Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensure Endorsement Mft topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears AB450 to ease licensure-by-endorsement for marriage and family therapists
Summary
AB450 would remove the requirement that applicants prove they have not been investigated by other state boards and would narrow the board’s permissive information requests; supporters said the change would increase access to mental health providers.
The Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor heard testimony on Assembly Bill 450, a bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Elaine Marzola to revise Nevada licensure-by-endorsement requirements for marriage and family therapists (MFTs) and clinical professional counselors (CPCs).
Marzola and proponents said Nevada faces a shortage of mental health providers and that streamlining licensure by endorsement would encourage experienced clinicians to relocate to or provide telehealth services in the state. Patricia Barton, director of government affairs for the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT), told the committee that AB450 would remove an application requirement that bars applicants who have merely been investigated but not disciplined. "The current statute continues to prevent some qualified providers from obtaining a license by endorsement," Barton said.
Doctor Dominique Rice, a licensed MFT who relocated to Nevada, described personal barriers she encountered in the endorsement process and argued the bill draws an important distinction between an investigation and formal discipline. "The requirement to demonstrate an absence of any investigation, regardless of outcome or merit, creates unnecessary...barriers and delays," Rice said, urging support of AB450 as a way to expand access to trauma‑informed, culturally competent care.
Sponsor and lobbyist Bobby Arnott (R & R Partners) described a conceptual amendment to change the board’s discretion language so that the Board "shall issue" a license when an applicant meets the specified qualifications, and to strike the permissive clause allowing the Board to request "any other information required by the Board." Committee members questioned how amendments would interact with statutory timelines for document requests; sponsors said they would refine timelines to preserve parity.
Supporters at the hearing included licensed MFTs who described workforce shortages and the need for portability. No speakers registered opposition.
The bill would leave discipline authority with the Nevada Board, require applicants to hold a license in good standing from another state, and keep Nevada’s continuing‑education and fee requirements in place, according to proponents. Committee discussion focused on clarifying timelines and the scope of documentation the Board may request.
