Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Prescribing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves technical fix to include prescribing psychologists in clinician definitions
Summary
The Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee voted unanimously to give a do-pass recommendation for Senate Bill 53, a narrow measure that inserts prescribing psychologists with four years of independent prescribing experience into a statutory definition for supervising clinicians.
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Prescribing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee on May 20 voted 9-0 to give Senate Bill 53 a do-pass recommendation. The bill updates statutory definitions to explicitly include prescribing psychologists who have at least four years of independent experience prescribing psychotropic medications.
Sponsor Senator Soules told the committee the bill is a cleanup from prior legislation and only adds prescribing psychologists to a definition that had been omitted. He said prescribing psychologists have been practicing since about 2004 and that the 2023 law allowing them to supervise trainees inadvertently left them out of a cross-reference in the statute.
Witnesses who spoke in support included representatives of the American Association of University Women and the National Organization for Women and Gabrielle Dietrich, executive director of NAMI New Mexico, who said increased clarity will improve access to prescribers for people NAMI serves.
Committee members asked technical questions about the meaning of “four years of independent experience” and whether the change affects prior clinical or supervisory requirements. Linda Siegel, who appeared on behalf of professional groups, said the change does not alter the substance of the 2023 law; it only corrects the definition so prescribing psychologists are treated the same as physicians and osteopathic physicians for the purpose of supervising trainees.
A motion to do pass was moved and seconded; the roll call returned a 9-0 do-pass recommendation.
The bill is scheduled for subsequent consideration on the Senate floor and the committee record shows no significant fiscal impact identified in the fiscal analysis.
