HB 1828
In CommitteeHouse
Plasma donation/physicians
Authorizing certain health professions to act as physician substitutes for plasma source donation centers.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill allows medical assistants with emergency medical technician (EMT) credentials to serve as physician substitutes in plasma donation centers, performing tasks like donor screening and health assessments. It also expands their scope of practice to include intravenous procedures and limited medication administration, and creates a new certification category for medical assistant-EMTs.
- Authorizes medical assistant-EMTs to act as physician substitutes in plasma donation centers, performing donor screening and health assessments as allowed under federal regulations.
- Expands the scope of practice for medical assistant-EMTs to include intravenous line insertion and removal, and administration of specific medications (e.g., vaccines, opioid antagonists, oral glucose).
- Adds a new certification category: medical assistant-EMT, requiring qualifications set by the secretary of health.
- Allows interim or temporary work authorization for applicants awaiting full certification (e.g., up to 180 days for phlebotomists and hemodialysis technicians).
- Clarifies transferability of certifications—medical assistant-EMT certifications are only valid between hospitals and plasma donation centers.
Who is affected
- Plasma source donation centers — Plasma donation centers will be able to use certified medical assistant-EMTs to perform duties of a physician substitute during donor screening and health assessment, helping maintain operations when physicians are unavailable.
- Medical assistant-EMTs — Medical assistants with EMT credentials can now legally perform physician-level tasks in plasma centers, expanding their scope of practice under supervision.
- Health care practitioners and clinics — Health care practitioners and clinics can delegate more tasks to medical assistants with new or expanded certifications, improving workflow and access to care.
- Plasma donors and patients — Patients may experience improved access to plasma donation services due to expanded staffing flexibility at donation centers.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Expanding the scope of medical assistant-EMTs to serve as physician substitutes in plasma donation centers increases access to plasma donation services—especially in underserved or rural areas—by enabling centers to operate without constant physician availability, supporting blood plasma supply chain resilience.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)(vii)Plasma donation centers gain operational flexibility, reducing reliance on costly physician coverage and enabling more consistent staffing—potentially lowering overhead and supporting job stability for existing staff, including medical assistants seeking career advancement.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)(vii)Creation of a new medical assistant-EMT certification pathway incentivizes EMTs to pursue additional medical training and credentialing, supporting workforce development and upward mobility for individuals in emergency medical services seeking broader clinical roles.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)(vii) & Sec. 1(4)Allowing medical assistant-EMTs to perform donor screening—including vital signs, history taking, and basic physical assessment—may improve early detection of common donation contraindications (e.g., low hemoglobin, dehydration), enhancing donor safety and donation quality when properly supervised.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)(vii)
Potential Concerns (4)
Allowing medical assistant-EMTs to perform physician substitute duties—including donor screening and health assessments—in plasma donation centers may reduce clinical oversight, especially in high-risk cases (e.g., undiagnosed cardiovascular or infectious conditions), since EMT training focuses on acute emergency response rather than comprehensive primary care evaluation.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)(vii)The bill permits intravenous line insertion and removal by medical assistant-EMTs in plasma centers, but does not require additional training beyond existing EMT credentials—despite IV access in non-emergency settings carrying risks like infiltration, phlebitis, or air embolism—potentially increasing patient safety incidents if supervision is indirect or inconsistent.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)(vii)Limiting medication administration to only vaccines, opioid antagonists, and oral glucose—while seemingly low-risk—may create clinical gaps: e.g., inability to administer antihistamines for mild allergic reactions during donation, forcing centers to delay or cancel procedures or rely on remote physician oversight that may not be feasible in rural or low-resource centers.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)(vi)Interim certification allows work for up to 180 days before full certification is granted, and medical assistant-EMT certifications are only transferable between hospitals and plasma centers—limiting mobility and oversight continuity, and potentially allowing staff to operate in new settings without full competency validation.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4) & Sec. 1(6)(d)
Who Is Most Affected
Plasma centers benefit from reduced staffing costs and increased operational flexibility, but may face liability or reputational risk if patient safety incidents occur due to delegation to non-physician staff.
Medical assistants with EMT credentials gain expanded career opportunities and higher earning potential, but may face increased liability exposure and unclear boundaries of practice in ambiguous clinical situations.
Plasma donors benefit from increased access and convenience, but may be at slightly higher risk if screening is performed by staff without full clinical judgment training—especially for subtle or complex contraindications.
Rural and underserved communities benefit from improved plasma center viability, but may face disparities if centers in wealthier areas adopt the new model faster, widening access gaps.
Hospitals and clinics may benefit from reduced pressure on physician time in plasma centers, but could face downstream complications if donors with undetected conditions present later to emergency departments.