Wyoming committee hears hours-long debate over HB 269 to license naturopathic doctors; bill tabled for further work

Lawmakers and members of the public spent more than an hour debating House Bill 269, a measure to license naturopathic physicians in Wyoming, before the House Labor, Health & Social Services Committee voted to table the bill for further work.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative McCann, brought forward a package of proposed amendments during the meeting and argued the intent is to license naturopathic doctors trained in accredited, four‑year programs while exempting traditional naturopaths who currently practice in the state without licensure.

Supporters described accredited naturopathic medical schools and clinical training. “I serve as the Dean of the College of Naturopathic Medicine at Sonoran University of Health Sciences, which is located in Tempe, Arizona,” said Dr. Jessica Mitchell, who testified in support on behalf of the Western Association of Naturopathic Medical Practitioners. Mitchell described the school’s four‑year, in‑person program and told the committee that graduates complete “1200 hours of patient care completed at our 2 on‑site clinics and 7 community health clinics” and must pass two licensing exams.

Student testimony emphasized workforce and access implications. “By supporting this bill, Wyoming can position itself as an attractive state for naturopathic doctors to serve and contribute to local communities,” Elizabeth Gustus, a naturopathic medical student and president‑elect of the Naturopathic Medical Student Association, told the committee.

Opposition testimony warned of licensing barriers and market disruption. “I am oppositional, very oppositional to this bill,” said Dr. Kimberly Ballas, a traditional naturopath in Casper, who said licensure could “create a monopoly” and limit existing practitioners’ ability to continue working without additional training and expense. Several other witnesses who described themselves as practicing naturopaths or natural‑health practitioners said the bill would exclude or disadvantage many current providers.

Committee members and registered stakeholders debated two central issues that recurred throughout testimony: the scope of practice the bill would permit (including whether naturopathic physicians could prescribe medications, perform limited office procedures or sign medical documentation) and which licensing board would oversee the profession. Some witnesses and committee members suggested the Board of Medicine might be a more appropriate regulator; supporters of the bill and its lobbyists said they prefer governance by the Board of Acupuncture so naturopathic practitioners would be governed by peers who understand their training and modalities.

Representative McCann offered a set of amendments intended to narrow the bill’s reach and address stakeholder concerns, including language to exempt traditional naturopaths from the licensing scheme and to limit the bill to naturopathic physicians trained in accredited programs. That amendment failed on a voice/hand vote. A separate, technical amendment from legislative staff (LSO) correcting a drafting error passed.

After debate, Representative Wasserburger moved to table the bill for now; the motion was seconded and the committee approved tabling HB 269. Committee members said they preferred additional work with stakeholders to resolve questions about scope, board placement and which practitioners would be affected.

The committee’s tabling leaves HB 269 without a committee recommendation for now; sponsors signaled willingness to continue negotiations and to bring interested practitioners together to seek compromise.

Ending

Representative McCann indicated she will continue to work with stakeholders and said her intent is to license naturopathic doctors trained in accredited programs without disrupting the businesses of traditional naturopaths. The committee did not set a specific interim schedule but members urged further stakeholder meetings before any future committee vote.