Health Care ID Badge Law Aims to Minimize Patient Confusion

Physicians and their employees in private medical practices are now required to wear photo identification badges according to new interim regulations published in the PA Bulletin on Dec. 10, 2011.

The Pennsylvania Medical Society (PAMED) has developed an easy-to-use template that meets all of the requirements outlined in the interim regulations. If you plan to have your badges professionally printed, use these guidelines to make sure your badge vendor is meeting the requirements outlined in the interim regulations.

Here are the basics of the interim regulations, including the answers to many questions the Pennsylvania Medical Society (PAMED) has been receiving from physicians.

To whom do the interim regulations apply and when?

Effective Dec. 10, 2011:
  • Private practice physicians and their employees that provide direct care to patients
  • Employees who deliver direct care outside of a health care facility (e.g., home health agencies)
June 2015—Employees of health care facilities, including hospitals

What information must be included on an ID badge?
An employee’s photo ID badge must include the following information:
  • A recent photograph of the employee updated at least every four years
  • The employee’s full name
  • The employee’s title—The only titles included in the interim regulations are physician, registered nurse, and licensed practical nurse. All other titles will be determined by DOH before the final regulations are published. However, the interim regulations apply to all individuals who work directly with patients, not just the three above-mentioned titles. Employees are to use the title to which they are licensed or certified by.
  • The name of the employee’s health care facility or employment agency
What if an employee refuses to get their photo taken for religious reasons?
A health care facility, health care provider, employment agency, or physician’s private practice may allow an employee to wear an identification badge without a photo if it would violate the employee’s religious beliefs to have a photo taken. In this instance, the employee must sign a notarized statement and wear an identification badge containing all of the above information, without the photo, in addition to the employee’s height and eye color.

In certain cases, can the employee’s last name be omitted or concealed?
Yes. The last name of the employee may be omitted or concealed when delivering direct care to a patient who exhibits symptoms of irrationality or violence.

Read the FAQs. If you are a PAMED member and have additional questions about the interim regulations, please contact PAMED's division of practice economics and payer relations, at (800) 228-7823, ext. 2644.

DOH doesn’t plan to start investigation or enforcement actions while facilities and individuals are working towards complying with the regulations.

The law aims to minimize patient confusion. A survey conducted by the American Medical Association confirmed that while patients are in favor of a physician-led health care team, they remain confused about the levels of education and training of health care providers.

Add Your Comments


The Pennsylvania Medical Society encourages lively debate, but please behave courteously and responsibly. Comments that include profanity, personal attacks (including language that could potentially identify an individual), or any other inappropriate, offensive, or illegal material will be removed. For more information, please see our Terms of Use. We do not answer legal questions on line. Members seeking general information about laws and regulations affecting medical practice may call our member resource line, (800) 228-7823.

Display name as (optional):

Comments (max 2000 characters):




Comments: 57


Correction: I meant to say Univ of Penn med practices only use FIRST name only on its badges. Sorry

P Mertzanis at 3/27/2012 4:09:02 PM


Reading the Interim Regulations in B. Summary § 53.1. Legal basis, scope and definitions gives a definition of ''Private practice of a physician'' that excludes physician owned groups. That was not the intent, I'm sure. It intended to exclude physician groups owned by health care facilities, but here is what it says: ....and ''this does not include a physician practice group which is owned and operated by a health care provider.'' It later says that those in this category have until 2015 to comply. As explanation of my view, a health care provider is a physician among others that could be included. Most private groups are owned by their physician shareholders By trying to cater to the hospital lobby, they messed up. (By the way Univ of Penn medical practices only use last name for staff on their badges - at least in one of their large remote sites.) Whatever the process that was used to review this legislation before passage was clearly inadequate. There is no imperative to get this into law. It should have been widely circulated and more effort put into the final wording - and no coddling of the hospital lobby.

P Mertzanis at 3/27/2012 2:36:27 PM


I feel the final rule show allow non-provider/non-therapist staff to omit their last names. However, the employer would need to provide a means to distinguish a Jane Smith from a Jane Jones. So, the name listed as Jane S and Jane J would suffice. Also, using Jane 2 and Jane 3, as goofy as that looks, would as well. Reason: Many staff are concerned that their full names might lead to stalking and other threatening behaviors in their private lives. An alternative might be to allow the employer to provide aliases to non-provider staff, such as Ann Page, or Betty Crocker (I'm serious). As long as the employer can identify the staff member if there is an inquiry, there is no need to give real names.

