Vermont bill H.2307 would create prescribing specialty for doctoral psychologists, set training and oversight requirements

A staff member said the meeting would include a walk-through of H.2307 and a report-back from legislative counsel before the House took up the bill for third reading.

Kate, legislative counsel, summarized the text of H.2307, saying the bill would add a new prescribing-psychologist specialty to Vermont’s existing psychologist licensure chapter and direct the Board of Psychological Examiners to adopt rules for training, clinical rotations and prescriptive authority.

If enacted, a licensed doctoral-level psychologist could apply to the board for a prescribing specialty after meeting education, training and examination requirements. “Prescribing psychologists means a licensed doctoral level psychologist has undergone specialized training, has passed an examination as determined by rule, and has received a current prescribing specialty,” Kate said.

The bill would add definitions including a “collaborating practitioner,” described in the draft as “a physician licensed to practice who has a specialty in psychiatry,” and would limit prescriptive authority to drugs for conditions recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Kate said the draft explicitly excludes authority to prescribe or discontinue drugs for patients who are younger than 18, older than 80, or pregnant, and excludes authority to dispense, administer or distribute medications.

Training and supervision requirements in the draft include: completion of a postdoctoral training program in psychopharmacology designated by the American Psychological Association (or its successor); at least 14 months of clinical rotations across no fewer than nine practice settings (listed in the draft as psychiatry, pediatrics, geriatrics, family medicine, internal medicine, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, surgery, and one elective); and passage of a national certifying exam “as determined by rule.” Kate said the board would have leeway to define additional parameters.

Prescriptive scope would be governed by a written collaborative agreement between the prescribing psychologist and the collaborating practitioner, Kate said, adding that the collaborating practitioner must file the agreement with the board and must file any notice of termination. For controlled substances in schedules II through V, the draft requires identification of specific substances by brand or generic name. The draft also allows prescription or administration of a controlled substance by injection under the collaborative agreement.

The draft contains a reciprocity-style provision that allows the director of the board to grant the specialty without examination if the applicant holds active psychologist prescribing authority in another U.S. or Canadian jurisdiction and the director judges the out-of-state requirements “substantially equivalent.”

Kate noted one technical edit from the Ways and Means committee: a single-word change to reference “any required fees,” intended to align this bill with another pending measure that would create fees for specialty endorsements across licensure types.

On timing, Kate said the bill was scheduled for third reading in the House that afternoon. She said the bill would give the board rulemaking authority effective July 1, 2025, and would make the remaining provisions effective July 1, 2026, allowing the board time to adopt rules before the specialty becomes operational. A participant asked how many other states allow psychology prescribing; Kate said she did not have that information at the meeting and that staff would follow up.

The draft materials and discussion focused on statutory definitions, the board’s rulemaking authority and the clinical and supervisory safeguards that would accompany any new prescriptive authority for psychologists. No formal motion or vote was recorded in the excerpted discussion.