Panel backs bill to reserve ‘DO’ and osteopathic-manipulation practices for licensed physicians, opponents warn of fallout

Assembly Bill 17 03, heard Jan. 27 by the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee, would make it unlawful for people who are not licensed Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine to use osteopathic professional titles such as “osteopath” or the initials “DO,” and would limit osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) to licensed physicians.

Assemblymember Hart presented the measure as a patient-safety clarification, saying consumers should be able to trust that a person using the title DO has completed physician-level education and is subject to state oversight. “Californians should be able to trust the quality of licensed medical practitioners and deserve the right to make informed decisions when choosing a doctor,” the author said during her presentation.

Supporters described concrete risks they say the bill addresses. Dr. Brian Loveless, a practicing osteopathic physician, said OMT is a physician-level diagnostic and therapeutic intervention that requires a full clinical diagnosis before manual treatment is applied. “AB 17 03 assures that only licensed physicians can perform OMT while also ensuring non‑licensed individuals don’t refer to themselves as a DO,” Loveless told the committee.

Erica Calderon, executive director of the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, said the bill closes a gap the board lacks authority to address now: “This clarity helps prevent deception, protects patients from harm, and ensures that only those who have completed the required education, training, [and] background checks may practice medicine,” she said, and the board requested an aye vote.

Opponents—including representatives of non‑physician osteopaths and community members—urged delay and negotiation. Seth Litt, speaking for consumers served by the non‑physician osteopathic community, said many non‑physician practitioners have long coexisted with DO physicians and were cleared by prior investigations. “We have safely provided care for California consumers for decades,” Litt said, arguing the bill as written would “wrongly criminalize our practice” and threaten livelihoods.

Kylie Walsh, representing non‑physician osteopaths, told senators that internationally the profession is regulated in several countries and that a regulatory pathway—rather than a ban on titles—would preserve access while protecting patients. Walsh asked the committee to oppose AB 17 03 as written or postpone it to allow negotiated solutions.

Committee members pressed both sides on practical consequences. Several senators, including Senator Archuleta, supported the bill’s stated goal of protecting patients while urging the author to continue working with opponents on language to spare practitioners who clearly disclose their credentials. The author said she would engage with the objectors to address concerns and refine scope.

The committee did not take a final vote during this subcommittee session because quorum was not present for motions at the time the item was discussed. Members noted the measure will move to further committee hearings where additional amendments and technical fixes can be offered.

What happens next: the author committed to continued negotiations with opposition groups; the measure will return to the Senate policy process for further consideration and any amendments.

Votes at a glance (selected items from this hearing): AB 13 07 (dentist pilot) — moved to Appropriations as amended; AB 17 03 — held for quorum, to be taken up later; AB 20 10 (spay/neuter SNIP Act) — moved to Appropriations as amended; AB 19 99 (veterinary workforce) — moved to Appropriations as amended; multiple other bills were placed on call or advanced to subsequent committees (see committee record).