P Mertzanis at 3/27/2012 2:10:00 PM


I feel the final rule show allow non-provider/non-therapist staff to omit their last names. However, the employer would need to provide a means to distinguish a Jane Smith from a Jane Jones. So, the name listed as Jane S and Jane J would suffice. Also, using Jane 2 and Jane 3, as goofy as that looks, would as well. Reason: Many staff are concerned that their full names might lead to stalking and other threatening behaviors in their private lives. An alternative might be to allow the employer to provide aliases to non-provider staff, such as Ann Page, or Betty Crocker (I'm serious). As long as the employer can identify the staff member if there is an inquiry, there is no need to give real names.

P Mertzanis at 3/27/2012 1:46:16 PM


Regarding dental offices, please call the PA Dental Association at (717) 234-5941.

PA Medical Society at 3/23/2012 12:06:43 PM


Does this apply to private practice dental offices?

anonymous at 3/23/2012 10:17:32 AM


i do not want my last name exposed on a photo id at work. my first name and title are enough. i had a stalker and no one knows who it is not me or the police. i feel that it important to protect me also.

anonymous at 2/24/2012 6:21:11 PM


are you kidding me? to have a physician in favor of this is ludicrous, You should all be ashamed of yourselves for allowing ANY other physician or physician extender to cause this legislation. It is every physician's responsibility to make sure that YOUR patients know they are being seen by a PHYSICIAN extender. The reason that the legislation is ludicrous is that most if not all of you have and or wear lab coats, embroidered with your name and credentials. Wear them When you walk into a room with a patient, you should if you don't already introduce yourselves appropriately, (if i remember correctly this was legislated about 5 years ago). Make your physician extender employees do the same. It is unacceptable that the medical community rolled over on this topic. Particularly since we don't employ physician extenders. It is a sad state that any pennsylvania physician agreed with this moronic piece of legislation. Act professional, maintain professional standards this wuld not have happened. Yet again another disappointment in the medical professions. We have patients who have been seen for years by only one physician and still can't get his name correct. Does anyone think a picture will help? Honestly Dr. Laskas , as an author of this legislation, your interferrence is not appreciated in this practice.

George-practice manager at 1/31/2012 1:03:43 PM


The regulation states that the last name of the employee may be omitted or concealed when delivering direct care to a patient who exhibits symptoms of irrationality or violence. I would think by the point the patient has exhibited symptoms of irrationality or violence they could/would have already gotten your full name? There are a lot of crazy/sick people out there and sometimes they are very good at hiding it.

Josh Clapper, Operations Assistant at 1/25/2012 10:00:38 AM


The intent of the heath care provider identification badge law is to provide transparency. Unfortunately the intent of the law has not been made apparent by the DOH. This law was supported by the AMA as part of their truth in advertising campaign. The trend in Pennsylvania and most states has been to expand the scope of practice for non-physicians. Nurses are using the term “doctor” after completing DNP programs. Ninety six percent of U.S. adults believe that health care professionals should display their level of training and legal licensure. In my opinion, we should applaud those that worked hard to pass this legislation. It now serves as a model for other states. Because of this law there are now similar bills in other states including Missouri and Illinois. The public has the right to know the truth, and this law is a step in the right direction because of the credential strip. Although the use of the credential strip is voluntary until 2015, I urge all physicians to create badges for their office staff in conformity with the 2015 requirement. This will help to ensure that patients know whom they are seeing and are not misled by health care professionals who misrepresent their level of training.

Bruce Brod, MD, Legislative Coord, PA Acad of Derm at 1/16/2012 8:43:23 AM


If one is in SOLO PRACTICE and the sign on his door says XXXXXX XXXXXX, MD/DO, then why would any of his patients need to be sure that the Doctor is his Doctor. Why would a patient show up at a different Doctors office then the Doctor with whom thay have an intimate relationship with? This law should have been for practices with more than 5 employees and more than 2 doctors. Also does my CPA need to wear a badge declaring him an employee of my practice or my Lawyer???? A very poorly constructed law obviously pushed through with very little thought. Politics as usual.

