[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6001161,"mediaKeyId","5841631-a0ff0a4dc0aad5ce68a7ef3715d53ebe","parentId",5841631,"title","AOTA agrees to let board use portions of OT Practice Framework for deliberations","audioSeconds",194,"startMs",6448000,"endMs",6642000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5841631-a0ff0a4dc0aad5ce68a7ef3715d53ebe&start=6448&end=6642","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5841631-a0ff0a4dc0aad5ce68a7ef3715d53ebe/thumbnail_6448000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6001161/California/AOTA-agrees-to-let-board-use-portions-of-OT-Practice-Framework-for-deliberations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6001161-4fb827904490da4bc4408bda578563e8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770598764&Signature=GdgY6BVc1~heIFCrXsjXmba05yS5DTj94iOp2egFkmkuJSn0gi-ltsE31ezErSbxn-Rh9QWUcIId7VzE6V2IXaW53XkkpbSXwD9Q03HfoFOqswL-2FAsShS0tLNLj1a7ht8jdSRLmoSWc6Tw4TMHOeo19mByVbsWC8apJ4jqk0o8r0BB0VAhdzvL5hRv~Ov77XxKEQlm4YmJ3jzKvPbBEQ8B1LYN5vzYjrFSD4vpYnl8LLzDLwNhxaqRWquVbsLdkECoFlRZCeSRhpVVMUBBYdwVJ5XUK7AWZPHBdsvFoiwGtDNBqVn7OeNxQLYsKdc9mA6Ft3iPFu59FPfXpf6QKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California Board of Occupational Therapy","date","2025-03-08T00:00:00Z","article","The American Occupational Therapy Association informed the California Board of Occupational Therapy on March 7 that it will allow the board to include portions of the AOTA Occupational Therapy Practice Framework in meeting materials relevant to board deliberations, provided the board attributes the content.

Kristin Neville, state affairs manager for AOTA, said that while the full framework is a member-only, controlled document, AOTA is willing to allow the board to include selected portions relevant to the board’s work in the packet: “We are fine with sharing portions of the OT practice framework that are relevant to your discussion, and putting that in the meeting,” she said. Neville added that AOTA preferred any such inclusion be attributed to AOTA.

Board staff noted that if the board intends to use the framework as part of a public-facing packet or reference, the board must ensure the material is publicly accessible or use a staff-prepared summary. Counsel said staff would follow up to verify which portions could be shared and whether any usage restrictions applied.

The board directed staff to follow up with AOTA and the board’s regulatory counsel to confirm what content can be shared publicly and to bring an approach back to the board for future agenda materials.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","California Board of Occupational Therapy - day 2 - March 7","oneSentenceSummary","AOTA told the board it will allow the use of portions of the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework in board materials and discussions but requested attribution and limited public posting of the full member-only PDF.","taxTitle","California Board of Occupational Therapy, Other State Agencies, Executive, California","taxId",16057,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6001166,"Board’s executive officer reports tighter fund condition; budget office to assist with fee analysis",526,5643000,6169000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5841631-a0ff0a4dc0aad5ce68a7ef3715d53ebe&start=5643&end=6169","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5841631-a0ff0a4dc0aad5ce68a7ef3715d53ebe/thumbnail_5643000.jpg","/articles/6001166/California/Boards-executive-officer-reports-tighter-fund-condition-budget-office-to-assist-with-fee-analysis","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6001166-85db1312a86bf7adda2e8659088e3b6c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770598764&Signature=oTZRn95VyUsuTsJ5uNjGzHV1rg~ckBl5fuG7509J3pUBzrAuVwDzA97YM5K6kbD98dNKychrLjIw-d6TSvTGPMkVuLHZ5zMkg-7SIhWrKv6vdXAlIsEEIoJxj3iRqj~MP26Wma-S-qtxhpZte9EwybnIjDd4kVsyDDUiCfO5kRKHeUE9rNsRC5A2~Bd-yu~-5o5190c4butbX9MbpAKrRCOZ429KUGa1aSDV1PbfZfaDV4cEy-IN3fMVRDst6McQBUUvpEG9THrx5yfXNUFhrXgmCYX3zi0oPokqak5e5esMP30jxAlMuINkOQEaTWOi4gtCUWRFUEq1a99AGyBBUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the March 7 meeting, the California Board of Occupational Therapy’s executive officer presented a fiscal update showing year-to-date revenue and expenditure activity and warned of potential appropriation reductions that would require spending adjustments.

