UNIFORM EMERGENCY VOLUNTEER

HEALTH PRACTITIONERS ACT

(Last Revised or Amended in 2007)

drafted by the

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS

ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS

and by it

APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT

IN ALL THE STATES

at its

ANNUAL CONFERENCE

MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-SIXTEENTH YEAR

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

July 27 – August 3, 2007

WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS

ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS

November 1, 2007

ABOUT ULC

The Uniform Law Commission (ULC), also known as National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), now in its 116^th year, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.

ULC members must be lawyers, qualified to practice law. They are practicing lawyers, judges, legislators and legislative staff and law professors, who have been appointed by state governments as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to research, draft and promote enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical.

• ULC strengthens the federal system by providing rules and procedures that are consistent from state to state but that also reflect the diverse experience of the states.

• ULC statutes are representative of state experience, because the organization is made up of representatives from each state, appointed by state government.

• ULC keeps state law up-to-date by addressing important and timely legal issues.

• ULC’s efforts reduce the need for individuals and businesses to deal with different laws as they move and do business in different states.

• ULC’s work facilitates economic development and provides a legal platform for foreign entities to deal with U.S. citizens and businesses.

• Uniform Law Commissioners donate thousands of hours of their time and legal and drafting expertise every year as a public service, and receive no salary or compensation for their work.

• ULC’s deliberative and uniquely open drafting process draws on the expertise of commissioners, but also utilizes input from legal experts, and advisors and observers representing the views of other legal organizations or interests that will be subject to the proposed laws.

• ULC is a state-supported organization that represents true value for the states, providing services that most states could not otherwise afford or duplicate.

DRAFTING COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM EMERGENCY VOLUNTEER

HEALTH PRACTITIONERS ACT

The Committee appointed by and representing the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in drafting this Act consists of the following individuals:

RAYMOND P. PEPE, 17 N. Second St., 18^th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507, Chair

ROBERT G. BAILEY, University of Missouri-Columbia, 217 Hulston Hall, Columbia, MO 65211

STEPHEN C. CAWOOD, 108 1/2 Kentucky Ave., P.O. Drawer 128, Pineville, KY 40977-0128

KENNETH W. ELLIOTT, City Place Building, 204 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 2200, Oklahoma City, OK 73102

THOMAS T. GRIMSHAW, 1700 Lincoln St., Suite 3800, Denver, CO 80203

WILLIAM H. HENNING, University of Alabama School of Law, Box 870382, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0382

THEODORE C. KRAMER, 42 Park Place, Brattleboro, VT 05301

AMY L. LONGO, 8805 Indian Hills Dr., Suite 280, Omaha, NE 68114-4070

JOHN J. MCAVOY, 3110 Brandywine St. NW, Washington, DC 20008

DONALD E. MIELKE, 7472 S. Shaffer Ln., Suite 100, Littleton, CO 80127

NICHOLAS W. ROMANELLO, 324 Datura St., Suite 401, West Palm Beach, FL 33401

JAMES G. HODGE, JR., Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205-1996, Reporter

EX OFFICIO

HOWARD J. SWIBEL, 120 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60606, President

LEVI J. BENTON, State of Texas, 201 Caroline, 13th Floor, Houston, TX 77002, Division Chair

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADVISOR

BRYAN ALBERT LIANG, California Western School of Law, 350 Cedar St., San Diego, CA 92101, ABA Advisor

BARBARA J. GISLASON, 219 Main St. SE, Suite 506, Minneapolis, MN 55414-2152, ABA Section Advisor

PRISCILLA D. KEITH, 3838 N. Rural St., Indianapolis, IN 46205-2930, ABA Section Advisor

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

JOHN A. SEBERT, 211 E. Ontario St., Suite 1300, Chicago, Illinois 60611

Copies of this Act may be obtained from:

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS

ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS

211 E. Ontario Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60611

www.nccusl.org

Support for this project was provided by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation® in Princeton, New Jersey.
UNIFORM EMERGENCY VOLUNTEER HEALTH PRACTITIONERS ACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Prefatory Note.................................................................................................................................. 1

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE........................................................................................................ 10

