Dermatologists and other ‘ologists make their bid for lasertrolysis
A battle is raging between electrologists, would-be lasertrologists, and the Medical Board in a state that is rapidly getting a reputation as the hotbed of the hair removal business. In December 1999, Florida’s depilation experts were very much in the news once again – this time over the controversy of who should be allowed to perform laser hair removal, and who should not. The way the State’s newspapers saw it, the argument was between registered electrologists and registered dermatologists. But as insiders know, the real disagreement is between practitioners who endorse only “permanent hair removal,” using a needle-type epilator, and practitioners who endorse “permanent reduction” hair removal with the use of medical lasers.
On December 3, 1999, Florida’s Medical Board rejected a proposal that would have allowed registered electrologists to use lasers without the restriction of medical supervision. Instead, they approved a draft rule that would let properly trained electrologists use an alternative light-based hair removal device (the EpiLight), which most authorities say could be dangerous.
Some Florida dermatologists called the board’s rule proposal absurd. They say the “alternative light-based hair removal system” is more dangerous in the wrong hands than single-frequency lasers, which use one concentrated beam of light. Matt Weidner, executive director of the Florida Society of dermatology, said the multi-frequency system requires more power than the traditional laser technique.
Judy Adams, president of the Society of Clinical and Medical Electrologists (SCME), an association that approves of laser hair removal, scoffed at the doctors who are against nonphysician use of EpiLight and laser hair removal systems. She told a reporter for Skin & Allergy News, “They are shooting themselves in the foot, because if such laws are passed, doctors will not be able to let their assistants perform laser procedures while they’re out of the office or on vacation.”
Dr. Mark Nestor, a Florida dermatologist and president of the Florida Society of Dermatology, said he doesn’t know of any physicians who have made that argument, and that many professional dermatologic associations, including the American Academy of Dermatology, oppose nonphysician use of lasers without direct physician supervision.
“Most electrologists don’t have college degrees,” said Dr. Nestor, “and most of them undergo just 320 hours of training. If someone is going to tell me that after 10 weeks or less of training they’re experts at treating the skin and determining whether diseases or medications are going to affect the way a patient reacts to [laser] hair removal, that doesn’t make much sense,” he said.
Ms. Adams responded by saying, “the battle over EpiLight is really a turf war over who will be able to offer these services which are elective and not covered by insurance. These physicians are putting everything they can into their offices to offset the fact that they’re not making money like they used to.’
Dr. Nestor called the idea of a turf war ridiculous. “How can I have a turf issue with someone who has 10 weeks of training?” he said. The doctor also dismissed the notion that being a consultant to ESC Medical Systems — maker of the EpiLight laser hair removal device –would skew his opinions. He said that, if anything, his affiliation with ESC would encourage him to say that EpiLight is safe, “but I’m saying they should not sell these machines to people off the street.
Florida’s Sun Sentinel told readers that all this was about the estimated $1 billion that consumers nationwide pour into permanent hair removal. “Electrologists say the centuries-old practice of zapping hairs with electrically charged wires is rapidly giving way to the newer, faster technology of searing the hairs away,” the newspaper reported. Ms. Adams was quoted as saying, “There are women [electrologists] all over the country that are going out of business because women are going into doctors’ offices for this procedure.”
“Consumers want bulk hair removal done,” said Ms. Adams. “Now we’ve got an alternative and we ought to be able to do it.”
The American Electrology Association (AEA) was not to be left out of the fray: it lost no time in informing doctors on both sides of the issue that non-laser light-based devices (EpiLight and Photoderm) are every bit as dangerous as a laser, and that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) treats them as laser “to all intents and purposes.” Bette DeVito, president of the AEA, also reminded the doctors that laser manufacturers were already selling their equipment to estheticians for use in their beauty salons, and that some of these manufacturers had already been involved in litigation for burns, and hyper- and hypo-pigmentation resulting from laser and light-based treatments.
Before the Florida Board of Medicine draft rule could go into effect, it had to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and a series of rule-making public hearings were scheduled. With so much opposition from every side, the Board has planned to hold another meeting on the laser topic early this month. For some Hair Route readers (receiving their magazine around mid-month), the main excitement in this drama may have already transpired. Not to worry; in these Florida mini-series there’s always another action-packed episode waiting to be aired.
home
subscribe
advertise
about us
