Concerns Over SB 1125’s Flawed Oversight Structure
SB 1125, which seeks to grant prescribing authority to psychologists, is being presented as having meaningful oversight from the Medical and Osteopathic Boards. However, the bill’s actual language tells a different story.
🔹 Minimal Medical Oversight – The Psychology Board is only required to “consult” or “receive recommendations” from medical boards, with no obligation to follow their guidance. This allows critical input from experts in medical practice to be ignored.
🔹 Confusing Dual-Board Oversight– The bill introduces an unprecedented requirement for input from *both* the Medical and Osteopathic Boards before the Psychology Board "may" take action. This raises serious concerns: ▪ No other healthcare profession requires dual-board oversight. ▪ No clarity on what happens if the boards disagree. ▪ The Psychology Board can still ignore recommendations. ▪ Bureaucratic gridlock could delay responses to safety concerns.
🔹 Contradictory Legal Language– The bill states the board “SHALL” take action based on recommendations but then says input can come from “EITHER” board. This creates confusion: ▪ Does “SHALL pursue action” mean recommendations must be followed? ▪ If the boards disagree, which input takes precedence? ▪ How can the Psychology Board be required to follow both but only need input from one?
These contradictions make enforcement impossible and oversight meaningless, putting patient safety at risk.
➡ Read the article here:
Your voice matters—log into the RTS system and submit your opposition to SB 1125 today.