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................ 10

SECTION 3. APPLICABILITY TO VOLUNTEER HEALTH PRACTITIONERS...................... 18

SECTION 4. REGULATION OF SERVICES DURING EMERGENCY..................................... 19

SECTION 5. VOLUNTEER HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGISTRATION SYSTEMS............. 21

SECTION 6. RECOGNITION OF VOLUNTEER HEALTH PRACTITIONERS
LICENSED IN OTHER STATES...................................................................................... 28

SECTION 7. NO EFFECT ON CREDENTIALING AND PRIVILEGING................................. 30

SECTION 8. PROVISION OF VOLUNTEER HEALTH OR VETERINARY SERVICES; ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS.................................................................................................................... 31

SECTION 9. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS............................................................................. 37

SECTION 10. REGULATORY AUTHORITY............................................................................. 37

SECTION 11. LIMITATIONS ON CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VOLUNTEER HEALTH PRACTITIONERS[; VICARIOUS LIABILITY]................................................................................................. 39

SECTION 12. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE................................................... 48

SECTION 13. UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION........................... 51

SECTION 14. REPEALS.............................................................................................................. 52

SECTION 15. EFFECTIVE DATE............................................................................................... 52

UNIFORM EMERGENCY VOLUNTEER HEALTH PRACTITIONERS ACT

Prefatory Note

A primary purpose of this act is to establish a robust and redundant system to quickly and efficiently facilitate the deployment and use of licensed practitioners to provide health and veterinary services in response to declared emergencies. The act (1) establishes a system for the use of volunteer health practitioners capable of functioning autonomously even when routine methods of communication are disrupted; (2) provides reasonable safeguards to assure that volunteer health practitioners are appropriately licensed and regulated to protect the public’s health; (3) allows states to regulate, direct, and restrict the scope and extent of services provided by volunteer health practitioners to promote disaster recovery operations; (4) provides limitations on the exposure of volunteer health practitioners to civil liability to create a legal environment conducive to volunteerism; and (5) allows volunteer health practitioners who suffer injury or death while providing services pursuant to this act the option to elect workers’ compensation benefits from the host state if such coverage is not otherwise available.

The act was drafted in an expedited manner in the months immediately following the Gulf Coast Hurricanes of 2005 to remedy significant deficiencies in interstate and intrastate procedures used to authorize and regulate the deployment of public and private sector health practitioners to supplement the resources provided by state and local government employees and other first-responders. With the exception of Sections 11 and 12, which pertain to civil liability and workers’ compensation protections, the act was approved in 2006. Sections 11 and 12 were approved in 2007.

Prior to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which in 2005 struck within a few short weeks of each other in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, many states had enacted emergency management laws to allow for emergency waiver or modifications of licensure standards to facilitate the interstate use of licensed health practitioners. Within the public sector, 49 of 50 states had also ratified the provisions of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (“EMAC”) which allowed for the deployment of licensed health practitioners employed by state and local governments to other jurisdictions to provide emergency services without having to be licensed in the affected jurisdictions. Today, all states have ratified EMAC.

The federal government supplemented these provisions of state law by allowing licensed health practitioners it employs on a permanent or temporary basis to respond to disasters and emergencies without compliance with state professional licensing requirements in the locations where their services are utilized. (10 U.S.C. 1094(d)(1)). Pursuant to federal law, two systems had also been established to facilitate the use of private sector health practitioners in response to emergencies, especially those mobilized by charitable non-governmental organizations active in disasters. As authorized by § 2801 of the Public Health Services Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300hh, local Medical Reserve Corps in hundreds of locations throughout the nation are able to recruit, train and promote the deployment of health practitioners in response to emergencies. Funding was also provided under § 319I of the Public Health Services Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247d-7b, to state governments by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to establish Emergency Systems for Advance Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals (generally referred to as the “ESAR-VHP Programs”). Through these systems, volunteer health practitioners are recruited and registered in advance at the state level to respond to emergencies or disasters in their state of registration or across the nation. Participation in a local Medical Reserve Corps or registration with a state ESAR-VHP Program, however, does not result in the interstate recognition of licenses issued to volunteer health practitioners or provide other significant legal benefits in all jurisdictions.

