House hearing draws split testimony on bill to remove exam requirement for social work associates

The House opened the public hearing on House Bill 271 (FN), a bill that would remove the requirement that licensed social work associates (LSWAs) sit for the bachelor-level Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) exam. Representative Peter Schmidt, the bill’s prime sponsor, framed the measure as a workforce action intended to expand billing capacity for agencies serving children and adults awaiting psychiatric hospitalization.

Lynn Currier Stanley, executive director of the National Association of Social Workers — New Hampshire chapter, testified in support and described the statutory tier the Legislature created about 3½ years earlier to allow bachelor- and associate-degree holders to become licensed social work associates so agencies could bill third-party insurers for services. Stanley said the exam requirement for the LSWA tier has become “a barrier to people being able to actually access this licensure tier,” adding that the bill would not remove testing requirements for other social work licensure tiers.

Andrew Hosmer, senior policy adviser for Predi Strategies representing the Association of Social Work Boards, testified in opposition. He said ASWB and many social work professionals view licensing exams as essential to public protection and the integrity of the profession. Hosmer said HB 271 would be “premature” because the 2021 law that created the tier and related changes have not yet had time to fully demonstrate effects. He cited a national ASWB survey he said found broad support for preserving licensing exams.

Other witnesses supporting the bill, including Jake Berry of New Futures and Miss Stanley, described the practical effect: many community providers already employ caregivers who perform case-management services, and insurers often require a license to reimburse providers when care is billed through private insurance. Lynn Stanley and a New Futures witness said Medicaid-covered services at community mental health centers can be provided under a waiver regardless of licensure, but private insurers typically require a license for reimbursement.

Committee members pressed supporters on details. Representative Reeves asked whether removing the exam would speed access to care; witnesses said it would not speed clinical access for individual patients but could increase agencies’ ability to obtain reimbursement. Representative Leo asked whether the LSWA role was primarily administrative or clinical; Stanley said the LSWA scope is narrower than fully independent clinical social work, that LSWA holders work under supervision, and that the statutory framework requires supervision and a 30-hour prescribed training in addition to supervision requirements for experience credits. Stanley said the bachelor-level ASWB exam costs $230 per attempt and cited a first-time pass rate of about 70% for bachelor-degree holders; she said the pass rate for non-social-work baccalaureates is likely lower.

Opponents warned about “unintended consequences.” Hosmer argued the exam standardizes competency for work with high-risk populations. He said such a change could have consequences for professional standards, interstate mobility and public safety and urged caution because the licensure tier and the Interstate Social Work Licensure Compact only recently went into effect in New Hampshire.

The committee was told rulemaking for the LSWA tier was finalized about six months earlier and that only one LSWA had been licensed in New Hampshire to date. Several members asked the office to confirm how the Interstate Social Work Licensure Compact interacts with the proposed change.

Representative Schmidt indicated the bill will go to subcommittee for further review.