Members of the Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board’s advisory committee reviewed draft results of an agency survey of licensees at their Dec. 3 remote meeting and identified insurance reimbursement, test requirements and workforce retention as the most repeated concerns. Executive Director David Fye told the group that draft reports for each profession are being converted to final reports and “This should be published on our website later this month.”

Committee members said many licensees reported barriers to reimbursement from insurers and federal payers and a lack of consistent recognition of master’s-level licenses. “I’m not surprised to see so many comments about insurance and reimbursement,” Rebecca Jabara said, noting that payer forms and tuition-reimbursement programs often fail to recognize the state’s master’s-level licensure. Members urged clearer communications to explain what the BSRB can and cannot change, and suggested sharing survey results with partner agencies to address misconceptions.

The survey data also flagged workforce risks: the LCP group reported a relatively high proportion of licensees who expect to retire within five years (about 20 percent, members said), prompting discussion about whether enough new practitioners are coming through training programs to replace them. The committee discussed alternatives to relying solely on the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) as the gate to higher licensure levels, noting that test performance does not always predict clinical competence. David Fye summarized his preliminary review of other states’ score thresholds, reporting examples of 450 and 440 in some jurisdictions but cautioning that direct comparisons are difficult.

Members discussed possible follow-ups: publishing the final survey reports and a comparison report, sharing findings with state partners (including the Department for Aging and Disability Services), and exploring additional pathways to licensure or supervised-practice options for experienced clinicians who struggle with exam requirements. The committee did not take a formal vote on policy changes; it agreed to continue the conversation and requested additional comparative research for a future meeting.

The committee approved the minutes from its Oct. 1, 2025 meeting earlier in the session and set its 2026 meeting schedule (first Wednesday at 1 p.m., with the first planned meeting on Feb. 4).