Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensure And Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chiropractic board moves to require recent clinical competency for new licenses, advances continuing-education and citation rule changes
Summary
The California Board of Chiropractic Examiners voted to begin rulemaking that would require applicants to show recent clinical competency—either a passing NBCE Part 4 within four years or proof of active practice in the preceding four years—and approved changes to continuing-education requirements and citation rules.
The California Board of Chiropractic Examiners voted unanimously to begin the rulemaking process to require recent clinical competency for new chiropractic licenses and approved multiple related regulatory changes on the board’s April meeting.
The board approved staff’s proposed regulatory text clarifying licensure application and examination processes. Under the change the board asked staff to pursue, an applicant for a doctor of chiropractic license would need to demonstrate one of two pre-licensure competency items: a passing score on the NBCE Part 4 practical exam taken within the four years preceding the license application; or documentary proof that the applicant has been actively licensed and practicing chiropractic in another U.S. state, district or territory during the same four‑year period. If neither condition is met, the applicant would be required to take the Part 4 practical before the California license may be issued. The board directed staff to submit the proposed text to the Department of Consumer Affairs and to initiate the 45‑day public comment period and other rulemaking steps.
Board members and staff framed the change as an effort to ensure clinical competency at the time of licensure rather than allowing decades‑old exam scores alone to qualify candidates. Licensing committee chair Pamela Daniels told the board the committee had sought consistency with enforcement and public‑protection standards and noted discussions with stakeholders about when a practical component is needed to ensure current clinical skill. Executive staff described the proposal as making the licensing standard more consistent for applicants who have delayed licensure after graduation or who seek licensure by reciprocity from another state.
The board also approved a second regulatory package to modify continuing‑education (CE) minimums. The board replaced a prior plan to redistribute hours and instead set mandatory annual CE minimums at 12 hours (up from 10), of which 6 hours must be in “Competency 1: evaluation and management.” The remaining mandatory hours were set at 2 hours each for the other listed competency categories. The change increases the emphasis on exam/diagnosis/management material the board identified as a higher priority for public protection. The CE package was revised in process and the board authorized staff to submit the amended package for the public comment period and to proceed with adoption steps if no adverse comment is received.
Separately, the board rescinded and reapproved technical edits to the citation regulations to conform the board’s citation authority with Business & Professions Code Section 125.9 and to add appropriate statutory citations (including BPC §148) to the rule text. That package removes language that could be read to treat a fine payment as an admission of wrongdoing.
Finally, staff reported on a public comment received about the proposed repeal of CCR §3.54 (the “successful examination” rule). Staff recommended declining the request to retain the section and recommended responding to the commenter that the repeal is necessary to eliminate a conflict with laws that prohibit unlicensed practice and to avoid collecting initial license fees before an applicant has passed the licensing exam. The board authorized staff to issue the proposed response and to complete rulemaking if no adverse comments arrive during the modified comment period.
Votes at a glance - Proposed licensure competency rule (CCR changes to clarify application/exam and add 4‑year competency requirement): Motion to initiate rulemaking carried on roll call; all members present voted yes. Outcome: approved to begin rulemaking. - Continuing education regulatory package (amended to raise mandatory CE minimum to 12 hours with 6 in evaluation/management): Motion to rescind the prior approval and to adopt the modified package for public comment carried on roll call; all members present voted yes. Outcome: approved to initiate rulemaking. - Citation regulation conforming edits (CCR §§3.90.4, 3.90.5): Motion to rescind prior approval and reapprove amended text carried on roll call; all members present voted yes. Outcome: approved to initiate rulemaking. - Repeal of CCR §3.54 (successful completion notice): Staff recommendation to decline requested changes and proceed with repeal was approved; staff will finalize the response to the public comment and complete rulemaking if no adverse comments arrive.
Why it matters: The licensure change pairs modern competency assessment (a recent practical exam or an attested recent active practice period) with California’s licensing gate, reducing the risk of issuing licenses based solely on long‑stale test scores. The CE and citation edits shift the board’s education priorities and bring citation procedures into alignment with statute. Together the actions are designed to strengthen public protection and reduce downstream enforcement risk.
What’s next: The board authorized staff to move the proposed licensure and CE text through the DCA review and the 45‑day public comment process; interested parties should watch the Department of Consumer Affairs rulemaking postings for official notices and comment windows. Staff said it would report back to the board on any adverse comments and proposed modifications.
