Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Workforce topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates expanding supervising role for prescribing psychologists; some lawmakers warn of training gaps
Summary
A bill to update a statutory definition would include prescribing psychologists among "independently licensed prescribing clinicians," which the sponsor described as cleanup language. Several senators raised concerns that the change could expand who can supervise longer practicums and asked for clearer training requirements.
Senate Judiciary Committee members debated a bill that would adjust statutory definitions to include prescribing psychologists among “independently licensed prescribing clinicians.” The sponsor described the measure as a cleanup to reflect changes made in 2024; opponents and some senators said the change could alter who is permitted to supervise intensive practicums.
“It's just updating the definition portion of independently licensed prescribing clinicians to include the prescribing psychologists,” the sponsor told the committee, adding the final paragraph addresses supervising clinicians.
Senator Maestas and other senators said lawmakers and a constituent prescribing psychologist raised substantive concerns. They said the 2024 law allowed prescribing psychologists to supervise on a two‑year conditional basis but that the current bill would add them into the definition used for 80‑hour medical practicums and 400‑hour pharmacotherapy practica — placements that include assessment of physical conditions and interaction with medications.
A committee member said: “If you are a prescribing psychologist, you... have not gone through medical school. You have not had the training on the physical body that that other folks have,” and pressed whether prescribing psychologists should supervise physical-assessment training for others. The sponsor and supporting witnesses said the bill only cleans up definitions and does not change who currently may be supervising; the bill text “doesn't make those folks automatically a supervising clinician,” one sponsor said.
Committee members also discussed a separate question about whether this legislation would intersect with other measures involving medical providers; the sponsor said not directly. A mixture of technical clarifications and substantive policy concerns prompted several senators to ask for more review. After debate, the committee recorded a do-pass recommendation on the measure, and later a motion to table was made during follow-up floor procedure (roll-call sequence appears in the transcript); the committee exchange reflected both support for a definition cleanup and significant caution about supervisory standards for clinical training.
The transcript did not include a final floor-level enactment; the committee record contains a do-pass recommendation but also subsequent procedural motions on the measure. Committee members asked that statutory cross-references and supervision standards be examined to ensure the change does not unintentionally widen supervisory authority for clinicians without requisite training.
