Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sunset Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Physical Therapy Board advances draft sunset report, flags reinstatement and fee-cap changes
Summary
The Physical Therapy Board of California discussed its draft sunset review report, highlighted workforce data, and proposed two new statutory issues: (1) aligning petition-for-reinstatement authority with licensure application delegation and (2) considering fee-cap statutory relief.
The Physical Therapy Board of California on Sept. 24 reviewed a draft of its sunset report and outlined proposed statutory changes it plans to seek in the upcoming review process.
Board President Dale Armstrong and Executive Officer Kaiser said the board has been drafting a sunset report with a subcommittee and expects to workshop a draft on Oct. 15 with a likely follow-up meeting on Nov. 19. "We will push the draft out to the rest of the members to be able to review," Kaiser said, describing the Oct. 15 meeting as "very much a classroom setting" where members will edit the draft on a large screen.
The board said workforce data collected since 2020 will play a larger role in this year's report. Kaiser told members that about half of licensees report not planning to retire within 11 or more years and that current licensing application trends show growth in new licenses issued beyond attrition. "That workforce data will be something that we use throughout the sunset report," he said.
Why this matters: The sunset report informs the Legislature whether the board and its authorities should continue unchanged, be amended, or be subject to statutory reform. The board identified two specific issues it may present as "new issues to be identified" in the sunset package—changes that would require legislative action rather than regulation.
Key proposed statutory clarifications
- Petition-for-reinstatement authority: Board staff recommended making petition-for-reinstatement authority more congruent with the existing application-for-licensure delegation so staff (not the full board) could process petitions in routine cases. Kaiser said the proposal is intended to reduce predictable administrative burden when a petition cannot be granted (for example, when a petitioner is a Megan's Law registrant): "We could avoid those resources and administrative burden with the projected inevitable outcome," he said. Board counsel Michael confirmed similar provisions exist in other health practice acts and said a consistent approach would reduce needless hearings.
- Petitioners’ cost burden: Staff said it is investigating aligning the fees or cost burden for petitioners for reinstatement with the fees applicants pay when first licensed (for example, application processing and initial licensing contribution). Both proposals would require statute changes and therefore are suitable topics for the sunset review.
Other issues and carryovers
Staff said the board will also address carryover items from the 2022 sunset review in the draft, including the board’s statutory fee caps (which have prevented any fee increases since 2015) and the board’s electronic practice rules (previously requested EPR) that remain unresolved. Kaiser said the board’s statutory fee caps have left the board unable to respond flexibly to unforeseen costs and that increasing the statutory cap (not the fee itself) was a proactive objective previously discussed with legislators.
Next steps
Staff will finalize draft language with the sunset subcommittee, circulate a draft a week before the Oct. 15 workshop, and then continue refining language for possible inclusion in the final report and submission to the Legislature and the Department of Consumer Affairs.
Ending note: Board members said they will consult with the consultant assigned to any future bill author and examine trends in other health boards before finalizing proposals.
