Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Scope Expansion Psychology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hear support for H 237 to let doctoral psychologists prescribe after specialty training
Summary
Witnesses told a legislative panel that H 237 would expand prescribing to doctoral-level psychologists who complete specialty training, a 14-month clinical rotation and a one-time $100 specialty credential; members questioned an age-80 patient exclusion and asked for follow-up from medical groups.
Jennifer Pullen, director of the Office of Professional Regulation, told a legislative panel she was "here to testify in support of H 237" and to explain the credential fee the office would charge under the proposal.
Pullen said OPR conducted a sunrise review and concluded that, with modifications, "doctoral level psychologists could safely prescribe mental health medications to treat DSM diagnoses," provided they complete advanced specialty training, participate in a clinical rotation spanning not less than 14 months across five practice settings, and work with a collaborating physician or osteopath who specializes in psychiatry.
She said the prescribing authority would be issued as a specialty credential on top of the existing psychologist license and that specialty credentials currently carry a one-time $100 application fee under statute. "So it would be a 1 time $100 fee for these folks," Pullen said.
Committee members focused much of their questioning on an age-related exclusion in the bill that would bar psychologists from prescribing for juveniles, people who are pregnant and people "80 or" older. "Where did the 80 come from?" asked Senator Brock, who pressed witnesses for evidence supporting that cutoff and called it potentially arbitrary.
Pullen said the 18/80/pregnancy criteria mirror provisions in other states and were intended to address co-occurring medical conditions and medication complexities in some older patients; she offered to review the record and follow up with any evidence behind that specific age threshold.
In public comment, Maggie Wendowski, identified herself as "the DRF representative of [the] psychological association," and said the age-80 limit was "put in place as the result of compromise between the stakeholders" after several years of negotiation. Wendowski said the association preferred no upper age cap but accepted the compromise and pointed to a geriatric rotation included in the training.
Pullen also noted a report-back requirement in the bill. On or before 11/15/2032, OPR must report how many practitioners had taken the specialty, the status of collaborating practitioners and whether qualifications should be updated to expand access to care. She told the committee the bill's effective date is 07/01/2029 to give OTR time for rulemaking so licenses would not be issued immediately.
The chair said the committee's formal jurisdiction was limited to fees and that members would likely invite representatives of the medical society and psychiatrists to testify about their reservations. The panel closed the discussion on fees and moved to its next witnesses; a report from the cannabis board was noted as available on the committee website.
