the failures were the typical things that the Health Occupations Program
(HOP) sees with people that have not worked in some sort of supervised program or work
environment. He also explained that when an individual is tested that the rater knows the
individual as a number and does not know their name, training, or where they work. HOP
tries to pair the exam candidate with a rater that they do not know or that they have not
had before if they are doing a retake. Pisa stated his concern is whether those individuals
are from a single program of training. Hiendlmayr stated the exam application does not
collect information about training. Helmbrecht wondered if it would be useful to track the
training and possibly look into facilities that have had a high percentage of failures by
exam candidates. Gorski asked Helmbrecht whether the training institutions are tracking
that information? Helmbrecht responded that she did not know if they are tracking that
specifically, but universities are looking at ways to track information like this more. She
wondered if there was a way to share and/or track that information in a way that is useful
for making improvements before individuals get to the exam. Helmbrecht inquired on
whether there was any progress on automating the audiometry portion of the test?
Hiendlmayr responded that the Program decided that they are not going to use the
automated test because there are a range of issues to incorporating it into the exam
setting, but the virtual audiometry is something that the Program would like to promote
as a training tool because audiometry is the portion that most people fail.
C. Investigations and Enforcement Report
Hiendlmayr presented the Investigations and Enforcement Report for Speech-Language
Pathology for the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2012. Hiendlmayr stated that there were
eight intakes. Of those eight intakes, six were application intakes and two were
allegations. Two investigations were opened as the result of allegations, and both of the
allegations involved aiding or abetting another person in violating SLP provisions. Two
investigations were closed: one was closed due to insufficient evidence and the other was
referred to enforcement. One enforcement action was opened, and two enforcement
actions were closed. One of the enforcements that closed involved a suspension of the
license, a civil penalty, and a CE requirement. Hiendlmayr noted that the closed
enforcement is posted on the HOP’s website, and it involved a failure to respond to the
Commissioner’s request for providing CE information. Currently there are 20
investigations open and seven enforcement actions open for a total of 27 pending actions.
Hiendlmayr presented the Investigations and Enforcement Report for Audiologists for the
2
third quarter of Fiscal Year 2012. He stated that there were 20 intakes received. Of those
20 intakes, three were allegations, ten were application intakes and seven were inquiries
for information. Three investigations were opened as the result of allegations: one for
misleading advertising; one alleging conduct likely deceive or defraud the public; and
one failure to comply with repair provisions on a hearing aid. One investigation was
closed due to an uncooperative person not providing information. No enforcement actions
were opened or closed. Currently there are 19 investigations open and eight enforcement
actions open for a total 27 pending actions.
C. Budget and Expenditure Reports
Hiendlmayr presented the Third Quarter Budget and Expenditure Report for Fiscal Year
2012. Hiendlmayr noted that this the first fiscal report produced this year due to the statewide account program conversion. He stated the total expenditures and revenues are close
to where the programs were during the third quarter of FY11. He noted that currently
there are positive operating balances that are being added to the surplus.
Hiendlmayr presented the Long Range Budgets for Audiologists and for SpeechLanguage Pathologists. He noted that the audiology accumulated ending balance is
slowly decreasing in future years, but the speech-language pathology accumulated ending
balance is increasing. He explained that difference is primarily due to speech-language
pathologists having a higher number of licensed practitioners than audiologists.
V.
Old Business
A. Audiology Assistants (ongoing discussion)
Helmbrecht stated that she presented on this subject at the Minnesota Academy of
Audiology’s Mid-Winter Conference. She acknowledged that she had received some
good information from the Department about what could and could not be delegated, and
there was a lot of discussion about that. At a minimum, MAA plans on developing a
position statement and then getting MDH input. The MAA’s Government Relations
Committee is considering pros and cons to regulation. She noted that it was a fluid
situation with surveys indicating that 73% of audiologists used assistant personnel in
some capacity. She stated that half the states regulate. There are few training programs,
but none are in Minnesota. Hiendlmayr suggested that prior to taking the regulation step
and more as a policy development exercise, perhaps MAA and MDH could work together
to post some guidance information on websites so that people could see a listing of those
activities which are clearly acceptable, those agreed as clearly not acceptable, and those
in the grey area in between. It could be an interim way folks could see side by side what
the law presently allows and prohibits, and also see those activities delegated by licensees
in the community while MAA discussion occurs about how to go forward.
