Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulations Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses broad regulatory concepts; psychiatric‑technician instructor change draws strong public opposition
Summary
Board staff presented legislative and regulatory concepts including scope codification, exam‑attempt limits and a psychiatric‑technician title/scope review; a proposed restriction on who may teach theory drew vocal opposition from PT/LVN educators and associations.
Board staff presented a package of legislative and regulatory concepts at the Feb. 7, 2025, meeting, and public commenters and stakeholder groups provided sustained opposition to a proposal that would restrict who may teach the didactic (theory) portion of psychiatric technician and vocational nursing programs.
Elaine Yamaguchi, the board’s executive officer, reviewed a list of possible legislative concepts: codifying scope‑of‑practice language in statute (rather than regulation), considering limits on the number of times a candidate may retake licensure exams, re‑examining required theory and clinical hour allocations, formalizing oversight of alternative training pathways, creating a fee to cover NEC workloads for provisional or major curriculum reviews, and exploring post‑licensure specialty certification. She also identified a long‑running topic: whether the psychiatric‑technician title and scope should be revised after a current occupational analysis and stakeholder outreach.
Several public speakers — representing educators, program directors and the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians (CAPT) — voiced strong opposition to a regulation concept they described as limiting psychiatric technicians or LVNs from teaching didactic theory. Speakers said such a restriction could remove experienced PT and LVN instructors who specialize in psychiatric and developmental‑disability instruction. Examples from the record:
- Kobi Pizzati (California Association of Psychiatric Technicians) urged the board to include CAPT in ongoing discussions about naloxone distribution in correctional settings and warned against scope conflation should a PT title change proceed without clear distinction from LVN duties.
- Betty McVay (psychiatric‑technician educator) described the potential prohibition of PT instructors from teaching theory as “evoking a lot of strong emotions” and said educators would organize and formally oppose such a change; she requested dialogue as an initial step rather than rulemaking that would remove current instructors.
- Andrew Sanchez (program director, Mt. San Antonio College PT program) told the board that the PT program at his college includes developmental‑disability curriculum not covered in RN programs and cited a 5‑year average pass rate of 92% for his program as context for why PT instructors participate in didactic teaching.
Board staff told attendees that proposed regulatory language is being drafted for possible presentation at the May meeting; if the board approves, standard public comment periods and hearings would follow. Members of the public were repeatedly told there will be additional opportunities to provide data and comment during rulemaking.
Board discussion also identified related concerns: whether federal reimbursement rules affect where PTs may work (for example in California veterans homes), the role of staffing agencies and independent contractor arrangements, and how to regulate alternative pathway programs that offer CNA→VN pathways in short timeframes. Several speakers requested data (program pass rates, pre‑/post‑COVID comparisons) to inform any regulatory proposal.
No final regulatory decision was made at the Feb. 7 meeting; staff were asked to develop the concepts further with the legislation/regulations committee and to return recommendations for the board’s consideration. Board members and staff repeatedly invited stakeholder input during the rule drafting and public comment periods.
