Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulation Revision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates tightening unprofessional‑conduct rules for billing and substance‑use language
Summary
The board reviewed a crosswalk of unprofessional‑conduct regulations and discussed standardizing language on billing/advertising misrepresentation and whether to define substance‑use standards by 'use while performing duties,' 'under the influence,' or 'misuse that could cause impairment'; staff will draft revised language for further review.
The Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board spent substantial time on May 12 reviewing a crosswalk of proposed changes to unprofessional‑conduct regulations for the seven professions it oversees. Executive Director David Fye and legal counsel Tim Reznor led discussion on items 20–21, which concern professional activities involving misrepresentation (billing and advertising) and substance use or impairment during professional duties.
On item 20 (billing, advertising and misrepresentation), members debated whether the regulation should remain broad to allow flexible enforcement or include concrete examples. Several members and counsel recommended a compromise: retain a broad prohibition on "engaging in professional activities involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation," and append an "including but not limited to" list with examples (billing practices, advertising and the psychology section’s concrete examples). That approach drew support as a way to preserve enforceability while giving investigators and panels concrete guidance.
On item 21 (alcohol, drugs and impairment), the board wrestled with drafting language that is both enforceable and fair. Some members favored an "under the influence" standard (which focuses on impairment at the time of practice); others preferred wording borrowed from addiction‑counseling language — "using alcohol, illegally using any controlled substance, or misusing any substance that could cause impairment while performing the duties of a practitioner" — because it targets misuse without requiring contemporaneous lab proof. Legal counsel noted evidentiary challenges in proving impairment after the fact and recommended language that the complaint review process could reasonably establish.
Board members asked staff to prepare draft regulatory text that (a) moves examples into a non‑exhaustive list, (b) clarifies the intent and burden of proof for substance‑use allegations, and (c) splits dual‑relationship and undue‑influence topics where appropriate. Members indicated a preference to revisit the crosswalk in subsequent meetings rather than resolve the entire packet at once; staff will coordinate with counsel and advisory committees and return proposed language for further consideration.
No regulatory language was adopted at the meeting; work continues through advisory committees and forthcoming board sessions.