anonymous at 1/15/2012 8:58:15 PM


Although I was not involved in the passage of the Identification Badge Law, I understand the intent of the legislation. The interim regulations released by the Department of Health regarding the Identification Badge Law fail to address the main purpose of the law which is to allow a patient to identify the credentials of the person providing health care. Patients are entitled to know the credentials of a person providing health care, PHYSICIAN, NURSE, NURSE PRACTIONER, PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT, PHYSICAL THERAPIST, ETC., listed clearly and without ambiguity. This is to be achieved by requiring a one-half inch strip at the bottom of the ID badge listing the caregiver's credentials which could be easily seen at a conversational distance. Although this is a requirement of the final regulations, it was unfortunately not included in the temporary interim regulations. The following link allows you to view examples of badges that would meet the final regulations: www.padermatology.org. PAMED and the Pennsylvania Academy of Dermatology have urged the Department of Health to work with us in making the production and acquisition of badges a simple process.

Michael Gette, MD, Pres. PA Academy of Dermatology at 1/13/2012 5:38:12 PM


It seems that my comments exceeded the space limit. As the author of this legislative concept, it is my duty and privilege to explain the rationale behind the Identification Badge Law. For my complete explanation, please see the caregiver ID badge law article found at www.padermatology.org. Thank you.

John J. Laskas, Jr., MD (Media, PA) at 1/13/2012 5:23:49 PM


As the author of this legislative concept, it is my duty and privilege to explain the rationale behind the Identification Badge Law. Please read the entirety below before concluding formulation of your opinion regarding it. It is most unfortunate that in promulgating interim, temporary regulations, the Pennsylvania Department of Health has failed completely to explain or implement the basic reason for this law and failed to show how the law is intended to solve a problem that all of us, as physicians and patients, encounter every day with increasing frequency. Further, the DOH has failed to even mention, discuss, demonstrate, or require the most critical part of the badge which the law requires. The law itself requires them to do so when they promulgate the final regulations. We beg that they do offer that communication immediately. The badge is intended primarily to identify the CREDENTIAL of the caregiver in a standardized, predictable location on every badge, in a uniform type size, in order that every patient can tell immediately whether they are being treated by a PHYSICIAN, NURSE, NURSE PRACTITONER, PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT, PHYSICAL THERAPIST, DENTIST, DENTAL ASSISTANT, ETC. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM At this point in the discussion, I ask that we put aside for the moment our viewpoint as physicians and consider these thoughts, as we are, indeed, patients and families of patients--parents, siblings, grandparents, etc. When we are sick, we are privileged to have access to the finest medical care on the planet. There are many who serve as caregivers, including physicians, nurses, physician assistants, physical therapists, social workers, etc. The days are past when the only caregiver was the neighborhood doctor. Today, many of these individuals serve as primary caregivers in individual settings, including private offices, hospitals, emergency rooms, and pharmacy clinics. There is a wide spectrum of training and expertise among caregivers. In a c

John J. Laskas, Jr., MD (Media, PA) at 1/13/2012 5:15:41 PM


We’ve been asked what PAMED is doing to help physicians in regards to the new regulations. PAMED recently submitted comments to the Department of Health outlining many of the concerns raised by physicians. PAMED, through stories on our website, in newsletters, etc., also is providing information on the regulations to help physicians understand what they need to do to comply. We also are looking into what tools we can provide to help make it less burdensome on you. If there is additional information that would be helpful, or a tool that would be a valuable resource to you as you comply with these interim regulations, please let us know.

PA Medical Society at 1/10/2012 2:24:14 PM


We were asked if all employees who do not hold a license or certification also need photo ID badges and, if so what "title" should be used. Only employees who provide direct care to individuals need to wear the ID badge. So your billing people, security, etc. do not need to wear them if they do not provide direct care. Those that do provide direct care, but are not one of the three titles listed in the interim regulations (physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse) should use the title that they are licensed by. Those that do provide direct care but are not licensed (e.g., medical assistants) should use the title that is most commonly used such as medical assistants.

PA Medical Society at 1/10/2012 2:23:33 PM


Regarding the questions as to whether the last name can be omitted, the interim regulations state that the last name of the employee may be omitted or concealed when delivering direct care to a patient who exhibits symptoms of irrationality or violence. Though it is not clearly defined in the interim regulations, it would stand to reason that this would be a judgment call for the physician to make.

