Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Scope Of Practice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas committee hears divisive testimony on bill to expand naturopathic doctors' prescribing authority
Summary
Proponents told the House Health and Human Services Committee HB2366 would reduce delays and improve rural access by allowing licensed naturopathic doctors to prescribe certain legend drugs and testosterone; opponents, including the Kansas Medical Society and the State Board of Healing Arts, said the bill's definitions and training safeguards are unclear and raise patient-safety concerns. No vote was taken.
The Committee on House Health and Human Services opened a hearing on House Bill 2366, a proposal to expand the scope of practice for licensed naturopathic doctors to include ordering diagnostic studies, performing physical examinations and limited prescriptive authority including certain legend drugs and a controlled substance (testosterone).
Supporters said the change would improve access to care and reduce delays that occur when naturopathic providers must refer patients elsewhere for prescriptions. "This bill isn't expansion for expansion's sake. It is to meet a concern of safety and patient need," said Dr. Laura Roose, president of the Kansas Naturopathic Doctors Association, who described a recent patient with a dangerously high TSH who needed prompt medication.
Proponents repeatedly cited workforce and rural-access arguments. Amber Belt, a Kansas naturopathic doctor who practices in rural Franklin County, said she moved to Arizona to be able to prescribe and that Idaho's 2019 prescriptive-authority changes led, she said, to more providers settling in rural areas. Dr. Jeffrey Davis, a physician who works side-by-side with naturopathic doctors, told the committee that integrated practices are struggling to meet demand and that increasing scope would attract clinicians to the state.
Opponents said HB2366 as drafted blurs the line between naturopathic and conventional medicine and lacks clear training and patient-protection measures. "These definitions are confusing and unclear and provide contradictory standards," Michelle Colomo, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, told the committee, pointing to language that lists invasive routes (intravenous, subcutaneous, intraarticular) alongside a retained restriction that naturopaths may not perform surgery. Colomo also raised the absence, in the current draft, of standardized training language, explicit malpractice and stabilization-fund coverage, and tightened definitions of "minor office procedures."
The State Board of Healing Arts, represented by Executive Director Susan Guy, said the board had not been consulted on the substantive changes and warned the bill could inadvertently allow naturopathic practice in new areas such as unregulated human cellular and tissue-based products. "This could potentially open up the world of stem cells," Guy said, urging higher liability limits and inclusion in the healthcare stabilization fund if prescriptive authority is granted.
Several committee members probed technical details in the bill and asked for clarifications about where specific lines appear. Members pressed proponents on three recurring points: how many Kansas naturopathic doctors currently hold DEA registrations (Dr. Roose said none), what controlled substances would be permitted (Roose said the only controlled substance requested was testosterone), and whether the education and supervised clinical experience are equivalent to that of other prescribers. Clyde Jensen, a pharmacology professor who testified neutrally, said classroom pharmacology instruction is comparable across MD/DO and naturopathic programs but acknowledged that naturopathic graduates generally have fewer supervised clinical drug-therapy experiences.
Proponents told the committee that some statutory language (for example, a liability requirement in the short title) was intended in earlier drafts but was inadvertently omitted and could be added as an amendment. Representative Buer said he intends to offer an amendment to require liability insurance if the bill advances.
No motion or vote on HB2366 was recorded at this hearing. Committee members directed the reviser and parties to clarify specific statutory language, definitions of "minor office procedures" versus surgery, the list of allowable routes of administration, the exact training and continuing-education expectations, and the malpractice/stabilization-fund arrangements before further action.
What happens next: the committee adjourned with additional requests for clarifying bill language and supporting materials; no vote was taken during this session.
