HB25-1075 updates Colorado’s speech-language pathology law to formally recognize and regulate speech-language pathology assistants. The bill adds definitions for speech-language pathology assistants, supervising speech-language pathologists, direct and indirect supervision, and school speech-language pathology assistants. It also creates title protections so only properly authorized individuals may use the assistant title, and it clarifies that assistants may work only under the direction and supervision of a licensed/certified speech-language pathologist or, in school settings, under education department authorization.
The bill sets out the education and clinical preparation required to qualify as a speech-language pathology assistant, including a bachelor’s degree or equivalent coursework, completion of an assistant program, and supervised clinical practicum hours. It also specifies what assistants may not do, such as diagnosing disorders, interpreting assessments for eligibility, writing or modifying care plans, making referrals, selecting communication devices, signing formal documents without a supervising pathologist, or independently treating certain medically fragile patients. The measure further defines supervision standards, including written supervisory plans, minimum ongoing review, limits on the number of assistants per supervisor, and tele-supervision options.
In addition to creating the new assistant framework, the bill amends disciplinary provisions so the director may take action against a certificate holder for failing to properly direct and supervise an assistant. It also updates the statute’s scope and exclusions to make clear that school-based speech-language pathologists and school speech-language pathology assistants paid solely by an administrative unit or state-operated program remain outside the article’s licensing scheme. The bill extends the regulatory repeal date for the profession to 2033, now explicitly including assistants in the sunset review.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and largely noncontroversial. The bill passed committee and floor votes with overwhelming margins, including unanimous committee votes and near-unanimous final votes in both chambers, and the Senate committee recommended it for the consent calendar. That voting pattern suggests broad bipartisan agreement that the bill addresses workforce shortages and clarifies practice standards without major opposition.
The main policy issue in the bill is the balance between expanding access to speech-language services and preserving patient safety and professional oversight. The bill’s supporters emphasize that assistants can improve service capacity and help address shortages, while the detailed supervision rules and task restrictions reflect concern that assistants not perform higher-level clinical functions reserved for licensed speech-language pathologists. Any contention appears centered on supervision, scope of practice, and the distinction between private-practice regulation and school-based authorization, though the recorded votes show little visible resistance.
HB25-1075 amends Colorado’s speech-language pathology statutes in Title 12 to create a regulated role for speech-language pathology assistants, define their qualifications and supervision requirements, restrict their title use and scope of practice, and authorize discipline for improper supervision. It also clarifies exclusions for school-based personnel paid by school administrative units or state-operated programs and updates the sunset/repeal provision to include assistants under the Division of Professions and Occupations’ regulation.
The bill’s reception was broadly positive and largely unanimous. Committee votes were 13-0 in the House and 7-0 in the Senate, and floor votes were also strong, with only a small number of no votes in each chamber. The Senate committee’s recommendation for the consent calendar suggests the measure was viewed as routine or low-conflict, with general support for expanding service capacity while maintaining oversight.
The principal points of contention are not reflected in the vote record as major disputes, but the bill itself shows the likely areas of concern: whether assistants should be allowed to provide services at all, how much supervision is required, and what tasks must remain exclusively with licensed speech-language pathologists. The bill responds to those concerns by limiting assistants’ authority, requiring direct and indirect supervision, capping the number of assistants per supervisor, and prohibiting assistants from diagnosing, independently planning care, or handling certain fragile patients without continuous oversight. School-based exemptions and the boundary between education-department authorization and professional licensure are also notable policy distinctions.