Cosmetology board seeks overhaul of licensure, advanced aesthetics license and fee increases

House Bill 1126, a broad rewrite of cosmetology statutes, was presented to the House Industry, Business and Labor Committee by members and staff of the State Board of Cosmetology. The board said the updates are designed to modernize definitions, create an "advanced aesthetician" license, expand apprenticeship pathways and raise fees to cover new technology and administrative costs.

Board member Maureen Warner summarized the bill for the committee, citing three full pages of changes to revise terminology, add new definitions and create a scope of practice for an advanced aesthetician license. Warner said the board serves roughly 8,000 licensees and 1,816 establishments and that the board has not raised fees since 2003. "We have not requested fee increases since 2003," Warner said, arguing that modern licensing software, data security and identity verification now make higher fees necessary.

Executive Director Holly Bloomquist provided detail on the financial and operational rationale: the board currently manages thousands of licenses with minimal software and said a modern licensing system would cost the board an estimated $175,000 per year on hosted licensing services. Bloomquist said the board has three certificates of deposit as reserves but that ongoing revenue is insufficient to sustain expanded services without fee changes.

The bill would create an advanced aesthetician license and associated curriculum, clarify permissible noninvasive and nonablative procedures for aesthetic licensees, expand pathways for transfer and endorsement for out‑of‑state licensees (including provisional licensing for active military and certain veterans), allow remote or third‑party practical testing, lower the minimum age for licensure pathways to 16 (including school‑based programs) and expand apprenticeship programs. The board also proposes targeted licensing for services performed in long‑term care settings and a grandfather clause for practitioners with established experience.

Testimony included support from D'Arlen Bauer, board president and consumer representative, who said clearer statutory scope will help enforcement and make data collection for labor metrics possible. Practitioner Miranda Nichols, who holds a master aesthetics license, testified neutrally: she supported the advanced‑practice credential and greater clarity on microneedling and common chemical exfoliants, but urged that first aid/CPR and blood‑borne pathogen requirements not be limited to a single provider certification and suggested those health training elements might apply across license types rather than only to advanced practitioners.

Committee members engaged in detailed questioning about fee increases (the fiscal note projects higher revenue but also a recurring software expense), board composition (a proposed increase in members from five to seven and the board's difficulty recruiting a health‑care professional member), inspection and complaint procedures, apprenticeship standards and reciprocity for out‑of‑state licensees. Board staff said long‑term care operators requested a narrow amendment to add basic care facilities and facility staff to certain exemptions; the board agreed to prepare that amendment.

The committee did not vote; members asked the board to draft the long‑term care amendment and indicated they would consider fee changes and rulemaking details in subsequent committee work sessions.