PA Medical Society at 1/10/2012 2:22:47 PM


typical example of excessive regulation. what happened to common sense? and using one's brain a little???

anonymous at 1/10/2012 1:59:45 PM


I think this argument has merits on both sides. I agree that personal safety and privacy of employees is important, and of course our patients already know us so what's the point of "mandating" something we already do as professionals? I also think it's relevant to photo identify personnel working for home health agencies and hospital settings as a way of verifying credentials, etc. (again something we already do). I think the misguided attempt to help improve patient confusion has led to "regulation" in an area where regulation wasn't really necessary. I think we should all agree to disagree with the regulation in our personal offices but agree for the other venues. Until the playing field is leveled when it comes to the creation of and compliance with legislation such as this, so that it applies across all "professions" in this state, i.e. dentists, fitness trainers, judges, lawyers, mechanics, beauticians, bankers, etc., we shouldn't be targeted simply because we are physicians to comply with such onerous regulation. We should be left to govern ourselves as a profession...it makes so much more sense! Wouldn't you all agree?

J. De Santi, M.D. (York) at 1/10/2012 10:47:38 AM


Badges? We don't need no stinking badges

PF at 1/10/2012 10:22:04 AM


This is unbelievable to me. A private entity being micromanaged in this way. I don't disagree with the logic, but there is a difference between what we should do and what we have to do. Are they going to mandate how we should introduce ourselves to our patients next?

Peter at 1/10/2012 10:16:52 AM


Will the Pa Medical Society be answering any of the questions posted here? (like last name ommission for everyone, not just in "high risk" practices) If doctors are to comply, we need help with the details!

anonymous at 1/10/2012 9:27:23 AM


What purpose is served by displaying an employee's last name? We have gone 100 miles and beyond to protect the patient's privacy. We MUST also demonstrate concern to protect the privacy of our employees. If an issue arises regarding an employee, chances are you will speak to a manager, supervisor, CEO etc. Those individuals should be capable of identifying their employees. I will comply when the DOH requires WALMART employees to advertise the last name of their employees as well. Private practice has functioned without badges and associated costs since its origin. It isnt broken; why then does the DOH think their intrusion and rules will help improve this system?

Darlene Pierce, PHR at 1/9/2012 8:19:10 AM


Why are we just now hearing about this? I hope the Medical Society fought against this bill before it became law, and will now start to work for its repeal. It is not much use for PAMED to inform its members on January 5 (long after the bill was passed) that the Department of Health will consider input on implementation until January 9.

anonymous at 1/8/2012 11:49:57 PM


As a psychiatrist I do not feel it is appropriate to have my first name on a badge only as it encourages crossing boundaries and over sense of familiarity. I would prefer last name only.

anonymous at 1/8/2012 11:34:27 AM


I also think it is a safety issue to use last name. We've had staff harrassed by angry patients.

anonymous at 1/7/2012 9:22:08 PM


Mostly, I think it's great that the 1/5/12 4:10pm letter approving of this regulation is signed "anonymous". Love that kind of stuff!

double secret anonymous at 1/7/2012 8:03:18 AM


If the government requires, this then let the agencies who certify us (and charge us for these certifications) include ID badges with with our annual fees. I must admit that I and my family have been to some medical offices where the provider has not identified themselves, and I am tired of patients I see telling me Dr. so and so treated them when Dr so and so is a Nurse Practitioner in our town, or a hearing aid dealer. This regulation has some merit, so how about the PA Med Society providing the ID badges or kits in the fees they charge us?!!

anonymous at 1/7/2012 5:45:02 AM


This is ludicrous, not adding to patient care, which should be the number one goal of medicine, but only adding to further legal hurdles and financial burdens. It supports my contention that a committee is a self perpetuating parasite that finds more regulations to create after it has completed its original purpose for its existence!

David at 1/6/2012 11:08:25 PM


Even in crazy societies like Iran! there is not so much nazism and pressure on physicians as there is in USA. Pysicians in tis country are turning to be government's puppets.

anonymous at 1/6/2012 7:56:12 PM


This is an unnecessary intrusion in my practice. I'll just go to the money tree, shake a few branches and then go to the storage closet where I keep my laminator and name badge kit and make a few badges in my spare time. We need to organize. What is the Medical Society doing to help this situation?

solo IM in Fayette Co at 1/6/2012 1:04:08 PM


I am a solo practioner; my patients know me and my staff. This is another 1-2 hours of my time fulfilling meaningless government regulations instead of caring for patients, improving my education, time with family, etc.

anonymous at 1/6/2012 9:46:54 AM


Sent this note to Amy Green at the PMS Amy, please work to: (1) Carve out small offices with only one doc and fewer than 10 employees. This is a colossal waste of our time to comply, and utterly unnecessary in smaller, more personal facilities. We are offended; this is a ministry, not a business. (2) Need to get employees’ last names OFF of badges. This is a privacy issue for them, and I support that idea. Please work tirelessly to stem the ridiculous crushing burden of unfunded mandates on docs who want more time to actually take care of patients in need!

