Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prescribing Authority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate prescribing-authority amendment and warn against unregulated AI therapy bots
Summary
The committee considered an amendment to expand psychologist prescriptive authority and require clinical-risk intake protocols; regulators and social-work groups urged tight limits and warned that AI therapy 'bots' marketed as standalone care pose unlicensed-practice and public-safety risks.
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee on April 9 reviewed an amendment tied to H.237 and took testimony on H.816 as members debated prescriptive authority for doctoral psychologists and the role of artificial intelligence in behavioral health.
Senator Randy Barack presented the amendment to H.237, which removes an "80 years" age limitation from prescriptive-authority language and adds a requirement that written collaborative agreements include a protocol for a clinical-risk assessment of each new patient prior to treatment. The senator said the change was intended to avoid age-discrimination issues while ensuring safeguards such as drug-interaction review and physiological considerations in intake.
Licensed-practice advocates and regulators signaled caution. Rick Barrett, a licensed psychologist representing the Vermont Psychological Association, said his group supports H.814 but urged inclusion of psychology expertise on the AI advisory council. Dr. Rick Barnett asked the committee to ensure the bill does not inadvertently ban FDA‑cleared or -authorized digital therapeutics used under professional supervision and urged clearer definitions of "therapeutic communication" and treatment-planning language.
Public-interest and social-work witnesses warned about standalone AI therapy products. Lane Courier, executive director of NASW Vermont, testified that AI platforms marketed as therapeutic alternatives can lack critical functions of care such as duty-to-warn, mandated reporting, and the clinician judgment necessary for safe practice. "AI therapy bots marketed as an alternative are not equivalent to licensed care — at worst, they're incredibly dangerous," Courier said.
Regulators pressed for a different statutory approach. Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State, and the director of the Office of Professional Regulation told the committee the bill as drafted focuses narrowly on mental-health professions and risks sending a legislative signal that other regulated professions are exempt; they recommended adding unauthorized AI-enabled practice to unauthorized-practice and unprofessional-conduct statutes (Titles 3 and 26) and using administrative rules to set profession-specific AI oversight standards.
Committee members debated whether an age-based cutoff is a legitimate clinical safeguard or a potential statutory discrimination risk; options discussed included keeping a specific age threshold, lowering it to 65, or relying on clinical-risk protocols in collaborative agreements. The committee conducted a straw poll and members were divided on moving the amendment forward.
What’s next: Committee staff asked advocates and regulators to submit written recommendations and statutory language. The discussion on AI and prescribing authority will continue as the committee considers precise language for collaborative agreements, clinical-risk protocols, and whether explicit statutory prohibitions are needed for unlicensed AI therapy services.
