Board initiates rulemaking to raise occupational therapy renewal fees to $300

The California Board of Occupational Therapy voted on June 13 to begin rulemaking that would raise biennial renewal fees for licensed occupational therapists (OTs) and occupational therapy assistants (OTAs) to $300.

Board members voted unanimously to approve the proposed regulatory text for California Code of Regulations, title 16, division 39, section 4130, with a staff amendment correcting a drafting error in subsection (f) (the board recorded the motion as amended and authorized the executive officer to initiate rulemaking). The roll call recorded all four present members voting yes: Hector Cabrera, Richard Bookwalter, Christine Whitlisbach and Beata Morcos.

The move follows budget office analyses showing the program is operating with a thinning reserve and that the board’s estimated cost to process a single license renewal — $312 — exceeds the statutory fee cap of $300. As Sam Dyer of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) budget office told the board, “The board finds that its cost is $312, exceeding their statutory fee cap of $300.”

Why it matters

Board staff and DCA told members the board’s fund condition is on a downward trend; without action, reserves are projected to decline and could go negative in later years. The regulatory change is intended both to address immediate cashflow concerns and to show the Legislature the board has used all available authority before asking lawmakers to raise statutory fee caps during the board’s 2026 sunset review.

What the rulemaking does and options considered

Staff presented two regulatory options. One would raise OT renewal fees from $270 to $300 and OTA renewal fees from $210 to $240. The alternative would raise both OT and OTA renewal fees to the statutory cap of $300. Sam Dyer said the $300/$240 option “does not eliminate a structural imbalance, but it keeps the board’s fund afloat,” while raising both to $300 would put both fees at their statutory cap and give the board more flexibility when it goes to the Legislature for a statutory cap increase.

DCA fiscal specialist Matt Nishamini advised the board on legislative strategy: “If you were to increase both the OTA and the OTs to 300 to the statutory cap, that would be looked on more favorably by the legislature when you go through your sunset process,” because the Legislature typically expects a board to use its current statutory authority before granting higher fee caps.

Public comment and member concerns

Representatives from the Occupational Therapy Association of California (OTAC) and educators attended and spoke. Samia Raffidi, president of the Occupational Therapy Association of California, and Ada Boone Hurl, program director at Sacramento City College’s OTA program, urged clarity and public messaging. Raffidi noted possible downstream effects on association membership and asked staff to consider outreach messaging.

Board members raised equity and optics concerns about setting OTA fees equal to OT fees while the board currently lacks an OTA member (the OTA seat was vacant at the meeting). Some members noted the historical rationale for a lower OTA fee because of differences in average pay, and asked staff to document wage and workload justifications. One board member asked whether probation-monitoring fees could be added; staff said charging probation-monitoring fees would require separate statutory authority.

Timing and next steps

Staff said the board would target a July 1, 2026, effective date for any regulatory fee change and described the regulatory timeline: submission to DCA and the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency for review, a 45-day public comment period, potential responses to public comments, and a subsequent 15-day comment window for changes. The board also discussed pursuing a statutory cap change during its next sunset review (scheduled in 2026) if needed.

Actions taken

The board approved the proposed regulatory language for section 4130 as amended in the meeting (subsection f corrected to show $300), directed staff to submit the text for review, and authorized the executive officer to take steps to initiate the rulemaking process and to complete adoption if no adverse comments or hearings arise during the public comment period.

Ending note

Board and staff said they will prepare consumer-facing messaging and work with professional organizations to explain the rationale, timeline and options available to licensees during the rulemaking and public comment process.