Healing arts.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 100 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 100.
You're tracking SB 100
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 100 — Healing arts.
Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 645, Statutes of 2011.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓Passed Assembly
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 11, 2011. Enacted.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 9 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
(1) Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of various healing arts practitioners by boards under the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law requires the Medical Board of California, in conjunction with the Board of Registered Nursing, and in consultation with the Physician Assistant Committee and professionals in the field, to review issues and problems relating to the use of laser or intense light pulse devices for elective cosmetic procedures by their respective licensees. This bill would require the board to adopt regulations by January 1, 2013, regarding the appropriate level of physician availability needed within clinics or other settings using certain laser or intense pulse light devices for elective cosmetic procedures. (2) Existing law requires the Medical Board of California, as successor to the Division of Licensing of the Medical Board of California, to adopt standards for accreditation of outpatient settings, as defined, and, in approving accreditation agencies to perform this accreditation, to ensure that the certification program shall, at a minimum, include standards for specified aspects of the settings' operations. Existing law makes a willful violation of these and other provisions relating to outpatient settings a crime. This bill would include, among those specified aspects, the submission for approval by an accreditation agency at the time of accreditation, a detailed plan, standardized procedures, and protocols to be followed in the event of serious complications or side effects from surgery. This bill would, as part of the accreditation process, authorize the accrediting agency to conduct a reasonable investigation, as defined, of the prior history of the outpatient setting. The bill would also modify the definition of "outpatient setting" to include facilities that offer in vitro fertilization, as defined. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law also requires the Medical Board of California to obtain and maintain a list of all accredited, certified, and licensed outpatient settings, and to notify the public, upon inquiry, whether a setting is accredited, certified, or licensed, or whether the setting's accreditation, certification, or license has been revoked. This bill would, instead, require the board to obtain and maintain the list for all accredited outpatient settings, and to notify the public, by placing the information on its Internet Web site, whether the setting is accredited or the setting's accreditation has been revoked, suspended, or placed on probation, or the setting has received a reprimand by the accreditation agency. Existing law requires accreditation of an outpatient setting to be denied if the setting does not meet specified standards. Existing law authorizes an outpatient setting to reapply for accreditation at any time after receiving notification of the denial. This bill would require the accreditation agency to report within 3 business days to the Medical Board of California if the outpatient setting's certificate for accreditation has been denied. Because a willful violation of this requirement would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also apply the denial of accreditation, or the revocation or suspension of accreditation by one accrediting agency, to all other accrediting agencies. Existing law authorizes the Medical Board of California, as successor to the Division of Medical Quality of the Medical Board of California, or an accreditation agency to, upon reasonable prior notice and presentation of proper identification, enter and inspect any accredited outpatient setting to ensure compliance with, or investigate an alleged violation of, any standard of the accreditation agency or any provision of the specified law. This bill would delete the notice and identification requirements. The bill would require that every outpatient setting that is accredited be inspected by the accreditation agency, as specified, and would specify that it may also be inspected by the board and the department, as specified. The bill would require the board to ensure that accreditation agencies inspect outpatient settings. Existing law authorizes the Medical Board of California to evaluate the performance of an approved accreditation agency no less than every 3 years, or in response to complaints against an agency, or complaints against one or more outpatient settings accreditation by an agency that indicates noncompliance by the agency with the standards approved by the board. This bill would make that evaluation mandatory. Existing law authorizes the board or the local district attorney to bring an action to enjoin a violation or threatened violation of the licensing provisions for outpatient settings in the superior court in and for the county in which the violation occurred or is about to occur. This bill would require the board to investigate all complaints concerning a violation of these provisions and, with respect to any complaints relating to a violation of a specified provision, or upon discovery that an outpatient setting is not in compliance with that specified provision, would require the board to investigate and, where appropriate, the board, through or in conjunction with the local district attorney, to bring an action to enjoin the outpatient setting's operation, as specified. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill Text
- Chaptered 10/09/11 - Chaptered Current pdf October 09, 2011
- Enrolled 09/01/11 - Enrolled pdf September 01, 2011
- Amended 07/12/11 - Amended Assembly pdf July 12, 2011
- Amended 06/23/11 - Amended Assembly pdf June 23, 2011
- Amended 05/03/11 - Amended Senate pdf May 03, 2011
- Amended 04/25/11 - Amended Senate pdf April 25, 2011
- Introduced 01/11/11 - Introduced pdf January 11, 2011
- SB100 View text html
Action History
-
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 645, Statutes of 2011.