When the Gulf Coast Hurricanes struck during 2005, the deficiencies in federal and state programs to facilitate the interstate use of volunteer health practitioners not employed by state or federal agencies became evident. While federal and state law recognized the need for interstate licensure reciprocity to fully utilize volunteer health practitioners, no uniform and well-understood system existed to effectively link the various public and private sector programs. Many health practitioners were not available to the large array of non-governmental organizations essential to all disaster relief organizations. For example, while most states issued emergency executive orders or proclamations allowing health practitioners licensed in other states to be used within their boundaries to provide emergency services, each state proceeded somewhat differently to establish and implement these programs. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, for example, caused a severe breakdown of routine communications, resulting in an uncoordinated and ineffective response effort. Moreover, the absence of information regarding the operation of state emergency declarations generated confusion and uncertainty that significantly delayed the deployment of many volunteer health practitioners, thereby limiting the extent to which many others were able to provide valuable needed services. Significant concerns regarding exposure to civil liability and the availability of workers’ compensation protection also delayed and impeded the recruitment, deployment, and use of volunteers in many critical areas, resulting in limitations upon the scope of services provided by a substantial number of volunteers, especially physicians and nurses providing services in emergency shelters.

An electronic report posted to the website of the Metropolitan Medical Response System program, part of the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS), summarizes the types of issues that arose:

Volunteer physicians are pouring in to care for the sick, but red tape is keeping hundreds of others from caring for Hurricane Katrina survivors. The North Carolina mobile hospital waiting to help … offered impressive state-of-the-art medical care. It was developed with millions of tax dollars through the Office of Homeland Security after 9-11. With capacity for 113 beds, it is designed to handle disasters and mass casualties. It travels in a convoy that includes two 53-foot trailers, which on Sunday afternoon was parked on a gravel lot 70 miles north of New Orleans because Louisiana officials for several days would not let them deploy to the flooded city. ‘We have tried so hard to do the right thing. It took us 30 hours to get here,’ said one of the frustrated surgeons. That government officials can’t straighten out the mess and get them assigned to a relief effort now that they’re just a few miles away ‘is just mind-boggling,’ he said.

This doctor’s concerns were echoed by a director of the Northwest Medical Teams, a Seattle based group of volunteer medical personnel, whose resources could not be deployed for several days following Hurricane Katrina because of uncertainty in licensure recognition. The concerns were reiterated by the Director of Emergency Services in New Orleans, who reported that, “We needed doctors…[and] [i]t was pandemonium in the area.” (State Laws Become Roadblock to Medical Response in Crisis Services to New Orleans, San Francisco Chronicle, September 2, 2006.)

Rather than treating the injured, sick, and infirm, some qualified physicians, nurses, and other licensed health practitioners (1) waited in long lines in often futile attempts to navigate through a semi-functioning bureaucracy; (2) provided other forms of assistance, such as general labor, which failed to utilize their desperately needed health skills; or (3) chose not to volunteer at all because of concerns over liability. Others proceeded to treat victims at the risk of violating existing state statutes and potentially facing criminal or administrative penalties or civil liability. Out-of-state practitioners providing medical treatment also faced the real possibility of noncoverage under their medical malpractice policies. These impediments became especially problematic in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when, according to the Council of State Governments (CSG), the most pressing need immediately after the storm was the availability of medical volunteers. As reported by a representative of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals:

“The main thing we worked on was allowing out-of-state medical professionals who wanted to volunteer and come help, to waive the requirement of having them licensed in our state if they could show they were validly licensed in the state that they were coming from…We had to keep renewing that executive order because we had so much need for help.” (CSG Quarterly, Winter 2006).

Current systems are not sufficient to integrate public health and medical personnel. The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) reported that the lack of national standards for the deployment and use of public health and medical emergency response personnel complicates the use of volunteer health practitioners for both requesting and deploying states. State Mobilization of Health Personnel During the 2005 Hurricanes 1 (ASTHO, July 2006).

To respond to the lack of an effective system to facilitate the interstate deployment of health practitioners after the Gulf Coast Hurricanes of 2005, a number of different organizations quickly developed and implemented systems to promote the deployment of volunteer health practitioners. These efforts included actions taken by the Federation of State Medical Licensing Boards, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Licensing Boards, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychology Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association. The American Red Cross was also able to effectively utilize its Disaster Human Resources System that had been previously established to create a network of volunteers available to respond to disasters, including nurses and mental health workers whose licensure status was reviewed and evaluated by the Red Cross prior to their deployment. Notwithstanding the efforts of these groups and organizations, the legal status of many health practitioners remained unclear. Many practitioners and organizations also felt compelled to limit the scope of the services they provided because of concerns about professional licensing sanctions and civil liability.

