Kansas BSRB finalizes legislative priorities including licensure flexibilities, supervision changes and CE preapproval expansion

The Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board on Nov. 21 reviewed and finalized its legislative agenda for the 2025 session, directing staff to prepare bill language on several items including an expanded student temporary addiction‑counselor license, new supervision flexibilities for professional counselors, a statutory seat for a behavior analyst on the board and a new fee‑based academic program review process for schools seeking confirmation that their curricula meet Kansas licensure requirements.

The board met remotely and approved the meeting agenda by voice vote at the outset of the session. David Anderson, chair of the Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board, then led the board through a series of policy items the agency plans to seek in the coming legislative session. David Fey, the board’s executive director, read the remote‑meeting notice and described public‑comment procedures: “Public comment allows the public to address the board about its concerns, but the Kansas Open Meeting Act does not require the board to provide public comment or answer questions from individuals,” Fey said.

Why it matters: Several of the proposals are aimed at workforce development and regulatory clarity for professions the BSRB regulates — including counselors, social workers, marriage and family therapists, addiction counselors and behavior analysts. Some proposals would require statutory changes; others would be implemented through agency rules if the legislature authorizes them.

Key items the board directed staff to draft or pursue

- Student temporary addiction‑counselor license expansion: The board asked staff to prepare statutory language to widen eligibility for the student temporary addiction counseling license that was created in the 2023 session. Under the current statute, applicants must complete 60 credit hours with an emphasis in addiction counseling or a related field. The proposed expansion would allow two additional groups to qualify: (1) individuals who have completed 60 credit hours that are not specific to addiction counseling but who are currently enrolled in an addiction‑related program, and (2) master’s students who hold a bachelor’s degree in any field but are enrolled in a master’s program in addiction counseling or a related field. The board reported about 45 current holders of the student temporary license and said the pathway has helped people move to full licensure.

- Supervision flexibility for professional counseling: The board asked staff to draft language permitting up to 50% of required supervision hours for the Licensed Professional Counselor (clinical) pathway to be provided by a board‑approved supervisor from another BSRB‑regulated profession, provided that: the supervisor holds an appropriate clinical license, has at least two years of practice at that level, and is approved by the BSRB as a supervisor. The proposal would continue to exclude clinical addiction counselors from that cross‑profession supervision allowance because addiction counseling has a more limited statutory scope of practice. Leslie Allen, a BSRB staff member, said the board receives many inquiries about supervision flexibility: “We do. We have a lot of inquiries about it. I think it’s helpful,” Allen said. Board members noted the change might be practically limited to a small pool of supervisors (for example, licensed marriage and family therapists) but saw value in creating a statutory path.

- Add behavior analyst to board membership: The Behavior Analyst Advisory Committee recommended and the board reaffirmed asking the legislature to add a thirteenth seat to the statute specifically reserved for a behavior analyst so that the statutory board membership list explicitly includes that profession.

- Academic program review process and fee: The board directed staff to draft statutory language to allow the BSRB to review academic programs on request and charge a fee for that evaluation. The board discussed options for fee structure, including a flat cap and a cost‑plus approach. Members settled on drafting language that would allow a review fee structured as cost‑plus (a base cost plus a per‑staff‑time component) with a statutory cap to avoid open‑ended exposure; discussion settled around language permitting an agency regulation implementing cost‑plus with a cap (board discussion suggested a cap not to exceed $400 and a modest per‑staff‑time add‑on, though final statutory language will be drafted for legislative review). The board also asked staff to provide a one‑year confirmation period for any program the BSRB affirms, and to allow resubmission if programs make substantial changes.

- Continuing education (CE) preapproval expansion: The board agreed to pursue statutory authority to allow BSRB preapproval of continuing‑education providers and single CE programs beyond social work (the BSRB currently has explicit statutory authority for social work preapproval only). Discussion focused on whether a BSRB preapproval should be profession‑specific (one profession per application and fee) or broad (a single BSRB preapproval applicable across professions). Staff and members discussed practical review differences among professions — for example, discipline‑specific codes of ethics — and asked staff to draft language that permits preapproval for multiple professions while limiting undue staff burden; staff indicated the initial draft will give the board flexibility in regulation about whether preapproval can cover multiple professions.

- Statutory cleanups and tabled social‑work items: The board plans to draft language to delete unclear “preparing for the practice” language that applied to students and interns in marriage and family therapy and addiction counseling. The board also reviewed previously tabled social‑work proposals — including proposals to restore pre‑2023 educational and clinical‑hour language or to create an ‘‘advanced generalist’’ social‑work license — and the social‑work advisory committee recommended holding those items for now. Board members said they were concerned the legislature is unlikely to reverse recent reductions in requirements and that reopening those provisions could be politically difficult; the board will not move those social‑work restoration items forward this session.

Discussion vs. formal action: Most of the policy items resulted in directions to staff to draft statutory text and consult with legislative committee chairs or stakeholder groups — not formal votes on legislative language. The board did take formal voice votes to approve the meeting agenda at the start of the session and later to adjourn.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve the Nov. 21 meeting agenda: voice vote, passed. - Motion to adjourn: voice vote, passed.

Board members and staff quoted or named in this report include David Anderson (chair), David Fey (executive director), Leslie Allen (staff member), Andrea Perdomo Morales (board member), Cynthia Shendale (board member), Laura Shaughnessy (board member) and others who participated in roll call and discussion. The board asked staff to proceed with drafting bill language and to coordinate with legislative committee leadership once drafts are ready.

Looking ahead: The BSRB said it will seek committee sponsors and work with legislative chairs to obtain hearings once bills are drafted; the board expects to monitor bills and budget items closely when the 2025 legislative session begins.