VETOES

This bill would require that an applicant for a license to
practice dentistry, pharmacy, psychology, or social work
demonstrate oral competency in English as a condition of
licensure. The bill also requires that the licensing boards for
these health occupations and the boards for nurses, physical
therapists, physicians, and podiatrists, develop procedures for
testing an individual with a speech impairment.

In 1985 the General Assembly passed similar legislation
requiring that nurses, physical therapists, physicians, and
podiatrists demonstrate oral competency in English. Governor
Hughes vetoed the legislation based on constitutional concerns
that were raised by the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney
General's Office concluded that although the 1985 legislation was
"facially constitutional, it will almost inevitably be
administered so as to invidiously discriminate against the
foreign born and the disabled." The veto was overriden by the
General Assembly.

It is my understanding that House Bill 91 was introduced to
address the concerns raised by the Attorney General's Office and
Governor Hughes' veto message. House Bill 91 does provide
statutory guidelines designed to minimize the possible
discriminatory application of this Act by clarifying the
definition of oral competency and adopting regulations to
accommodate individuals with a speech impairment. I support
these amendments.

The troublesome feature of this bill, however, lies in
extending the oral competency requirement to non-acute care
health providers. In many instances, a person will require
emergency care from a physician when an error in diagnosis and
treatment can be life threatening. Assuring adequate oral
communication between a physician and patient, therefore, becomes
essential.

However in non-acute care situations, while adequate oral
communication facilitates the relationship between a health
provider and client, it is not usually considered life
threatening. A person in need of dental or psychological care
has the ability to simply walk away from a provider who does not
speak English proficiently and select another dentist or
psychologist. This option does not exist in acute care
situations. Furthermore, the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene has been unable to document any consumer complaints
concerning the four health professions being added by this year's
legislation and has advised me that the problem of oral
competency is confined to the acute care setting.

This nation has had an unique and proud history of being
home to diverse ethnic and immigrant communities. And while all
of us must strive to be proficient in the English language, I do

- 3628 -