Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Office Of Professional Regulation Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances OPR bill after revisions; fee increases draw opposition
Summary
The House committee voted to print draft 2.5 of an Office of Professional Regulation bill after OPR removed social‑worker title‑protection language and revised a massage‑establishment reporting request; members raised concerns about fee increases for apprenticeships and peer‑support renewals.
Lauren Hibbert, deputy secretary of state, and Jennifer Pullen, general counsel (as introduced to the committee), explained revisions to an Office of Professional Regulation bill and fielded questions from House committee members. The committee voted to print draft 2.5 for further consideration.
Why it matters: The bill would adjust several OPR practices and fees and add a legislative reporting requirement related to regulation of massage-therapy establishments. Committee action advances the proposal to the next stage; several members said they support most provisions but raised objections to proposed fee increases during floor debate.
Hibbert told the committee the revised draft removes earlier language that would have created title protection for social workers, saying OPR does not support title protection for that occupation because the agency lacks an enforcement mechanism and the impact is not fully understood. The draft adds a provision asking OPR to provide proposed legislation concerning regulation of massage-therapy establishments; Hibbert said OPR now believes registration of establishments merits further study because the agency’s implementation of practitioner registration has produced enforcement data and trafficking-related complaints.
Hibbert described the difference among registration, licensure and certification. Registration is a mandatory filing without qualification requirements; licensure requires qualifications such as education and examination; certification is voluntary and indicates a professional has met a credentialing standard.
Several committee members questioned proposed fee changes. The bill proposes a $50 apprenticeship application fee and would restore a previously-intended $75 renewal fee for peer‑recovery support specialists beginning in 2027 (the $75 renewal had been dropped in prior legislative negotiations but reflected legislative intent, Hibbert said). Representative Coffin said he could not support adding fees at a time when health‑care finances are fragile; another member said the OPR bill otherwise had many positive provisions but that the committee should be cautious about adding new or higher fees.
Committee action: Representative Waters Evans moved to put draft 2.5 in print. The clerk recorded the roll-call vote as nine in favor and two opposed (Representative Coffin and Representative Mako voted no). The committee approved the motion to print draft 2.5.
Hibbert said OPR will continue to work with stakeholders and committee staff to refine language and that the agency intends to follow up with more detailed draft language on massage‑establishment regulation next session. She also confirmed that apprenticeship pathways would continue to be available even if the $50 processing fee were not adopted; OPR proposed the fee to cover additional staff review work required by apprenticeship applications.
The committee posted draft 2.5 and will consider it at a later meeting. Several members asked OPR to re‑examine fee proposals and to provide additional fiscal detail before the bill moves further through the process.