Lisa P. at 1/6/2012 8:32:42 AM


There should be exceptions for small practices. My 2 employees & I know the name of every patient and they know our names. It would be ridiculous for us to wear name tags. It's like Mom & Dad, son & daughter being forced to wear name tags in their own house. What's also scary, is that we pay these government people who come up with these onerous rules, and the money & resources needed to devise & implement these rules is drawn from our already limited pool of health care dollars.

Martin Mersky MD at 1/6/2012 7:46:43 AM


I forgot to mention the study mentioned was by the AMA, are they selling badges now too with coding manuals?

anonymous at 1/6/2012 7:11:28 AM


I am confused on what the PA medical Society is doing to keep physicians and not politicians from regulating medicine. A name badge and credentials/job title appears reasonable but why a photo in a small practice? Just another reason for good people to leave practice or PA.

anonymous at 1/6/2012 7:06:54 AM


Just another government intervention in private enterprise!

anonymous at 1/6/2012 6:58:09 AM


Once again, the government is intervening in a destructive way and disguising it by claiming to benefit patients. Why not just advise physicians of the problem? Are physicians so inept that they can't decide when thils is a good idea? I have a solo office with no employees and introduce mysellf in person to every patient. Should I really be threatened with legal sanctions if I don't wear an ID tag?

Edward Chastka M.D. at 1/5/2012 11:29:20 PM


So what if you or the government thinks it's a good idea!!! Does every bright idea some bureaucrat thinks up have to become a LAW? Of course the patient has a right to know who I am. Just ASK me. If a hospital wants to make such a regulation because there are a lot of people running around, so be it. What business is it of the GOVERNMENT! And what if I don't wear a name tag? Are the cops going to come in, or maybe I'll pay a fine or lose my license. This country is getting WIERD!

Anthony Perry MD at 1/5/2012 9:21:31 PM


This regulation needs a re-write. I am a solo practitioner with no physician extenders working for/with me. I have a secretary and a medical assistant. It is absurd to require me to wear a photo ID in my office where I am the only doctor working there and patients come to the office to see me only. They are referred to me for care, see my name on my office sign and my entrance door and every document they read or sign. They know who I am by looking at my name on my lab coat and my face. The photo ID requirement makes no sense. It is egregious that the DOH could investigate and sanction/penalize me or any solo practitioner for not wearing a photo ID. Please advise the DOH to correct this obvious error in the regulation.

anonymous at 1/5/2012 8:59:42 PM


This is totally ridiculous invasive demeaning to the provider and to patients. Yet another governmental invasion!!!

anonymous at 1/5/2012 8:28:43 PM


I REFUSE TO STAND FOR MORE GOV. REGULATION ON HOW I PRACTICE MEDICINE.IS THIS NAZI GERMANY,IRAN OR SOME OTHER CRAZY SOCIETY?

paul d orange md. at 1/5/2012 7:40:52 PM


I absolutely refuse to accept this kind of government interference with my private business affairs. Neither I nor any of my employees will be wearing any photo ID. Anyone who doesn't know who or that I am is not welcome in my practice.

anonymous at 1/5/2012 6:39:57 PM


If an employee does not hold a license or certification (like front desk secretary, medical assistant or billing clerk) do they also need to have photo id's in a physician's private office? If so, what "title" should be used? Is the name of the department (like clerical, billing, administration, etc) ok to use?

anonymous at 1/5/2012 4:49:16 PM


It is completely inappropriate to mandate Photo ID's in private offices. Does every public employee - policeman,fireman, trashman, District Justice and Judge wear a photo ID? This is another bi government move - more rules aren't bettter.

David Babins MD at 1/5/2012 4:45:06 PM


I am in private practice and it is our office policy that our employees (other than doctors and physician assistants) do not use their last names. This policy was adopted due to past situaitons where we had 2 different instances where patients tracked down employees at their homes as well as the potential for patients to become irate due to overdue accounts or other issues. Since we cannot know which patients will become irate and possibly become a danger to our staff, can we eliminate last names for all staff as part of this policy?

anonymous at 1/5/2012 4:44:44 PM


Yes. Private practice physicians and their employees, in addition to those who deliver direct care outside of a health care facility (e.g., home health agencies) must wear an ID badge and immediately comply with the interim regulations.

