Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board discusses budget, licensing system, background checks and regulation revisions

The Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board met in hybrid form on Sept. 8, 2025, and handled a mix of operational updates, regulatory review work and planning for forthcoming changes.

Chair Steve Anderson called the meeting to order and the board approved the meeting agenda and the minutes from the July 28 meeting without objections. Executive Director David Pfeiff gave the primary staff report, telling the board the agency had migrated its website to a new host and received recognition from the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. Pfeiff said the board’s YouTube archive now includes 215 meetings and has been viewed about 11,744 times, which staff view as progress on accessibility and outreach.

Pfeiff outlined budget and licensing finances: the fee fund balance was reported at about $1.8 million and annual expenditures run roughly $1.1–$1.2 million, leaving approximately 1.5 years of reserves. He warned that previously approved fee reductions and the roll‑out of multistate licensure compacts could further reduce fee revenue and that staff will monitor the trend as they prepare biennial budget requests to the legislature in 2026.

Staff also updated the board on a planned licensing‑system replacement with the Office of Creative Technology Services. The project aims to convert paper‑intensive initial applications into guided electronic workflows. Pfeiff said the modernization will improve routing of applicants and is currently in a multi‑month implementation and testing phase.

Regulatory work dominated the agenda. Board members continued a line‑by‑line review of a staff spreadsheet that proposes harmonized unprofessional‑conduct language across the professions the board regulates. That review covered items addressing referral fees and kickbacks, fee‑sharing rules, solicitation and continuity of care, claims of professional superiority and language about secret or experimental treatment methods. Legal counsel and staff emphasized the central enforcement principle is refusal to cooperate with investigators or to disclose methods when complaints arise; the board generally favored consistent, profession‑neutral wording but asked staff to refine language to avoid unintended consequences for legitimate, IRB‑sanctioned clinical research.

On enforcement and remediation, the board discussed working with an outside vendor that offers tailored exams or written tasks as part of consent agreements for disciplined licensees. Board members and CRC representatives supported exploring a memorandum of understanding, requested references and security/confidentiality details, and asked that a vendor representative brief the Complaint Review Committee so CRC members can evaluate test content before relying on vendor scores as evidence of remediation.

Pfeiff said staff are working with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation on background‑check procedures for licensure, including whether the board needs a separate regulation or can implement the requirement administratively. Staff plan to model outreach materials and processes on the board of nursing’s fingerprint guidance, include information on costs and FBI privacy statements, and ensure applicants have the right to review and challenge criminal‑record information.

Board members received advisory‑committee reports and survey findings showing licensing and practice patterns (for example, clinical practitioners are concentrated in urban areas and many early‑career clinicians report two to five years of practice). The board announced appointments to advisory committees and confirmed an out‑of‑town retreat on Sept. 29, 2025. The meeting adjourned after a motion, a second and an aye vote.

The board directed staff to refine regulatory language and gather vendor references and confidentiality information; it set the next regular meeting for Nov. 10, 2025.