Oppose PA HB 1851!
A Bill to License Diabetes Educators
HB 1851 would establish voluntary licensure for diabetes educators in Pennsylvania. The American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) is promoting licensure to gain access for their private association, credential holders to receive insurance dollars for diabetes and prediabetes education. How would this bill hurt the public?
Over thirty professions in PA can and do provide diabetes and prediabetes education under their professional license whether they are for example, a nutritionist, a nurse or physical therapist. Should they have to spend time and money to get another license to show the public they are well qualified to do what they already trained to do? This raises the cost of services to the public but not necessarily the quality.
Licensing a treatment of a specific disease is overregulation—what’s next? Licensed Cardiovascular educators? Cancer educators? We license professions in this country, not diseases! Every new license costs you the taxpayer; this one is unnecessary.
Please contact committee members (see attached list) and your legislator and tell them that you oppose HB 1851:
– It would create unnecessary regulation for the benefit of a private association
– It creates the impression in the public eye that existing licensed or certified health providers who already provide these services. are less qualified, to provide prediabetes or diabetes education.
– It would license a single disease when PA licenses professions. What’s next? Licensed Cancer Educator? Licensed Asthma Specialist?
– There is no degree in diabetes education like there is in nursing or nutrition. This is continuing education for health professionals and shouldn’t be licensed as a profession, which costs me as a taxpayer.
Ask for their no vote on HB 1851!
Email or call members of the Professional Licensure Committee by 11am ET Monday, May 23, 2016. Also, email your legislator ASAP.
Sample letter template—copy only what is below this line
Dear Representative _____________,
I urge you to oppose HB 1851 to license diabetes educators. There are over 30 professions, including nurses, pharmacists, social workers, nutritionists, nurse-midwives, and naturopathic physicians who already provide and are highly qualified to provide diabetes services in PA. Qualified professionals should not have to spend the time and money to get another license to demonstrate to the public that they are qualified to do what they already do.
PA licenses professions, not diseases. If the state chooses to license diabetes educators, what other disease treatments would they then decide to license? Cancer, cardiovascular disease? Seems like overregulation to me. Additionally, the unnecessary regulation of diabetes educators appears to be to the benefit two particular private associations.
Of particular concern is how this bill will impact qualified practitioners who already provide health advice. If practitioners choose to not become a licensed diabetes educator the public perception will be that they may not be qualified or as qualified to provide diabetes prevention and education – when in fact they are highly qualified. There is no degree in diabetes education like there is for nursing, nutrition, pharmacy and other professions that include diabetes in their teaching and training. Very specific aspects of diabetes management such as medication management is offered as continuing education, something required of every professional. Should we license every skill taught in continuing education as a new profession?
On the other hand, if practitioners choose to become licensed the time and financial burden will trickle down to patients and that could impede their ability to receive services, ultimately impacting access to diabetes treatment and practitioners’ bottom line.
Please vote no on HB 1851. It’s an unnecessary bill creating an unnecessary burden on a number of professions. I appreciate that you want to do something to address the diabetes epidemic, but this is not the right approach.
Sincerely,🖨️ Print post
Leave a Reply