The executive officer reported year-to-date revenue of about $2,200,000 and showed a projected year-end shortfall on an appropriations comparison (a listed net balance of negative $25,609 based on the materials). The board had requested a contract for a private fee-study consultant, but the budget office did not approve that contract. The executive officer said she had asked the budget office to perform the fee analysis instead and expected a presentation of the office’s findings between now and the June meeting.

Staff also reported that the board has submitted requests for augmentations (additional funds) for Attorney General (AG) and Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) work to support enforcement and hearings. With requested augmentations and targeted reductions (training, equipment, and postponement of some items), staff estimate a positive net position in materials — roughly $156,000 — but noted a possible upcoming reduction of about $127,000 in appropriations tied to statewide control-section adjustments discussed in the governor’s budget process. The executive officer said the projected reduction is anticipated but not finalized and that staff would continue to monitor and recommend necessary reductions to maintain solvency.

Staff also noted short-term operational adjustments: a printer contract for license cards is being finalized and license-renewal purchases for a specific printer were temporarily disabled on the public website until the service agreement is in place. The executive officer recommended continued close monitoring of expenditures, and staff will return to the board with fee-analysis findings and options for short- and mid-term fiscal management.","The executive officer reported year-to-date revenues and expenditures, noted the budget office declined the board’s contract for a fee study, and said staff are seeking budget-office assistance and potential temporary regulatory fee changes to maintain fund solvency.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6001170,"Board to monitor SB 813 spot bill, staff to contact sponsor’s office",462,4430000,4892000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5841631-a0ff0a4dc0aad5ce68a7ef3715d53ebe&start=4430&end=4892","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5841631-a0ff0a4dc0aad5ce68a7ef3715d53ebe/thumbnail_4430000.jpg","/articles/6001170/California/Board-to-monitor-SB-813-spot-bill-staff-to-contact-sponsors-office","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6001170-bc3eb19642a03c174b07dd9e6a211f9a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770598764&Signature=XIBOUlIWOwCF7WUMksgvjSjiQHQ5Wo-CBstzY5V~nyx~AKzeTTOJ029X6ZTzGuyKo8d6twLItIRJ8djqNbNyXokEQk5rf3zP7q5DjP0WWyt45pEYFXl8xyn3j0UVT8aORjcc5SeqaQpdCcHW27TpqrFyTW4SKb-asGdBL1dRsJzu4prPkz-2Ekr0cN1p9ZOZMk9D9v58PY4hh9~4g9XPdAi3-dlz4W8G8FWcbbnub4pmmU0DxV4dpzejOR4f4IVH9oNEXxnbhYjErlptNfYPT0QtJ6NA6w2KVG8Yhaw2uJ3VNoP95cIp7C6yCMzwgqtrIXsFm7xNKEUpvDLM3HBtsw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the March 7 meeting the California Board of Occupational Therapy discussed SB 813, a newly introduced bill that initially appeared to propose extending client record retention from seven to ten years. Board members and stakeholders said the bill was likely a spot bill and that staff and lobbyists were already seeking clarification from the sponsor’s office.

Board member Richard Bookwalter introduced the topic and noted the bill would increase the client-records retention period to 10 years and to one year past the age of majority for minors. Stakeholders raised concerns about why occupational therapy had been singled out and whether the bill would apply to other health care providers.

