Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Changes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas BSRB advances several licensing-rule changes, forwards addiction-counseling package
Summary
The Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board voted to forward multiple regulatory edits — including a package of changes for addiction counseling — to the Department of Administration, and agreed to update audit, renewal and DSM references while seeking advisory-committee follow-up on records disclosure and confidentiality issues.
Dave Anderson, chair of the Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board, opened the March 9 meeting and the board moved to modify the published agenda to add several addiction-counseling regulations for consideration.
In an extended regulatory review the board approved by consensus a number of recommended edits from advisory committees and directed staff to forward them as changes recommended to the Department of Administration. The measures the board agreed to move forward include: clarifying practicum and direct client-contact hour combinations for addiction-counseling applicants (102-7-3), adjusting reciprocity and application language for addiction counselors (102-7-4B), aligning renewal/reinstatement language with statute (102-7-7), modernizing CE audit procedures to accept copies and board-approved electronic systems rather than requiring original documents (102-7-8), and updating a diagnostic citation to the current DSM-5-TR (102-7-12).
David F, the board's executive director, summarized the rationale for several changes: "we are moving forward on this" in order to align regulation language with statutory changes and practical needs in licensure review and audits. Board members asked staff to tighten particular phrasing (for example, specifying "direct client contact" where required) and to reconcile overlapping language in the psychologist regulations so the same standards are applied consistently across professions.
The board also discussed a set of unprofessional-conduct items under review. On item 44, regarding experimental procedures on human subjects, the board agreed to adopt a general formulation that applies across professions and to add the word "assessment" in relevant lines to ensure clarity. The board asked legal counsel to help reconcile proposed language with existing psychologist-specific research safeguards.
Members raised questions about records disclosure — especially the difference between test reports and raw psychological data — and about how confidentiality, HIPAA and the evolving concept of "psychotherapy notes" intersect with regulatory obligations. The board asked advisory committees to revisit records- and privacy-related language and return recommendations.
Procedurally, the meeting recorded unanimous voice votes on routine actions: the motion to modify the agenda carried and the minutes from January 12 and January 27 were approved. The meeting adjourned after setting planning dates for later in 2026 and confirming the next meeting for May 11.
Looking ahead, staff will submit the recommended regulatory changes to the Department of Administration for formal rule processing and will return to the board with any substantive advisory-committee recommendations on records release and confidentiality.
