Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Naturopathic Licensure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proponents tell committee licensure for naturopathic doctors would expand workforce while preserving limits
Summary
Supporters of SB 385 told the Senate Health Committee that licensure would create title protection, require accredited doctoral education and national exams, and allow qualified naturopathic doctors to diagnose and order labs under a regulated framework; witnesses emphasized scope exclusions and consumer protections.
Proponents of Senate Bill 385 told the Senate Health Committee the bill establishes a licensure framework for naturopathic doctors under the State Medical Board that would require accredited doctoral education, passage of the NPLEX exam, and clean professional records.
Dr. Jacob Wolf, a naturopathic doctor and residency-trained ND practicing alongside conventional clinicians, said the bill would close a gap that currently allows people without formal ND training to call themselves naturopaths. "This bill closes that gap," he said, describing education, residency and national exam expectations and noting the bill would not include prescribing authority or other expanded practices in its present form.
Laura Farr of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians said licensure in other states yields workforce gains and consumer protections; she cited data showing low disciplinary rates in regulated jurisdictions and predicted licensure would allow NDs to return to practice in Ohio and serve additional patients. Other practicing NDs described their training and urged the committee to adopt licensure that preserves title protection while maintaining boundaries with other professions.
Witnesses answered questions about grandfathering and title-protection mechanics; proponents said the bill would allow currently trained, licensed NDs to practice to the full extent defined in the bill and would not prohibit wellness coaches or lay practitioners from offering non-diagnostic services.
Committee members asked for clarification about scope, reciprocity and whether lay practitioners would be affected. Proponents said licensure protects consumers and helps health systems and federally qualified health centers recruit qualified integrative providers.
No committee vote on SB 385 was recorded at this hearing.
