Senate Health & Welfare reviews H237 to let doctoral psychologists prescribe under strict conditions
Loading...
Summary
The committee examined H237, which would create a prescribing specialty for doctoral-level psychologists, require postdoctoral psychopharmacology training, a written collaborative agreement with a psychiatrist, and board oversight; physician groups praised safeguards but raised questions about necessity.
The Senate Health & Welfare committee reviewed H237, a House-passed bill that would create a prescribing specialty for doctoral-level psychologists and give the Board of Psychological Examiners authority to regulate that specialty.
Supporters said the bill is intended to expand access to mental health care. Becky Lewandowski, representing the Vermont Psychological Association, told the committee, “the purpose is to, sort of increase access to mental health services by allowing the psychologist with this expanded training with a collaborative agreement, to be able to prescribe themselves.”
The bill adds definitions to the psychologists chapter in Title 26 and authorizes the Board of Psychological Examiners to oversee the new specialty. Eligibility for the specialty would require an active doctoral-level psychology license, successful completion of a postdoctoral training program in psychopharmacology designated by the American Psychological Association (or successor), passage of a national certifying exam, and clinical rotations totaling not less than 14 months across no fewer than nine practice settings (including psychiatry, pediatrics, geriatrics, family medicine, internal medicine, emergency medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, surgery and one elective).
Under the proposal, prescribing psychologists must enter a written collaborative practice agreement with a collaborating practitioner who already prescribes in the relevant area; the psychologist’s prescribing authority would be limited to prescription drugs for mental health conditions that the collaborating practitioner generally provides to their patients. The bill requires identification of specific Schedule II–V controlled substances by brand or generic name where such authority is issued and bars prescription or administration of a controlled substance by injection under the prescribing specialty.
The bill also includes an endorsement pathway: the director of the Board of Psychological Examiners may grant the prescribing specialty without examination to applicants who hold active psychologist prescribing authority in another U.S. or Canadian jurisdiction if that jurisdiction’s requirements are substantially equivalent, subject to director discretion and any fees.
Physician representatives praised several safeguards but signaled reservations about whether the change is necessary. Stephanie Winters, representing the Vermont Medical Society and the Vermont Psychiatric Association, said, “I think some psychiatrists still have some concerns about whether this is needed, because a lot of primary care physicians can and APRNs and physician assistants can already prescribe these medications.”
Committee members asked sponsors and other witnesses to clarify the specific access problems the bill intends to solve and to explain why a two-step collaborative model would provide meaningful access improvements. The committee did not take a vote; members said they would hear sponsors’ testimony and additional witnesses before deciding whether to advance the bill.
The committee paused its review of H237 to move to the next agenda item and scheduled further testimony and discussion for a later point in the hearing.