After the more immediate response efforts associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were complete, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws appointed a Study Committee which convened a meeting in February 2006 (hosted by the American Red Cross) to determine if the development of a uniform state law could help remedy these problems. Participants included most of the national groups and organizations who helped deploy health practitioners during the disaster, as well as representatives of the National Emergency Management Association, the National Governors’ Association, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the American Public Health Association, the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, and various sections and committees of the American Bar Association. At the meeting, a unanimous consensus emerged that the National Conference should appoint a Drafting Committee and present proposals for consideration at its 2006 Annual Meeting.

Subsequently, a Drafting Committee was appointed by the Conference which, after two Drafting Committee meetings and multiple telephone conferences and informal consultations with its advisors, presented its recommendations to the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Conference. After extensive debate and further revisions to the Committee’s recommendations, the Conference waived its usual practice of requiring the consideration of uniform laws at two or more Annual Meetings and approved the act, other than Sections 11 and 12, on July 13, 2006. In August 2006, the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates added the act to its agenda for expedited consideration and, after discussion, unanimously endorsed it. Provisions were added to the act dealing with issues of civil liability and workers’ compensation by the Conference in 2007.

While the magnitude of the emergency presented by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita exceeded the scope of disasters experienced in this country for many decades, foreseeable emerging events pose similar threats. Future storms (especially in heavily-populated areas); major earthquakes in San Francisco, Los Angeles or other heavily urbanized areas; volcanic eruptions in the Pacific Northwest; tidal waves on the east and west coasts; incidents of terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological and chemical agents; and pandemic influenza may overwhelm the resources of local disaster health delivery systems. To help meet patient surge capacity and protect the public’s health, reliance on private sector health practitioners and nongovernmental relief organizations will be needed. This act seeks to remedy defects in current state laws to effectively utilize private sector volunteers to meet these needs.

In developing this act, the Drafting Committee and its many advisors sought to pursue the following major policy objectives:

· The act seeks to make volunteer health practitioners available for deployment in response to emergency declarations as quickly as possible without the necessity for affirmative actions on the part of host states, while still allowing host states to act when necessary to limit, restrict, and regulate the use of volunteer health practitioners within their boundaries.

· To protect the public health and safety, the act requires that, prior to deployment, volunteers must be registered with public or private systems capable of determining that they have been properly licensed and are in good standing with their principal jurisdiction of practice and of communicating this information to host states’ governments and entities utilizing the services of volunteers. The use of registration systems is intended to (1) discourage the uncoordinated use of “spontaneous volunteers” who may independently travel to the scene of a disaster without the support of public or private emergency response agencies, and (2) promote the recruitment and training of volunteers in advance of emergency declarations, while also allowing and facilitating additional registrations at the time of an emergency.

· The act is intended to allow volunteers to register with systems located throughout the country, rather than requiring registration in each affected host state, and to accommodate and facilitate the use of the multiple different types of registration systems that continue to be developed and expanded by public and private agencies. Registration systems may be established, however, only by governmental agencies or by private organizations that operate on a national or regional basis in affiliation with disaster relief or healthcare organizations that have demonstrated their ability to responsibly recruit, train and promote the deployment of volunteer health practitioners.

· To alleviate confusion and uncertainty regarding the types of services that may be provided by volunteer health practitioners, the act requires volunteers to limit their practice to activities for which they are licensed, properly trained, and qualified to perform. Further, volunteer health practitioners must conform to scope-of-practice authorizations and restrictions imposed by the laws of host states, disaster response agencies and organizations, and host entities. Coextensively, host states can modify the activities of practitioners as necessary to respond to emergency conditions.

· To properly regulate the activities of volunteer health practitioners, the act vests authority over out-of-state volunteers in the licensing boards and agencies of host jurisdictions, while also requiring the reporting of unprofessional conduct by host states to licensing jurisdictions, thereby confirming the ability of licensing jurisdictions to impose sanctions upon professionals for unprofessional conduct that occurs outside of their boundaries. Licensing boards and agencies are required, however, to consider the unique exigent circumstances often created by emergencies and to recognize the limitations upon the communications that may occur which may result in incomplete knowledge regarding any limitations upon the activities of volunteer practitioners.

