Across the country, states are tightening how medical aesthetic procedures are supervised and delegated — from California’s AB 2236 to medical-director rules in Florida and delegation standards in Texas. For practice owners, the question is no longer whether the rules apply — it is whether your day-to-day workflow can prove compliance on demand.
What’s changing
The common thread is a tighter relationship between the supervising physician and the staff performing procedures. Delegation has to be documented, scope has to be respected, and a good-faith exam has to exist before treatment — wherever you operate.
- A documented good-faith exam precedes treatment
- Delegation is mapped to a named supervising physician
- Each role operates strictly within its scope of practice
How to operationalize it
The practices that handle this well stop treating compliance as a separate task. The exam, the supervision link, and the consent live inside the same record as the treatment — so the documentation is a by-product of doing the work, not extra paperwork.
“The goal is for the compliant path to be the path of least resistance.”
In Montego, charting is blocked until a documented exam is on file, roles map to scope automatically, and every action is logged. The result is a defensible record without anyone chasing it.