Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telehealth Practice And Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory committee reviews licensee survey: telehealth largely working but safety and interstate practice raise concerns
Summary
Committee members reviewed survey responses from licensed marriage and family therapists about telehealth. Most respondents reported no issues, but members flagged safety, interstate practice limits and an educational gap in crisis management and telehealth best practices.
A majority of marriage and family therapy licensees who responded to a recent BSRB survey said they had not experienced telehealth problems in the previous two years, Executive Director David Fye told the advisory committee Oct. 10; still, committee members identified recurring concerns about safety, interstate practice and practitioner education.
“About three‑quarters of LMFT respondents reported no issues,” Fye said, but he and advisory members discussed patterns found in the open‑ended responses. Heidi Vela, a private‑practice clinician in Manhattan, said the survey surfaced a common problem: clients who move out of state and then legally cannot receive care remotely while physically outside Kansas. “I have a client who moved and drives back into the state to see me, and that is totally appropriate, but I can’t see them when they are in their other state,” Vela said.
Committee members raised more concerns: some licensees may not recognize contraindications for telehealth (for example, active intimate partner violence or high suicide risk), there is uneven training on telehealth ethics and safety across generations of clinicians, and clinicians may lack a standard approach to crisis plans when working remotely. Marcy Lechtenberg, a retired clinic director and current supervisor, recommended clearer practitioner education about when telehealth is contraindicated.
Members suggested possible board responses: publish guidance clarifying the limits of state licensure for out‑of‑state clients, strengthen communication about best practices for telehealth safety (including crisis‑management protocols), and consider continuing education offerings or a short annual telehealth refresher. Some members proposed exploring a small continuing‑education requirement focused on telehealth competencies; others cautioned against adding requirements without further study.
Why it matters: telehealth remains a common mode of care after the pandemic. Guidance that clarifies cross‑jurisdiction practice, informed consent, risk assessment and crisis planning would affect thousands of Kansas clinicians and their clients.
The committee asked staff to include telehealth findings in its final survey report and to consider whether the board should issue nonbinding guidance or propose rule changes.