-
Approved by the Governor.
-
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.
-
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2152.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
-
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 2595.) Ordered to the Senate.
-
Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.
-
From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 17).
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Joint Rule 62(a) file notice suspended. (Page 2166.)
-
From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P.
-
Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P.
-
Referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1220.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 8. Noes 0. Page 1112.) (May 26).
-
Set for hearing May 26.
-
Placed on APPR. suspense file.
-
Set for hearing May 16.
-
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Withdrawn from committee.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 847.) (May 2). Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
-
Set for hearing May 2.
-
Referred to Coms. on B., P. & E.D. and HEALTH.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 11.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Price · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Price
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 35 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 38 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Huff | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| Simitian | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Lowenthal | — | Yea |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Negrete McLeod | — | Yea |
| Evans | — | Yea |
| Rubio | — | Yea |
| Cannella | — | Yea |
| Fuller | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Not Voting |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Alquist | — | Yea |
| Anderson | — | Yea |
| Correa | — | Yea |
| Dutton | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Vargas | — | Yea |
| Wright | — | Yea |
| Blakeslee | — | Yea |
| Harman | — | Not Voting |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Lieu | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Emmerson | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Yea |
| La Malfa | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Strickland, Tony | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 75 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 78 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 98% | 0% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (80)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hagman | — | Yea |
| Halderman | — | Yea |
| Butler | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Huber | — | Yea |
| John A. Pérez | — | Yea |
| Mitchell | — | Yea |
| Jeffries | — | Yea |
| Knight | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Carter | — | Yea |
| Alejo | — | Yea |
| Chesbro | — | Yea |
| Cook | — | Yea |
| Dickinson | — | Yea |
| Miller | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Perea | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Fuentes | — | Yea |
| Yamada | — | Yea |
| Furutani | — | Yea |
| Campos | — | Yea |
| Allen | — | Yea |
| Galgiani | — | Yea |
| Gordon | — | Yea |
| Gorell | — | Not Voting |
| Fong | — | Yea |
| Fletcher | — | Yea |
| Bonilla | — | Not Voting |
| Hall | — | Yea |
| Harkey | — | Yea |
| Cedillo | — | Yea |
| Ammiano | — | Yea |
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Conway | — | Yea |
| Davis | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Logue | — | Yea |
| Mendoza | — | Yea |
| Monning | — | Yea |
| Morrell | — | Yea |
| Nestande | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Norby | — | Yea |
| Silva | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Smyth | — | Yea |
| Swanson | — | Yea |
| Torres | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Achadjian | — | Yea |
| Block | — | Yea |
| Blumenfield | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Brownley | — | Yea |
| Buchanan | — | Yea |
| Hayashi | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Huffman | — | Yea |
| Ma | — | Yea |
| Mansoor | — | Yea |
| Olsen | — | Yea |
| Solorio | — | Yea |
| Valadao | — | Yea |
| Wagner | — | Yea |
| Williams | — | Yea |
| Eng | — | Yea |
| Feuer | — | Yea |
| Donnelly | — | Yea |
| Garrick | — | Yea |
| Gatto | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Yea |
| Bonnie Lowenthal | — | Yea |
| Roger Hernández | — | Yea |
| V. Manuel Pérez | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (17)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Campos | — | Yea |
| Gatto | — | Yea |
| Mitchell | — | Yea |
| Hall | — | Yea |
| Harkey | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Blumenfield | — | Yea |
| Davis | — | Yea |
| Donnelly | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Norby | — | Yea |
| Solorio | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Wagner | — | Yea |
| Fuentes | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Butler | — | Yea |
| Allen | — | Yea |
| Hagman | — | Yea |
| Hayashi | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Ma | — | Yea |
| Smyth | — | Yea |
| Eng | — | Yea |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 82% | 0% | 0% | 18% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hagman | — | Yea |
| Butler | — | Yea |
| Davis | — | Not Voting |
| Knight | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Williams | — | Yea |
| Alejo | — | Not Voting |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Silva | — | Yea |
| Carter | — | Yea |
| Donnelly | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 35 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 38 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yee | — | Yea |
| Hancock | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Lowenthal | — | Yea |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Negrete McLeod | — | Yea |
| Rubio | — | Yea |
| Cannella | — | Yea |
| Fuller | — | Yea |
| Harman | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Huff | — | Yea |
| Blakeslee | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Dutton | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Leno | — | Yea |
| Liu | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Alquist | — | Yea |
| Anderson | — | Yea |
| Lieu | — | Yea |
| Simitian | — | Yea |
| Vargas | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Wright | — | Yea |
| Emmerson | — | Not Voting |
| Correa | — | Not Voting |
| Evans | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Yea |
| La Malfa | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Strickland, Tony | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 89% | 0% | 0% | 11% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Lieu | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Alquist | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Emmerson | — | Not Voting |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Runner | — | Yea |
| Alquist | — | Yea |
| Lieu | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Emmerson | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Negrete McLeod | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Vargas | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Wyland | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| Emmerson | — | Yea |
| Correa | — | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 100 do?
