Board debates temporary out‑of‑state practice rules; members discuss mirroring Board of Behavioral Sciences language and whether to allow longer periods
Loading...
Summary
The board discussed adopting language that mirrors the Board of Behavioral Sciences for temporary out‑of‑state practice (attestation via online licensing system), and debated whether the allowable period should be 30 consecutive days or a longer period (members discussed up to 90 consecutive days to accommodate students and certain assessments).
The board devoted substantial discussion to a committee question about temporary practice by out‑of‑state psychologists (sunset issue 14). Committee members — and a senator at the committee hearing — had asked whether the board should adopt a tracking and attestation requirement like the Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS).
Staff presented draft language, modelled on BBS, that would require an out‑of‑state psychologist to attest through the licensing system (Breeze) that they are licensed in good standing in their home state, that the person to be treated is an existing client or will receive care for a limited purpose, and to provide dates of practice. The attestation would create a record that regulators could use if consumer harm occurred.
Board members raised several implementation questions: whether the time window should be consecutive or nonconsecutive days each calendar year, whether adding the attestation would create an administrative burden for licensing staff, and what verification the board would require of out‑of‑state licenses. Board member Kasuga and others argued for flexibility to accommodate students and certain multi‑visit assessments and suggested “up to 90 consecutive days” as a workable compromise that would allow continuity of care for students and allow sufficient time for evaluations.
Public commenters raised concerns and suggestions. Elizabeth Winkelman (California Psychological Association) noted that current statutory language says a “period of 30 days” which is commonly interpreted as consecutive and that some states with temporary‑practice laws are already more permissive; she suggested removing the requirement for a board letter from another state because that verification can cause delay. A public commenter representing practicing California psychologists noted that temporary practice rules geared to continuity of care may not fit assessment or single‑purpose consultation scenarios and urged the board to craft language to address both continuity of care and short‑term consultative assessments.
Board staff reported that the BBS implementation uses Breeze codes and that, according to BBS staff, the administrative workload was not particularly heavy once the system fields were live. Board members asked staff to incorporate the board’s edits on consecutive vs. nonconsecutive timing and on verification language into the sunset response and to present implementation details to the licensure committee if needed.
Outcome: The board incorporated temporary‑practice language and the discussed edits into the sunset report it approved on the record; staff will send the finalized responses to the committees. The transcript records board discussion advancing a recommendation that would mirror BBS language with a board‑directed tweak to clarify timing (members debated 30 vs. 90 days and some members endorsed wording around “up to 90 consecutive days” to accommodate students and certain assessments).