· Finally, the act is not intended to supplant state emergency management laws or to establish new systems for the coordination and delivery of emergency response services. Instead, host entities using volunteer health practitioners are required to coordinate their activities with local agencies to the extent and in the manner otherwise required by state law.

In addition to assisting states in utilizing volunteers, the act addresses two additional important topics: (1) whether and to what extent volunteer health practitioners and entities deploying, registering, and using them are responsible for civil claims based on a practitioner’s act or omission in providing health or veterinary services (Section 11); and (2) whether and to what extent volunteer health practitioners should receive workers’ compensation benefits in the event of injury or death while providing such services (Section 12).

The risk of exposure to liability for malpractice and the availability of workers’ compensation benefits are matters of significant concern to all volunteer health practitioners. These issues, however, are particularly important to practitioners providing health or veterinary services amidst the challenging and sub-optimal conditions that exist during emergencies. During emergencies, practitioners often must provide services without access to the resources customarily available to them. They may also have to practice outside their usual fields of expertise and be unable to take all actions reasonably necessary to treat individual patients because of the greater public health need to allocate scarce health care resources efficiently, thereby reducing overall rates of morbidity and mortality.

Practitioners also face greater risks of physical and psychological injuries and death when providing services in emergency settings. In these circumstances, uncertainty regarding interstate variations in expected standards of care, limits of liability, and the availability of workers’ compensation coverage may deter qualified practitioners from participating in emergency responses. Even if practitioners are willing to serve, the entities that deploy and use them may be inhibited in doing so by their own liability concerns. The American Red Cross deploys thousands of volunteers each year in response to natural disasters and other public health emergencies. In its pandemic flu planning guidance, the Red Cross reported that, “We are not able to commit Red Cross volunteers to local public health overflow facilities without appropriate worker protections, including liability coverage and workers safety measures.” (emphasis added). American Red Cross. Pandemic Influenza Planning Guidance: Update on Worker Safety; Additional Mass Care Planning Tools (2007). Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Medical Reserve Corps reported that health professionals deployed to Red Cross shelters were unable to provide more than basic health services to shelter residents because of liability concerns. Medical Reserve Corps Response to the 2005 Hurricanes; Final Report, March 13, 2006; 18.

Many existing laws at the federal and state levels recognize the need to provide some civil liability protections or workers’ compensation benefits for volunteers. All 50 states have now entered into the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), which provides immunity from negligence-based liability claims to state and certain local government employees deployed by one state to another in response to disasters and emergencies. All states have also enacted an array of “Good Samaritan” laws to protect spontaneous volunteers at the scenes of local emergencies. Many states have also granted immunities to other individuals engaged in disaster relief and civil defense activities, and a significant number of states have extended immunities to groups and organizations providing charitable, emergency or disaster relief services.[1] Unfortunately, the applicability of these laws to volunteer health practitioners as defined by the UEVHPA is often unclear, leading to a confusing patchwork of legal protections in limited settings. Hodge, JG, Gable, LA, Calves, S. Volunteer health professionals and emergencies: Assessing and transforming the legal environment. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism 2005; 3:3: 216-223.

In determining whether and how best to provide protection from civil liability claims, states must balance and weigh important and competing, legitimate interests. Volunteer health practitioners and the entities that deploy and use them consistently report a need for a legal regime that enables them to provide services during emergencies without excessive concerns over liability. At the same time, persons receiving health services have an expectation of reasonable compensation for harms resulting from negligence. Hodge, J.G., Pepe, R.P., Henning, W.H. Voluntarism in the wake of hurricane Katrina: The Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 2007; 1:1: 44-50. Some victims’ advocates, while acknowledging the benefits associated with the degree of civil liability relief provided by the federal Volunteer Protection Act, also express the strong belief that volunteers will respond to emergencies regardless of whether additional civil liability protections are provided, that very few claims are asserted against volunteer health practitioners and disaster relief organizations, and that it would be unfair and unreasonable to deprive individuals harmed by negligent acts of access to compensation because of what the advocates consider undocumented allegations about the impact of liability concerns upon relief operations.

