Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 30, 2026
Minimally Invasive Isolated Limb Perfusion (MI-ILP) for Locally Advanced Melanomas and Sarcomas of the Extremity
Published on: January 31, 2025
State medical board regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures
Samreen Choudhry1, Natalie A Kim, Jason Gillum
1Department of Dermatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois 60611,USA.
Background:
There is little information regarding commonalities, differences, and trends in the regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures (MICP) across different state medical boards in the United States.
Objective:
We sought to assess current state medical board regulations regarding MICP, so as to better understand current and emerging trends in rules regarding delegation, and management of patient complaints.
Methods:
We conducted structured interviews with officials at US allopathic medical boards, supplemented with information from board World Wide Web sites.
Results:
A total of 31 (62%) boards participated. Most (20 boards; 63% of total respondents) reported that all MICP can be delegated at the physician's discretion and responsibility to at least one category of nonphysician; 7 states were expecting changes in delegation rules; and 4 states had very specific delegation requirements. Approximately equal numbers of boards required some general supervision of nonphysicians (14, 45%), or required some type of on-site supervision (13, 42%); a small number explicitly permitted off-site supervision (4, 13%). There was variation in the number of physician assistants one physician could supervise. Most boards (15 states) required some type of mandatory reporting, but not necessarily of incidents involving MICP. Very few (4) required reporting of both office- and nonoffice-based MICP incidents. Western states had liberal delegation and supervision requirements; these requirements were more stringent in Southern states.
Limitations:
Not all boards participated in this study.
Conclusion:
There is substantial variation in board regulation of MICP. Many boards are promulgating new rules. Medical boards also have limited ability to regulate nonphysicians.
Insights
State medical boards show significant variation in regulating minimally invasive cosmetic procedures (MICP). Many are updating rules, but oversight of nonphysicians remains limited, highlighting a need for clearer guidelines in cosmetic procedure regulation.
Area of Science:
- Medical Regulation
- Cosmetic Procedures
- Healthcare Policy
Background:
- Limited information exists on the regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures (MICP) by state medical boards in the U.S.
- Understanding commonalities, differences, and trends in MICP regulation is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess current state medical board regulations concerning MICP.
- To identify emerging trends in delegation and patient complaint management for MICP.
Main Methods:
- Structured interviews with officials from U.S. allopathic medical boards.
- Supplemented interview data with information from medical board websites.
Main Results:
- 31 state medical boards participated (62% response rate).
- Most boards permit MICP delegation to nonphysicians, with varying supervision requirements (general, on-site, off-site).
- Significant regional differences observed, with Western states having more liberal rules than Southern states.
Conclusions:
- Substantial variation exists in state medical board regulations for MICP.
- Many medical boards are actively developing new regulations.
- Medical boards face challenges in regulating nonphysician practice within MICP.
