Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Psychologist Prescribing Endorsement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses H-237 to allow prescribing endorsement for psychologists; board rulemaking, fee questions remain
Summary
H‑237 would permit a doctoral psychologist specialty endorsement for prescribing psychiatric medications; committee discussion focused on eligibility criteria, board rulemaking authority, and how a separate fee bill would apply.
The House Agriculture Committee discussed H‑237, a bill that would create a prescribing endorsement on an existing doctoral psychologist license, allowing prescribing authority in the field of mental health under specified conditions. Committee members heard a bill walkthrough and discussed rulemaking authority, fee authority and timing, and the need to align the bill with a separate measure that would set endorsement fees.
Under the bill language described to the committee, a psychologist seeking the prescribing specialty must already hold an active psychologist license, complete a postdoctoral training program in psychopharmacology and specified clinical rotations, pass a national certifying exam as determined by rule, and meet other requirements determined by the board of psychological examiners. The prescribing psychologist must practice under a written collaborative agreement with a collaborating practitioner who typically prescribes in mental health; the bill limits the psychologist’s prescriptive authority to medications and indications that the collaborating practitioner prescribes.
The bill adds definitions (for example, "prescribing psychologist" and "collaborating practitioner") to the chapter on psychologists in Title 26 and gives the Board of Psychological Examiners rulemaking authority to set detailed requirements such as clinical rotations, how collaborative agreements are filed, and the board’s application process.
Committee members asked about fees tied to the specialty. The bill text says an applicant shall apply in a manner approved by the board and include payment of any required fees, but it does not itself set a fee level. Committee staff and the Joint Fiscal Office noted that a separate bill (referred to in committee materials as bill 4702 or the endorsement fee bill) would establish an endorsement fee; the fiscal representative said the current plan is for that companion measure to set a $100 fee for such endorsements, but final application depends on the separate bill’s passage and any rulemaking.
Committee staff also reviewed the proposed effective dates and rulemaking timeline: the act would take effect this year to enable board rulemaking; the board would have about a year to adopt rules, and the substantive licensing provisions would take effect the following July (the transcript records the bill’s provisions taking effect in July as written). Members raised a procedural question about whether the Secretary of State has the authority to assess an additional fee for an endorsement on an existing license; staff said they expect Nolan and Lauren (staff referenced in committee) and officials in the Secretary of State’s office to coordinate on implementation and fee authority.
On fiscal scope, a Joint Fiscal Office representative reviewed the Secretary of State’s fee report and said there are about 70 doctorate‑level psychologists in the state; any revenue from fees would depend on how many seek the endorsement. The committee took no formal vote on H‑237 in the transcript excerpt and paused to reconvene after staff and outside officials arrived to clarify fee and implementation details.
