Healing arts: chiropractic practice: speech-language pathology and audiology and hearing aid dispensing: occupational therapy: physical therapy.
The implications of AB 1706 on state laws include stricter oversight of the healing arts professions, particularly the licensure processes and penalties for non-compliance. For example, the bill raises the accountability of occupational therapists by classifying unlicensed practice as an infraction. This makes it easier for authorities to take action against unauthorized practitioners and underscores the state’s commitment to regulating health care standards effectively. Additionally, the extension of operational authority for various regulatory boards until January 1, 2022, allows ongoing oversight and adaptations as needed to keep up with industry standards.
Assembly Bill No. 1706 aims to amend various sections of the Business and Professions Code to enhance regulations pertaining to healing arts. Specifically, it addresses the licensure and regulation of chiropractic practice, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, and audiology, among others. Notable changes include making the practice of occupational therapy without a license an infraction, thus expanding the scope of offenses related to professional licensure. This bill seeks to ensure that practitioners in these fields meet appropriate standards, thereby protecting public health and safety.
The general sentiment surrounding AB 1706 appears to be supportive among regulatory bodies and practitioners adhering to licensing standards. Proponents argue that the bill enhances public safety by ensuring only qualified individuals practice in these vital health-focused areas. However, there may be some contention regarding the increase in regulatory burdens, particularly among those who may find it challenging to comply with the new licensure requirements.
Despite the overall support for enhancing regulations in the healing arts, there are noteworthy points of contention. Some stakeholders may challenge the effectiveness of expanding the definition of infractions or the reasons for classifying certain practices as illegal. Additionally, the changes related to the treatment of past convictions and their impact on current and future practitioners could stir debate about fairness and equitable treatment in the licensure process. These areas may raise concerns from advocacy groups representing the interests of health professionals.