B. Dispenser Training and Education Workgroup Update
Hiendlmayr stated that the workgroup has not met since last the Advisory Council
meeting, and the sub-workgroup is scheduled to have its last meeting in May.
C. Legislative Update
• MDH Proposed Change
Hiendlmayr stated the proposal the Department submitted was not approved by the
3
Governor’s office, and it primarily involved requiring practitioners to update information
concerning employment.
• HF1846 – SLP Assistants
Hiendlmayr stated the bill concerning changing the SLP assistant educational
requirement was withdrawn.
• HF2555, SF2304 – Sunset Advisory Commission
Hiendlmayr presented a summary of the provisions of the Sunset Review Bill that
pertained to the Health Occupations Program. Hiendlmayr explained that one side of the
handout summarized the House bill, and the other side summarized the Senate bill. He
stated the information is identical, except regarding authorization to conduct a criminal
background check. The bills are being conferenced this afternoon, and it is expected there
will be a resolution of the differences about criminal background checks.
• HF2294 – Prior Authorization Amendment
Hiendlmayr presented the proposed Prior Authorization Amendment. Gorski stated there
was a change in the intermediary vendor that processed prior authorization requests, and
they were having very slow response rates to authorization of requests since that change.
As of March 1, 2012, everyone that provided services for patients with MA insurance had
to do prior authorization requests for every service, and the combination of those two
changes resulted in practitioners having very few prior authorization responses. On April
5, 2012, a tri-alliance of PT, OT and SLP representatives met with lobbyists at the Capital
to raise these concerns, and the requirement of prior authorization was rescinded through
the end of the year. Gorski stated that practitioners are relieved of the burden, but are
unsure what the next step is or what the future holds in terms of prior authorization
requirements.
VI.
New Business
A. Yellow Pages Advertising under Audiology by Non-Audiologists
Helmbrecht had several questions about how the issue of yellow page advertising under
the audiology category by non-audiologist should be handled and how MDH should be
informed. Hiendlmayr responded that the complaint form should be used, and he
specifically stated that the Department needs information about date and geographic
distribution of the ads in addition to the copy of the ad that generated the complaint. He
explained that the Department reviewed the advertiser/publisher contract to determine
whether responsibility lies with the advertiser for any errors or misrepresentations
because it appears in some cases that the publisher has some discretion as to location and
categorization of ads in a hard copy publication. Hiendlmayr explained that the situation
is a bit more challenging when online searches are the means to accessing a particular ad.
He noted that it is easier to get a correction to an online problem than paper/book format.
In either situation, the Department handles these matters by trying to verify complaint
information, and the remedy in most cases would be a letter of advisement rather than
withdrawal of an ad or other correction since it is like water over the dam. Hiendlmayr
explained that short of a repeat incident by the same person, a letter of advisement
accomplishes compliance without the need for proceeding to an enforcement action.
Helmbrecht stated that she would communicate this information to the concerned MAA
4
members.
B. FDA Determination
Hiendlmayr presented an FDA letter of determination addressed to hi HealthInnovation
concerning their online hearing test. Helmbrecht and Pisa were highly complementary of
the result. Helmbrecht stated it seemed like MDH was major factor for getting this done
by asking the FDA in the right way. Hiendlmayr stated that Lloyd worked with the local
FDA contact on this, and this is the result. Helmbrecht stated that to her knowledge,
MDH was the only organization that received a copy of the FDA letter of determination.
Hiendlmayr noted that though the Department is not doing a press release about the FDA
determination, it was fully public and publishable, and so the Council Members can
disseminate the letter if they choose. Helmbrecht stated that she had heard that the test
kits of the same online test loaded onto a USB stick had been distributed to physician
offices in some states, but she was not aware of it being distributed in Minnesota.
Helmbrecht noted that several practitioners in the audiology community have asked her
to pass on their gratitude to MDH for their effort. Hiendlmayr noted that the gratitude
should be directed towards Lloyd for her work on this.
C. Personal Announcement
Hiendlmayr shared that he will be leaving his position at the Department of Health in
early July. A successor has not been appointed at the present time.
Next Meeting
July 27, 2012
2:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Snelling Office Park
Minnesota Room
1645 Energy Park Drive
Saint Paul, MN 55108
5