Sami Rafidi (OTAC) and OTAC lobbyists reported that the bill was a “spot bill” and that Senator McNerney’s office indicated it intended to amend the bill so it would not relate to occupational therapy. Rafidi said an OTAC lobbyist had contacted the senator’s office and was awaiting an amendment; she told the board that the amendment deadline was imminent and that OTAC would continue to monitor the bill.

Regulations counsel Elizabeth Dietzen Olsen advised caution about taking a formal opposed position because a spot bill can be amended; she described an “oppose unless amended” stance as a strong action that may be premature when the bill’s current language is likely to change.

Board members asked staff to monitor the legislation and to contact the sponsor’s office for clarification. No formal board position was taken at the March 7 meeting.","Board members learned SB 813 was a spot bill that staff and OTAC lobbyists expect to be amended and agreed to watch the bill and contact the sponsor’s office for clarification.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6001175,"OT groups press board to remove OT assistants from proposed supervision cap",368,329000,697000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5841631-a0ff0a4dc0aad5ce68a7ef3715d53ebe&start=329&end=697","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5841631-a0ff0a4dc0aad5ce68a7ef3715d53ebe/thumbnail_329000.jpg","/articles/6001175/California/OT-groups-press-board-to-remove-OT-assistants-from-proposed-supervision-cap","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6001175-1234b4efa18e31a1731f04fef3f07df1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770598764&Signature=Ti3jRAzVGr6RnYPUqVXM9l45T4jY0a-lUUZtCnHyfQ0Wa~UoIhGZOn37uP03NempXTaq6xZwYxZPP~ELhulidE4tSEsyVJFiq8wkfTUkbUHeYOHMqqDQnnsAatm9qKEuS2r0lbKP6fWZcMZ9EEKYUPswJiHGtlQwLGL-6B3q0n4rJmTqDB~qYsuT1FAt0qk9zgv0bGomvoEzkbB0OKgJTikI~YMKo-i1~Kji3HKRkf5HjlYytxL0jvzBnA~QdR8EwU-2HABdfjPNVUHp2bv5GvpmP~G9vr8juKGP1cxcVUgZKXC~2spm4SssQmDUdKjPjUYoC3jYVBXHX2g5YQP2pA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several speakers urged the California Board of Occupational Therapy on March 7 to remove occupational therapy assistants (OTAs) from a proposed numeric cap in supervision regulations. Commenters said a cap would conflict with existing statute that already limits the number of OTAs an occupational therapist may supervise and that adding the assistant role to a separate list could reduce access to care.

Sami Rafidi, president of the Occupational Therapy Association of California, told the board she and Kristin Neville of AOTA sent a follow-up letter after a November 2024 meeting and reiterated concerns about the proposed language in the California Code of Regulations Title 16, Division 39, Section 4181. Rafidi said the intent of the supervision standards committee had been to exclude OTAs from a new formula that would cap the number of supervisees: “We were asking to omit occupational therapy assistance from that list,” she said.

Ada Boone Horrell, OTA program director at Sacramento City College, described participation on the supervision-standards committee and said the committee had intended to remove assistants from the list because statute already allows occupational therapists to supervise up to three OTAs concurrently. Horrell also said adding OTAs to the list in regulation could limit fieldwork placements for educational programs.

Board members and staff responded that the topic appears in the meeting materials and in the board’s regulatory package, and that the board could not fully debate unpublished regulation language during public comment; the executive officer and counsel advised the group that the board would handle regulatory updates at a later agenda item and that the item would be published when it was ready. The board did not vote on any regulatory language during public comment.

