Counseling compact official: system ready; Kansas to set modest out‑of‑state privilege fee

The Professional Counselors Advisory Committee of the Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board heard an update on the Counseling Compact from Executive Director Greg Searls, who said the compact has 38 member jurisdictions (37 states plus Washington, D.C.) and is aiming to begin issuing multistate privileges in late summer or early fall.

The Counseling Compact creates a privilege to practice across participating jurisdictions without a separate full license in each state. Greg Searls, executive director of the Counseling Compact Commission, told the committee the compact’s system will let a licensee create an account, select which other jurisdictions they want a privilege in, pay an administrative fee to the commission and, where required, complete jurisdictional jurisprudence steps before a privilege issues.

“We are coming up on the end of year 1 of that contract, and are getting close to that minimally viable product so that we'll be able to begin issuing privileges,” Searls said. He said the commission adopted a $30 administrative fee per privilege and that individual states will set their own state privilege fees; Kansas staff proposed setting the Kansas out‑of‑state privilege fee at $25.

The nut graf: the compact will change how counselors work across state lines and how Kansas handles out‑of‑state revenue. Committee members pressed staff and the compact director on technical details and practical consequences — from how privileges will be tracked in state systems to whether a privilege will permit supervision, employment and third‑party reimbursement in the receiving state.

Searls said the compact system will require licensees to verify identity with name, date of birth and the last four digits of Social Security number, then select one or more jurisdictions for privileges. The compact will collect the commission administrative fee and each receiving state’s fee, then disburse the state portion back to the state. “If you, as a Kansas licensee, wanted to apply for a privilege in Ohio, you would pay $55 total,” Searls said, describing Ohio’s state fee as $25 and the compact administrative fee as $30.

Kansas Executive Director David Fye summarized state staff concerns. He said one implementation question is how to attach privilege receipts and status to the BSRB’s licensing system so the agency and third parties can verify that a Kansas licensee also holds an active privilege in another state. Fye also flagged an unresolved national issue: the commission and several states are still working through FBI background‑check procedures that the compact intends to require before a privilege issues.

Committee members asked whether a privilege qualifies a counselor to provide supervision in a receiving state, and whether employers or state Medicaid/insurers would accept privileges for hiring and reimbursement. Searls said the compact treats a privilege as equivalent to a license for scope of practice purposes, but acknowledged that third‑party payers and individual state attorneys general could interpret or implement those consequences differently. “Medicaid and state or insurance companies typically follow [federal] recommendation[s],” he said, “but whether they do or not is entirely up to them.”

Searls added practical details: a privilege will be valid as long as the licensee’s home‑state license remains valid; renewal cycles thus follow the home state’s cadence (Kansas is on a two‑year cycle). He said 16 jurisdictions will require a jurisprudence step (an orientation or state rules module) before issuing privileges.

Committee members requested onboarding materials and suggested Kansas publish compact FAQs on the BSRB website. Searls said the compact will provide webinars and that his office holds regular “office hours” for questions. He also urged agencies to plan how to receive weekly reports from the compact listing privileges issued and privileges that later expire so states can reflect privileges in their own verification tools.

The meeting record shows broad interest and technical questions from committee members; several asked whether privilege fees and tracking will require rule or statutory changes in Kansas. Fye said Kansas’ existing compact statute provides the needed authorization and that staff will propose a regulatory approach to operationalize privilege handling, trying to avoid new statutory changes where possible.

The committee did not take a formal vote on a fee at the meeting; issues the committee raised will be conveyed to the board and to compact onboarding staff for further technical planning.

Ending: The committee set its next meeting for April 1 and requested follow‑up materials from BSRB staff and the compact commission, including the compact’s onboarding checklist, fee rules and suggested FAQ language.