Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chiropractic Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill to create temporary certification, streamline chiropractic requirements
Summary
AB 513 would allow temporary certification for chiropractic assistants, remove a 12-month training requirement for assistants, change license-renewal timing and eliminate an online jurisprudence re-exam in favor of attestations; bill proponents said the changes would speed licensure and staffing, while members requested tweaks on renewal timing.
A bill to revise regulations for chiropractic physicians and chiropractic assistants drew a short presentation from the Chiropractic Physicians Board of Nevada and limited committee discussion.
Dan Musgrove and Dr. Jason Yeager presented Assembly Bill 513 on behalf of the Chiropractic Physicians Board of Nevada. The bill would allow temporary certificates for chiropractic assistants (CAs) to fill short-term staff shortages, remove a requirement that CAs complete 12 months of training (the board said no Nevada pathway exists), permit on-demand examination scheduling for chiropractic physicians, replace an online jurisprudence retest with an attestation, and move license renewal from January 1 to the licensee’s birth month to spread administrative workload.
"Section 1 of the bill allows for the chiropractic assistant to apply for a temporary certificate so they can work under the direct supervision of a licensed chiropractic physician," Dr. Yeager said. The presenters said the changes are intended to protect patient safety while improving access and reducing licensing backlog.
Committee members generally expressed support but raised concerns about Section 9’s shift of renewals from January 1 to renewal by birth month. Assemblymember Yurek relayed feedback from many chiropractors who preferred the January 1 renewal cycle because it helps coordinate continuing-education scheduling and minimizes clinical disruption. The presenters said they were open to committee direction and willing to work with stakeholders to refine the timeline.
Support or opposition testimony on the bill was minimal; no callers or witnesses registered opposition or neutral testimony during the hearing. The board said it is open to technical changes to address licensee concerns before final action.
Ending: The hearing closed with the board indicating willingness to accept committee-directed changes and to work with licensees on the renewal-date question prior to the session deadline.