- (1) Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of various healing arts practitioners by boards under the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law requires the Medical Board of California, in conjunction with the Board of Registered Nursing, and in consultation with the Physician Assistant Committee and professionals in the field, to review issues and problems relating to the use of laser or intense light pulse devices for elective cosmetic procedures by their respective licensees. This bill would require the board to adopt regulations by January 1, 2013, regarding the appropriate level of physician availability needed within clinics or other settings using certain laser or intense pulse light devices for elective cosmetic procedures. (2) Existing law requires the Medical Board of California, as successor to the Division of Licensing of the Medical Board of California, to adopt standards for accreditation of outpatient settings, as defined, and, in approving accreditation agencies to perform this accreditation, to ensure that the certification program shall, at a minimum, include standards for specified aspects of the settings' operations. Existing law makes a willful violation of these and other provisions relating to outpatient settings a crime. This bill would include, among those specified aspects, the submission for approval by an accreditation agency at the time of accreditation, a detailed plan, standardized procedures, and protocols to be followed in the event of serious complications or side effects from surgery. This bill would, as part of the accreditation process, authorize the accrediting agency to conduct a reasonable investigation, as defined, of the prior history of the outpatient setting. The bill would also modify the definition of "outpatient setting" to include facilities that offer in vitro fertilization, as defined. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law also requires the Medical Board of California to obtain and maintain a list of all accredited, certified, and licensed outpatient settings, and to notify the public, upon inquiry, whether a setting is accredited, certified, or licensed, or whether the setting's accreditation, certification, or license has been revoked. This bill would, instead, require the board to obtain and maintain the list for all accredited outpatient settings, and to notify the public, by placing the information on its Internet Web site, whether the setting is accredited or the setting's accreditation has been revoked, suspended, or placed on probation, or the setting has received a reprimand by the accreditation agency. Existing law requires accreditation of an outpatient setting to be denied if the setting does not meet specified standards. Existing law authorizes an outpatient setting to reapply for accreditation at any time after receiving notification of the denial. This bill would require the accreditation agency to report within 3 business days to the Medical Board of California if the outpatient setting's certificate for accreditation has been denied. Because a willful violation of this requirement would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also apply the denial of accreditation, or the revocation or suspension of accreditation by one accrediting agency, to all other accrediting agencies. Existing law authorizes the Medical Board of California, as successor to the Division of Medical Quality of the Medical Board of California, or an accreditation agency to, upon reasonable prior notice and presentation of proper identification, enter and inspect any accredited outpatient setting to ensure compliance with, or investigate an alleged violation of, any standard of the accreditation agency or any provision of the specified law. This bill would delete the notice and identification requirements. The bill would require that every outpatient setting that is accredited be inspected by the accreditation agency, as specified, and would specify that it may also be inspected by the board and the department, as specified. The bill would require the board to ensure that accreditation agencies inspect outpatient settings. Existing law authorizes the Medical Board of California to evaluate the performance of an approved accreditation agency no less than every 3 years, or in response to complaints against an agency, or complaints against one or more outpatient settings accreditation by an agency that indicates noncompliance by the agency with the standards approved by the board. This bill would make that evaluation mandatory. Existing law authorizes the board or the local district attorney to bring an action to enjoin a violation or threatened violation of the licensing provisions for outpatient settings in the superior court in and for the county in which the violation occurred or is about to occur. This bill would require the board to investigate all complaints concerning a violation of these provisions and, with respect to any complaints relating to a violation of a specified provision, or upon discovery that an outpatient setting is not in compliance with that specified provision, would require the board to investigate and, where appropriate, the board, through or in conjunction with the local district attorney, to bring an action to enjoin the outpatient setting's operation, as specified. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Who sponsors SB 100?
- SB 100 is sponsored by Price.
- What is the current status of SB 100?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 11, 2011. Enacted.
- Where can I track SB 100?
- Track SB 100 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 100
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 100
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →