Board of Psychology approves sunset report after review of enforcement, licensing and telepractice issues

The California Board of Psychology voted Dec. 20, 2024, to approve its sunset report and submit it to the Legislature, finalizing edits and updates that staff will file ahead of the Jan. 6, 2025 deadline.

The vote followed a section-by-section review of the draft report led by Dr. Stephen Phillips, chair of the sunset committee, and John Burke, the board’s interim executive officer. The motion to approve the report was made by Dr. Tate and seconded by Seyran Fu; a roll call recorded affirmative votes from Kosuga, Stephen Phillips, Briscate, Shikonda Rogers and Dr. Tate. The board marked the report final so staff could incorporate discussed clarifications, convert the document to PDF and submit it to the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Legislature on the required timetable.

Why it matters: the sunset report is the board’s formal submission to legislative oversight committees and sets out the Board of Psychology’s recent activities, proposed statutory and regulatory priorities, and items it may ask the Legislature to consider. Board staff described the report as the vehicle for both factual updates and a request list of possible legislative changes; inclusion in the report does not guarantee enactment.

Key discussion points and edits

- Research psychoanalysts: The board documented and discussed the recent legislative transfer of research psychoanalysts from the Medical Board of California to the Board of Psychology, effective Jan. 1, 2025. Board members and staff clarified that research psychoanalysts are distinct from licensed psychologists, that “student research psychoanalysts” denotes trainees, and that the board may need to address credential-evaluation processes and related regulatory details for this small group (one staff estimate cited about 100 registrants).

- Enforcement and disciplinary approach: Public commenters during the meeting’s public-comment period urged the board to adopt a less punitive enforcement stance for minor violations. A retired psychologist said the board’s enforcement practice had become “increasingly harsh” since the early 2000s and urged greater use of letters of education instead of multi-year probation for minor deviations; a retired physician made similar remarks about disproportionate penalties. Board members did not take disciplinary action during the meeting but heard the concerns as part of the sunset review record.

- Licensing details and foreign credentials: Board members flagged wording around statutory references (for example, discussion of “2914” and doctoral degree requirements) and asked staff to ensure the report accurately reflects the statutory language about acceptable doctoral fields (clinical, counseling, school, forensic, industrial/organizational, etc.). The board also discussed how applicants with foreign degrees demonstrate equivalency and noted the board is required to notify the Department of Justice when a person is “no longer interested” (i.e., no longer tracked as a licensee or applicant).

- Online practice and telehealth issues: The report’s section on online practice was expanded in response to recent events. Board members discussed reported incidents where a telehealth vendor terminated clinicians’ access overnight, leaving providers without client contact information and complicating ethical terminations and continuity of care. The enforcement committee is continuing work on telepsychology-related statutory and regulatory proposals and expects to bring recommendations to the full board in 2025.

- Technical and editorial fixes: Board members identified attendance-record errors in a table and other minor inconsistencies in charts and templates (for example, a expenditures-by-program chart that did not display percentages). Staff agreed to correct attendance records where board members noted errors, add percentages if requested, and adjust formatting as needed before submission.

Public comment and stakeholder input

Several stakeholders spoke during public comment on topics that intersected with the sunset report. The California Psychological Association (Tyler Rynd) reiterated opposition to a proposed psychotherapist–patient privilege exception for board investigations, citing confidentiality and potential chilling effects on note-taking and complaints. Board and staff representatives clarified that items listed as proposed statutory changes in the sunset report are for committee consideration and inclusion in a sunset bill is neither certain nor immediate.

Next steps and implementation

Board staff said they would finalize clerical and formatting edits over the weekend, produce the required printed and PDF copies for DCA and legislative staff, and submit the report on the January 6, 2025 deadline. Several follow-up actions were recorded in the meeting: staff will correct attendance errors identified by members; add clarifying language about Breeze (the board’s online application/renewal system) usage rates; list examples of topics handled by two-person ad hoc committees (to improve transparency); and add a note that foreign degree evaluation procedures will be examined in light of the transfer of research psychoanalysts.

The meeting ended with a final administrative announcement that attendees would receive two hours of continuing professional development credit for full meeting attendance.