Board staff confirmed the supervision parameters item remains in the regulatory materials and that the board will address it in the regulatory process, with the supervision language expected to be prioritized for staff work on regulations.","Representatives from OTAC and AOTA urged the California Board of Occupational Therapy to omit occupational therapy assistants from a proposed cap in supervision regulations, saying an additional cap could reduce access to services and fieldwork placements.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6001180,"California OT board leans toward continuing-education requirement over jurisprudence exam",2319,803000,3122000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5841631-a0ff0a4dc0aad5ce68a7ef3715d53ebe&start=803&end=3122","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5841631-a0ff0a4dc0aad5ce68a7ef3715d53ebe/thumbnail_803000.jpg","/articles/6001180/California/California-OT-board-leans-toward-continuing-education-requirement-over-jurisprudence-exam","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6001180-dd21da8aff7e007ab2c348dd7df5e1d1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770598764&Signature=l8aj1HTudHG7D9CneTqMYT3xpCz8af~iiZwoIxXdLN-wzS0Rr~7DE6~bCKJqbK9Vo-fb547JBOAS43FkmZnPWCQ2e0Cyc0uuKZ420PqN-xFtGuZmNjr7CnNd8F9K4SV8aEHUQz2jNZXC~edsINw1ZlrPihXQL1hO27qJy9iKA7awUOp1q0pKQQcVUufq5F4Tl68W50LkYcGIptgE015cQq1PEUJQvUj5CL6NYD0VAuMaTzEjxU0Rhrn3~Ut~9J5kWFMZQJrpEL9Gj0OKk1Z4UaOsPtH7O2Ec94SGWrazbGpTy7IjSFUyifNcucPNmiLN-~gY2ZMpXgpvFJQnvz2u~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the California Board of Occupational Therapy discussed whether to require licensees to demonstrate knowledge of state law through a jurisprudence exam or a continuing-education requirement during their March 7 meeting. After extended debate, board members and stakeholders signaled a preference for a CE-based approach with staff-directed follow-up rather than immediate adoption of an exam.

The discussion opened when the board considered agenda item 14, “discussion and possible actions and required professional development units pertaining to the board’s laws and regulations.” Board member Richard Bookwalter argued in favor of a formal jurisprudence exam, citing enforcement experience and gaps in licensees’ knowledge of state law: “I’ve said for a long time that I think we have we need to have a jurisprudence exam,” he said.

Other board members expressed concern about the exam’s cost and administrative burden. Elizabeth Dietzen Olsen, regulations counsel, advised the board that adopting an exam contract can trigger audits and additional regulatory oversight. Board members noted examples from other states and cited budget constraints as a factor in their deliberations.

Stakeholders at the meeting offered alternatives. Sami Rafidi, president of the Occupational Therapy Association of California (OTAC), offered OTAC’s support for providing CE if the board adopts that path: “OTAC would love to be the go to for this continuing education and partner with CBOT, to make these happen,” she said. Kristin Neville, state affairs manager for the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), also supported collaboration on CE materials and emphasized remote access for stakeholders.

Following discussion, staff said they would draft possible regulatory language options — including a CE-based jurisprudence requirement, an interim attestation option, and the exam route — and return with the language for further board consideration. The board indicated staff should present draft regulatory language and implementation scenarios at a future meeting (staff indicated June as the target for further materials).

The board did not take a formal vote on whether to adopt an exam or a CE requirement at the March 7 meeting; the session was a policy-level discussion and staff follow-up was the next step.

The debate touched on several practical questions: cost and contracting for an exam vendor, whether a required CE course would be available immediately or developed by third-party providers, whether an attestation should be allowed as an interim measure, and how much of the CE requirement—if adopted—should be specifically tied to California law versus broader topics like ethics or cultural competence. Board members also discussed timing and the regulatory process; counsel reminded the group that new regulations require publication and Office of Administrative Law review before becoming effective.","Board members debated requiring a jurisprudence exam for licensees but indicated a preference for a continuing-education (CE) approach and directed staff to draft regulatory language and return with options.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

AOTA agrees to let board use portions of OT Practice Framework for deliberations

Board’s executive officer reports tighter fund condition; budget office to assist with fee analysis

Board to monitor SB 813 spot bill, staff to contact sponsor’s office

OT groups press board to remove OT assistants from proposed supervision cap

California OT board leans toward continuing-education requirement over jurisprudence exam