Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas BSRB moves toward unified unprofessional‑conduct language covering kickbacks, nondisclosure of methods and continuity of care
Summary
Board members reviewed a staff spreadsheet proposing harmonized unprofessional‑conduct rules across seven professions and generally supported consistent, profession‑neutral wording to address referral payments, fee sharing, solicitation of clients, claims of superiority and nondisclosed 'secret' methods, with refinement requested to protect legitimate research and clarify enforcement.
At its Sept. 8 meeting the Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board continued a detailed line‑by‑line review of proposed unified unprofessional‑conduct language that staff prepared to standardize rules across the seven professions the board oversees.
Staff presented the 21‑page spreadsheet that maps current rules and recommends common language. Item 25 addressed payments or fees for referrals — the board discussed whether the word 'indirectly' requires definition and asked legal counsel how indirect payments (for example, channeling a referral fee through a family member) have been handled in complaints. Legal counsel said indirect third‑party payments and subterfuge are the kinds of arrangements the rule is intended to prevent.
On fee‑sharing (item 26), members debated whether the phrase 'consultant authorized to practice' is sufficiently precise and whether the consultant must participate directly in service delivery to share fees. Members suggested clarifying language referencing consultants licensed by BSRB or otherwise authorized to practice under board regulation.
Item 27 proposes prohibiting soliciting or assuming responsibility for clients of another provider without informing that provider and coordinating continuity of care; board members agreed the proposed universal wording addresses both solicitation and continuity while allowing profession‑specific nuance where needed. Item 28 would bar unsubstantiated claims of professional superiority; members discussed what constitutes substantiation (e.g., recognized awards or credentials).
Item 30, which would bar use of 'secret' or 'untested/experimental' methods that the licensee refuses to disclose to the board, generated the sharpest discussion. Members emphasized the enforcement concern is nondisclosure during complaint investigations rather than banning legitimate, IRB‑approved clinical trials with informed consent. The board favored language focused on disclosure and cooperation with investigations so the rule targets 'secret sauce' claims while allowing documented research where appropriate.
Board members asked staff and legal counsel to draft revised wording that preserves the enforcement objective — preventing undisclosed referral payments and nondisclosed methods — while avoiding unintended consequences for valid research and supervision practices. Staff will return with refined text for future vote or further advisory‑committee review.