PA Medical Society at 1/5/2012 4:37:59 PM


I think it makes perfect sense to require photo identification for all personnel. Those who object on religious grounds should be advised it is "mandatory" to participate at that hospital or organizational level. Why would they object in the first place? Didn't they have to get a photo on their passport or driver's license or was that also "waived". We need to stop catering to this nonsense. Identification is important in our profession and with so many para-professionals I think its important to know who is who. Patients have the right to know who is caring for them. In the situation of a private practice I think it's simply being courteous to patients, especially those who are new, to have a photo ID. It helps them learn who your staff are as well as their levels of training. One could argue why do physicians place their names on their lab coats? Is it to prevent coat theft? I don't think so. If cost is a concern as one commentator noted, you could use your own digital camera, take a photo, download it on your computer and use Word or any of the numerous programs out there to make a photo ID with the necessary information (I did this in my own practice), laminate them yourself, then add a hole and attach an ID clip. It's quick, easy and inexpensive, plus you can customize your information. Since most hospitals and other organizations provide IDs for free, there's no cost to you as medical staff to comply. In our world today, knowing "who" is doing "what" goes a long way in preventing fraud as well as injury. We should be looking at this as an improvement not a hindrance. Police, federal agents, the military and major corporations like Disney do this so why shouldn't we? A sense of humor and a little common sense is what we as physicians should espouse. Fight the fights that make sense like reimbursement issues and oppressive regulation and stop sweating the small stuff! And smile for that ID photo, since it makes people feel better about you!

anonymous at 1/5/2012 4:10:44 PM


Please make this one point clear.... Do private practice physicians and employees need to wear a badge when delivering care within the walls of their own office suite?

anonymous at 1/5/2012 3:31:56 PM


Does this mean I have to get a photo ID badge to treat myself or my wife? I am retired and have a license to treat just the two of us. This sounds like another great, but out-of-touch government boondoggle whose only puroose is to make money for those who provide ID badges, but as usual does nothing for the practice of medicine! If you don't know your patients and they don't know you, something is wrong! It is time for physicians to get their names back in the phone books and get back to being integral parts of the communities in which they reside and work!

Donald K Roeder, MD at 1/5/2012 3:12:25 PM


We want to address any confusion. Please call Amy Green, associate director of governmental affairs at PAMED, at (800) 228-7823 and let her know what questions you still have. We can then answer those questions in this article.

PA Medical Society at 1/3/2012 11:49:29 AM


This posting in the news letter is NOT helpful. It speaks of Hospital employees. Many physicains are NOT hospital employees, but members of the independant medical staff. It is not that I think that name (tags) or indentification is a "bad" idea but there are many issues that arise related to safety, privacy, practicality, and jurisdicion that remain unclear.

anonymous at 1/1/2012 10:44:28 AM


The interim regulations are currently in effect, so you would need to comply now if you are a private practice physician or an employee who delivers direct care outside of a health care facility (e.g., home health agencies). The interim regulations apply to all individuals who work directly with patients, not just the three titles that are listed in the interim regulations (physician, registered nurse, and licensed practical nurse). Employees are to use the title to which they are licensed or certified by, so your PA would use the title “physician assistant.” If you are a member and have additional questions, please contact (800) 228-7823, ext. 2644.

PA Medical Society at 12/30/2011 11:22:32 AM


The definition of "title" in the interim regs is "A license, certification or registration held by the employee". Does that mean that it is not job title, but one's license or certification that needs to be listed on the badge?

anonymous at 12/28/2011 1:44:10 PM


I am still confused on the timeline. As a private practice physician do I have to comply immediately or when the final regulations are adopted? Also, article states the only titles included are physician, RN & LPN. This does not apply to physician assistants in the interim regs?

Member at 12/28/2011 8:33:03 AM


The department of health regulates hospitals. My office is regulated by the Bureau of Radiologic Protection. Now what?

anonymous at 12/23/2011 12:49:12 PM


My patients know who I am.

Anthony Perry, MD at 12/23/2011 11:27:29 AM

Last Updated: 2/2/2012
From: 
Email:  
To: 
Email:  
Subject: 
Message: