Assembly committee debates AB177 on audiology licensing, SLP assistants and school workforce impacts

Assemblymember Cecilia Gonzales introduced Assembly Bill 177 to the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee as a package of changes to licensing and scope for audiology, hearing-aid dispensing and speech-language pathology. "This bill will increase consumer access to services, expand licensing eligibility, reciprocity and portability, reduction in licensing barriers, expanded scopes of practice and removal of unneeded or obsolete rules and references," Jennifer Pierce, executive director of the Nevada Speech Language Pathology Audiology and Hearing Aid Dispensing Board, told the committee.

Pierce described three primary change areas: creating a new licensing pathway for speech-language pathology assistants (SLPAs) intended to address workforce shortages and convert certain existing school-based bachelor-level staff into a regulated assistant role; changing audiology licensing and endorsement procedures to reduce duplicative exams for audiologists who fit and dispense hearing aids; and revising hearing aid specialist licensing requirements, including removing an entry-level requirement for National Board Certification in Hearing Instrument Sciences (NBC-HIS).

Supporters, including Nevada State University, the University of Nevada, Reno and professional associations, said the bill will expand access and create supervised assistant roles. "This bill is a crucial step toward improving access to care for children and families in need," Jessica Garrett, an SLP and private-practice owner, said in support.

Opponents — notably the Clark County Education Association and the Clark County School District — raised concerns that separate changes in Nevada Department of Education regulations (not the bill text) will result in 204 of the school district’s roughly 411 SLPs being reclassified into support-staff roles, with attendant changes to pay and collective-bargaining status. "Either educators should fully be in this bill or we should fully be out of this bill," Brad Keating, representing the Clark County School District, said in neutral testimony; Keating warned that reclassification could reduce pay for veteran staff and disrupt services for 19,536 students who currently receive speech-language services in the district.

Medical and specialist groups also opposed specific provisions that would expand tasks for hearing-aid dispensers. The Academy of Doctors of Audiology said allowing hearing-instrument specialists to perform cerumen management and tinnitus treatment while lowering licensure standards would lower the standard of care and cited other states’ rejections or reversals of similar proposals. "Cerumen management is a complex medical procedure that requires comprehensive knowledge of the anatomy and physiology," Stephanie Chayeski of the Academy of Doctors of Audiology testified.

Board officials said the bill does not aim to displace employees and that some workforce concerns derive from a 2023 change at the Nevada Department of Education that sunsets bachelor-level endorsements for school-based speech personnel on Oct. 1, 2026. Pierce said that NDE’s regulation change will grandfather staff who hold current endorsements and that the bill would provide a path for those staff to obtain an SLPA license that allows continued practice in schools or private settings.

Committee members asked for clarifications about grandfathering, whether school-employed bachelor-level staff would remain eligible to work without interruption, the board’s license counts, and how changes would affect reciprocity and exam requirements for audiologists. The sponsor said she would continue working with stakeholders and the Department of Education to refine statutory language.

Why it matters: The bill touches licensing, scope of practice and workforce classification for services used by students, children and adults with communication disorders, and it could affect pay and collective-bargaining status for school-based staff if districts reclassify employees.

What’s next: Committee members heard extensive testimony from higher-education programs, professional associations, school-district representatives and affected practitioners. No committee vote was taken during the hearing; sponsors and stakeholders said they will continue discussions before any work session.