Board of Psychology approves sunset report after discussion of enforcement, telehealth and research psychoanalysts

The California Board of Psychology voted to approve its sunset report for submission to the Legislature after reviewing edits, public comment and staff clarifications at its Dec. 20 meeting.

The board’s report, prepared for the legislature’s sunset review, summarizes the board’s structure, fiscal data, licensing procedures, enforcement statistics and a set of proposed statutory changes and new issues to raise with legislative committees. John Burke, the board’s interim executive officer, told members the copy being reviewed included minor tracked changes and that staff would finalize wordsmithing before the report is sent to the Department of Consumer Affairs and legislative offices to meet the early-January printing deadline.

Why it matters: the sunset report is the board’s core written explanation to lawmakers about how it regulates psychologists, what problems it sees and what statutory changes it recommends. Approval starts a sequence of committee questions, staff responses and a formal sunset hearing. The approved report also documents the board’s plans on enforcement practice, telehealth policy, foreign-degree evaluation and the newly transferred research psychoanalyst registrants.

Board discussion and staff clarifications Board Chair and sunset committee chair Dr. Steven Phillips and interim executive officer John Burke walked members section-by-section through the report, with staff noting a small number of remaining edits. Members asked for clarifications and a few factual corrections. For example, board member Seiran Fu asked staff to correct one attendance record in Table 1 after confirming that she had been present for the July 9–10, 2020 meeting. Burke confirmed staff would update errors reported during the meeting.

Members also asked staff to add context or data in several places: percentages for a program-expenditure chart (staff said the template did not include them but they could be added if requested); a clearer description of the board’s doctoral-degree requirement for licensure (staff confirmed the report will specify the allowable fields of specialization); and a sentence about the board’s online licensing and renewal system use rates (staff said they would add Breeze utilization statistics).

Enforcement concerns raised in public comment Several public commenters used the meeting’s public-comment periods to raise concerns about the board’s enforcement approach. At the start of the meeting a retired psychologist told the board he had observed “an increasingly harsh, heavy handed, and punitive” enforcement stance beginning in the early 2000s and urged the board to return to a more education-focused approach. He said the board’s current practices sometimes elevate minor deviations into more severe findings and impose long probation terms that remove clinicians from practice, reducing access to care.

A retired physician who also spoke described the board’s approach as “grossly disproportionate punishment” and urged the board to consider letters of education or shorter sanctions for minor deviations.

Telehealth and online practice issues Board members and staff discussed a recent pattern of concern about telehealth platforms. Dr. Phillips described reports in which large telehealth vendors terminated provider accounts quickly, leaving clinicians without access to client contact information and making compliant termination of care difficult. He said the enforcement committee is studying telepsychology and that the board may seek statutory or regulatory changes in 2025 to address risks to continuity of care.

Research psychoanalysts and foreign-degree evaluation Members heard staff explain that research psychoanalysts historically regulated under the Medical Board of California were moved by statute to the Board of Psychology effective Jan. 1, 2025. John Burke and Dr. Phillips explained the transfer was intended to align regulatory oversight with the therapeutic functions some research psychoanalysts perform and to provide closer supervision by a more relevant licensing board. Burke said the research psychoanalyst population is small — “about 100” registrants — and that student research psychoanalysts are trainees in that registration category.

Board members asked staff to flag foreign-degree evaluation as an outstanding implementation issue tied to the transfer; staff agreed to add that point to the report.

Psychotherapist–patient privilege proposal and stakeholder reaction In the new-issues section of the draft, the board listed several items it planned to raise with legislative committees. One proposed item that has drawn public attention is a suggested limited exception to psychotherapist–patient privilege to allow the board to obtain certain clinical records during investigations. Tyler Rind, speaking for the California Psychological Association, urged caution and said the association had “significant concerns” that any privilege exception could undermine patient confidence, affect clinician note-taking and chill complaints: “the potential loss of patient confidence in confidentiality of psychotherapy, the detrimental impact that it could have on psychotherapist note taking, and then also that it could have a potential chilling effect on patient complaints,” Rind said.

Burke and board members noted that inclusion of an item in the sunset report does not guarantee it will be adopted in any bill; the Legislature and its committees will decide which items, if any, to include in subsequent legislation.

Formal action: motion and vote Board member Dr. Tate moved to approve the sunset report; the motion was seconded by board member Seiran Fu. The board approved the motion by roll-call vote. The meeting transcript records the roll call and unanimous “aye” votes from members present. Staff said finalized edits would be completed and the report delivered to DCA and the Legislature to meet the January 2025 print deadline.

Votes at a glance • Approval of Board of Psychology sunset report — motion to approve by Dr. Tate; seconded by Seiran Fu; outcome: approved (roll-call, unanimous “aye,” names recorded on the roll call).

Other process and administrative notes • Staff said attendees who remained for the full meeting would receive two hours of continuing professional development credit under Category 1; Mr. Polk instructed remote attendees who phoned in to email bopcdca@dca.ca.gov with name, license number and phone used. • Board members asked staff to correct factual errors discovered during the meeting and to add clarifying data (attendance corrections, program percentages, Breeze system utilization and examples of topics handled by two-person ad hoc committees).

What’s next With board approval, staff will finalize edits and submit the report to the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Legislature. Legislative staff typically submit follow-up questions; the board expects to respond and to appear at a subsequent sunset hearing to answer committee questions. The enforcement committee also plans additional work on telepsychology guidance and any necessary statutory or regulatory proposals in 2025.