Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telehealth topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks one‑year telehealth continuity for out‑of‑state counselors; board and stakeholders discuss limits
Summary
Delegate Kaiser proposed HB 14-74 to let out‑of‑state licensed professional counselors use telehealth to provide continuity of care to Maryland residents — particularly college students — for up to one year; supporters framed it as continuity of care while some members and the licensing board raised safety, supervision and scope questions.
Delegate Kaiser, sponsor of House Bill 14-74, told the committee the bill is intended to preserve continuity of mental‑health care for people — especially students attending out‑of‑state colleges — who temporarily live in Maryland. The proposal would allow licensed professional counselors from another state who are in good standing and who have an established therapeutic relationship with a client to continue providing services by telehealth in Maryland for a limited period.
Andrea Mansfield, representing the Maryland Association of Licensed Professional Counselors, said her clients wanted a continuity‑of‑care exception and proposed language mirroring Virginia that would permit out‑of‑state counselors to provide telehealth services for up to one year when a therapeutic relationship already exists. Supporters said continuity of care reduces safety risks for people who would otherwise lose access when they move or travel and noted the counseling compact remains limited and won’t immediately cover many interstate cases.
Committee members questioned safety and supervision: whether an out‑of‑state counselor would be subject to Maryland oversight, how complaints or discipline would be handled, and whether one year is too long. The sponsor said the bill is narrowly tailored, focused on telehealth and prior therapeutic relationships, and that amendments could shorten the permitted period if the committee preferred.
No final vote was taken. Lawmakers encouraged sponsor and stakeholders to refine statutory language and consider narrower timeframes in follow‑up discussions with the board and interstate compact representatives.