After extensive consultation, fact-finding, and discussion, NCCUSL determined that empirical data are generally unavailable upon which to make firm judgments regarding (1) the actual impact of liability concerns upon rates of volunteerism; and (2) whether and to what extent volunteer health practitioners have actually been subject to liability claims. The Conference also determined that such information is unlikely to be generated in any useful and reliable form in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, because of the widely held consensus that these issues are of vital public importance, the Conference determined that the UEVHPA should clarify the extent to which volunteer health practitioners and the entities engaged in deploying, registering, and using them will be exposed to civil liability. While the Conference concluded that the fundamental policy decision regarding the level of protection to be provided should be left to the states, it also concluded that the failure to include provisions clearly defining the scope of liability exposure would create a significant risk that many highly skilled practitioners with the expertise most needed in effective relief operations would be deterred from volunteering in emergencies. Moreover, such deterrence would create a significant risk that adequate health services needed to reduce morbidity and mortality within affected populations would not be available.

This act provides for some level of liability protection under two alternative sets of rules. Alternative A to Section 11 provides protection to practitioners based upon their negligent acts or omissions in providing health or veterinary services pursuant to the act and also insulates the entities that deploy and use them from vicarious liability for those acts or omissions. Alternative A is based upon the rationale that private sector volunteer health practitioners and entities providing vital health or veterinary services during emergencies deserve the same protections and privileges as states and public employees whose resources and efforts they supplement and complement. Nongovernmental volunteer health practitioners undertake essentially the same risks and provide the same services as their governmental counterparts.

Alternative B clarifies that the protections provided to uncompensated volunteers by the federal Volunteer Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14501 et seq., extend to uncompensated volunteer health practitioners under the UEVHPA. This alternative does not address the issue of vicarious liability of entities, leaving the matter to existing state law.

For each alternative, specific actions of volunteers are excluded from liability protections, including intentional torts, willful misconduct, or wanton, grossly negligent, reckless, or criminal conduct. In addition, each alternative provides some liability protection for persons that operate, use, or rely upon information provided by a volunteer health practitioner registration system.

In providing a set of alternatives for States to determine the extent to which volunteer practitioners and entities deploying and using them will be exposed to and immune from civil liability, it is NCCUSL’s expectation that, over time, the comparative experiences of states adopting different alternatives will result in a more solid base of reliable data upon which more definitive policy recommendations may be developed. However, it is worthy to note that the proposed alternatives in Section 11 are based on existing approaches taken by numerous states or federal policymakers concerning the extension of liability protections to volunteers.

Concerning workers’ compensation benefits, after similar consultation, fact-finding, and discussion, the Conference concluded that, as a last resort, some level of benefits should be provided to volunteer health practitioners by the state benefiting from their services. Thus, Section 12 provides that a volunteer health practitioner who provides health or veterinary services pursuant to the act and who is not otherwise entitled to workers’ compensation or similar benefits under the laws of any state, including the host state, should be entitled to elect the same workers’ compensation or similar benefits as employees of the host state. This includes medical benefits for physical or mental injury and benefits for loss of earnings, provided these benefits would be available to an ordinary employee of the host state.

Under current law, many workers’ compensation systems do not cover the activities of volunteers, either because they are not defined as “employees” or because they are acting outside the scope of their employment when volunteering. Although volunteer health practitioners are not employees of the host state in the traditional sense, it is appropriate to extend benefits to them because they are exposed to many of the same risks of harm as ordinary employees of the host state who are providing health or veterinary services during an emergency in the course and scope of their employment.

Most states have statutorily extended workers’ compensation coverage to emergency volunteers, principally through emergency, disaster, or public health emergency laws. Emergency System for Advance Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals (ESAR-VHP) – Legal and Regulatory Issues, Presentation prepared by the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities for the Department of Health and Human Services. Unfortunately, who may constitute a “volunteer” varies from state to state, and may not include private sector volunteer health practitioners. Coverage may be further limited to volunteers responding solely at the bequest of a state or local government, volunteers working under the close direction of state or local governments, or volunteers who satisfy an array of local registration and certification requirements. As a result, the actual availability of workers’ compensation coverage for volunteer health practitioners as defined in the UEVHPA under current law is highly uncertain. Section 12 of this act addresses this lack of uniformity by recommending that all volunteer health practitioners have the protection that host states provide their employees when such benefits are not otherwise available to the practitioners through other workers’ compensation plans or protections.

