If you live in minnesota HT may get regulated. You know what they say… “Today minnisota tomorrow the world!”
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1069.0.html&session=ls85
» If you live in minnesota HT may get regulated. You know what they say…
» “Today minnisota tomorrow the world!”
»
»
» HF 1069 as introduced - 85th Legislature (2007 - 2008)
»
»
»
» Bill Information HF1069 - Minnesota House of Representatives
I wish they had that in Georgia…
Dear Marco,
Thanks for pointing these legislative efforts.
Even though performed with honorable intentions, this will be more harmful than beneficial.
The first thing any medical centre requires is a trained doctor. Will you let a doctor operate on your eye because he has attended a 2 day workshop or even a 1 month one on eye surgery?!
No.
You will search for a qualified Opthalmologist.
Unfortunately, and this I knew will happen one day… the government comes with a legislation but there is no medical field that teaches HT. And there is no formal training program for hair restoration as there is for other specialities. So, the legislation has no teeth. It merely confers rights on doctors who can now claim to have “government license” for their hair transplant centres.
Let me explain…
- They legitimise scalp reductions, flaps and a whole sort of out dated surgeries.
- They legitimise clinics performing a whole range of operations, botox, tummy tucks and HTs on the side.
(a) “Hair transplant surgery facility” means a freestanding facility, clinic, or
1.9physician’s office where surgical procedures are performed on an outpatient basis for the
1.10purpose of restoring hair, including, but not limited to, follicular unit transplantation, large
1.11or small grafting techniques, flaps, or scalp reductions.
1.12(b) “Commissioner” means the commissioner of health.
- They legitimise any doctor to perform HTs (no prior training required). In fact, they legitimise any person to operate an HT clinic as long as they have a physician on their pay.
(b) If the owner or manager of the facility is not a licensed physician, a licensed
3.5physician must be designated as the agent of the manager or owner to be responsible
3.6for the direct supervision of all personnel and services related to hair transplant surgery
3.7procedures.
All that the legislation does is give the unethical/untrained doctors a prop.
They need to maintain sanitation, sterilization procedures (which any cosmetic surgery clinic will do anyway), and pay an yearly fee to the commisioner.
The commisioner can intervene only if the above are not followed.
In return for introducing additional red tape and a commisioner, the government gives RECOGNITION to any clinic that fulfills these guidelines.
Their omission boils down to the one single sentence I spoke at start.
The first requirement for opening an eye surgery centre is a trained eye surgeon. The remaining things come after that.
This legislation allows government recognition to perform any outdated procedures as long as you are a doctor (of any kind, trained or untrained in HTs) or you employ a physician. He may be a forensic pathologist never having seen a single hair transplant (no insult meant to forensic pathologists).
Regards,
Dr. A
» Dear Marco,
» Thanks for pointing these legislative efforts.
»
» Even though performed with honorable intentions, this will be more harmful
» than beneficial.
»
To b honest, Dr. A, the post was partly tounge in cheek although it was meant to inform on the legislation.
My thoughts on reading it were that the legislater had no interest in protecting patients but it seemed more as if the were interested in the yearly fees that would be paid by the clinic.
although we whant to help protect against corrupt or incompetent and greedy surgeons, protecting against currupt incompetent and greedy politicians is a lot harder I think 
» » Dear Marco,
» » Thanks for pointing these legislative efforts.
» »
» » Even though performed with honorable intentions, this will be more
» harmful
» » than beneficial.
» »
»
»
» To b honest, Dr. A, the post was partly tounge in cheek although it was
» meant to inform on the legislation.
»
» My thoughts on reading it were that the legislater had no interest in
» protecting patients but it seemed more as if the were interested in the
» yearly fees that would be paid by the clinic.
»
» although we whant to help protect against corrupt or incompetent and
» greedy surgeons, protecting against currupt incompetent and greedy
» politicians is a lot harder I think
You are so right marco! I guess its a start, but…geez!