Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Licensing Boards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Minnesota health licensing boards seek new staff and fee authority as workloads grow
Summary
Several state health licensing boards told the Senate Health and Human Services Committee they need more staff or fee authority to keep up with rising applications, more-complex complaints and higher operating costs; most said their operations are fee-funded, not paid from the general fund.
Health licensing boards that regulate dentists, counselors, podiatrists, chiropractors, dietitians and other professionals told the Minnesota Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Jan. 28 that increases in volume and complexity of their work have left many boards seeking new staff or broader fee authority.
The boards — all fee-funded executive-branch entities — gave the committee a mix of narrowly targeted asks and larger ceiling changes. They emphasized that licensing boards rely on fees paid by licensees, not the state general fund, and said rising costs for rent, IT, legal services and personnel are creating budget stress.
The boards said their requests vary: the Board of Dentistry asked for one administrative position to support a complaint-compliance division; the Board of Behavioral Health and Therapy (BBHT) asked for a full-time staff position and authority to charge a counseling-compact privilege fee for out-of-state applicants; the Board of Podiatric Medicine asked to raise its fee ceiling and a proposed interim renewal amount; the Board of Chiropractic Examiners sought increased spending authority and related fee adjustments; the Board of Dietetics and Nutrition Practice requested funding to fill a vacant administrative position. All presenters said their fee revenue currently supports the requests and that they were not immediately seeking higher license rates in some cases.
“The salary and fringe that you see there is about a 100,000 estimated for both, for that new position,” Bridget Anderson, executive director of the Minnesota Board of Dentistry, said when describing a proposed administrative hire to help with a rising caseload. Anderson told senators the dental board handled “over 300 complaints last year” and that cases — especially implant and surgical complaints — are becoming more complex and require more staff time to assemble imaging and materials for review.
Samantha Strelo, executive director of the Board of Behavioral Health and Therapy, told lawmakers BBHT’s regulated population has more than doubled in a decade — from roughly 4,000 in 2014 to almost 10,000 at the start of 2025 — and the board receives about 1,000 new license applications annually. BBHT asked for one full-time position funded from fees and authority to collect up to $100 for counseling-compact privilege applications (Strelo said the board plans to set the fee closer to $25 initially).
Paul Bakken, executive director of the Board of Podiatric Medicine, said the board had not increased its fee ceiling since 1999 and faces a structural deficit of about $40,000 per year. Bakken asked the committee to raise the authorized fee ceiling for DPM application and renewal fees from $600 to $1,000; the board proposes an initial renewal at $750 if the ceiling change is approved.
Dr. Ridge Pity, executive director of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, and other presenters faced repeated questions from senators about statutory “not to exceed” fee ceilings. Some committee members called broad ceiling authority a “blank check” and pressed boards to provide narrower, biennial fee requests instead of open-ended ceilings. Ruth Greendale, executive director of the Board of Dietetics and Nutrition Practice, said she did not request a “not to exceed” ceiling and warned that auditors have previously questioned boards that lower fees without explicit authority.
Boards repeatedly noted they are fee funded and asked the committee to recognize the operational differences between fee-funded regulatory agencies and general-fund agencies. Several senators signaled concern about broad ceiling authority and asked staff to compile historical information on how fee ceilings have been used in prior biennia before the committee acts.
Senators asked several boards to return with more detailed budget pages and narrower proposals and indicated they would review the change pages and follow up. No formal action or votes were taken during the hearing.
Ending: Committee members said they want historical fee-ceiling data and clearer, narrower requests before approving broad statutory ceilings. Several chairs and senators said they would request additional information and may schedule follow-up briefings with individual boards.