A version of this act with detailed reference notes (“Annotated UEVHPA”) is available at www.uevhpa.org.

UNIFORM EMERGENCY VOLUNTEER HEALTH PRACTITIONERS ACT

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This [act] may be cited as the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act.

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. In this [act]:

(1) “Disaster relief organization” means an entity that provides emergency or disaster relief services that include health or veterinary services provided by volunteer health practitioners and that:

(A) is designated or recognized as a provider of those services pursuant to a disaster response and recovery plan adopted by an agency of the federal government or [name of appropriate governmental agency or agencies]; or

(B) regularly plans and conducts its activities in coordination with an agency of the federal government or [name of appropriate governmental agency or agencies].

(2) “Emergency” means an event or condition that is an [emergency, disaster, or public health emergency] under [designate the appropriate laws of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or a municipality or other local government within this state].

(3) “Emergency declaration” means a declaration of emergency issued by a person authorized to do so under the laws of this state [, a political subdivision of this state, or a municipality or other local government within this state].

(4) “Emergency Management Assistance Compact” means the interstate compact approved by Congress by Public Law No. 104-321,110 Stat. 3877 [cite state statute, if any].

(5) “Entity” means a person other than an individual.

(6) “Health facility” means an entity licensed under the laws of this or another state to provide health or veterinary services.

(7) “Health practitioner” means an individual licensed under the laws of this or another state to provide health or veterinary services.

(8) “Health services” means the provision of treatment, care, advice or guidance, or other services, or supplies, related to the health or death of individuals or human populations, to the extent necessary to respond to an emergency, including:

(A) the following, concerning the physical or mental condition or functional status of an individual or affecting the structure or function of the body:

(i) preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance, or palliative care; and

(ii) counseling, assessment, procedures, or other services;

(B) sale or dispensing of a drug, a device, equipment, or another item to an individual in accordance with a prescription; and

(9) “Host entity” means an entity operating in this state which uses volunteer health practitioners to respond to an emergency.

(10) “License” means authorization by a state to engage in health or veterinary services that are unlawful without the authorization. The term includes authorization under the laws of this state to an individual to provide health or veterinary services based upon a national certification issued by a public or private entity.

(11) “Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, public corporation, government or governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity.

(12) “Scope of practice” means the extent of the authorization to provide health or veterinary services granted to a health practitioner by a license issued to the practitioner in the state in which the principal part of the practitioner’s services are rendered, including any conditions imposed by the licensing authority.

(13) “State” means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(14) “Veterinary services” means the provision of treatment, care, advice or guidance, or other services, or supplies, related to the health or death of an animal or to animal populations, to the extent necessary to respond to an emergency, including:

(A) diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of an animal disease, injury, or other physical or mental condition by the prescription, administration, or dispensing of vaccine, medicine, surgery, or therapy;

(B) use of a procedure for reproductive management; and

(C) monitoring and treatment of animal populations for diseases that have spread or demonstrate the potential to spread to humans.

(15) “Volunteer health practitioner” means a health practitioner who provides health or veterinary services, whether or not the practitioner receives compensation for those services. The term does not include a practitioner who receives compensation pursuant to a preexisting employment relationship with a host entity or affiliate which requires the practitioner to provide health services in this state, unless the practitioner is not a resident of this state and is employed by a disaster relief organization providing services in this state while an emergency declaration is in effect.

Legislative Note: Definition of “emergency”: The terms “emergency,” “disaster,” and “public health emergency” are the most commonly used terms to describe the circumstances that may lead to the issuance of an emergency declaration referred to in this [act]. States that use other terminology should insert the appropriate terminology into the first set of brackets. The second set of brackets should contain references to the specific statutes pursuant to which emergencies are declared by the state or political subdivisions, municipalities, or local governments within the state.

Definition of “emergency declaration”: The references to declarations issued by political subdivisions, municipalities or local governments should be used in states in which these entities are authorized to issue emergency declarations.

Definition of “state”: A state may expand the reach of this [act] by defining this term to include a foreign country, political subdivision of a foreign country, or Indian tribe or nation.