HB 23 creates a new certification process for Florida psychologists to obtain prescriptive authority. The bill directs the Board of Psychology to certify psychologists who meet specified education, training, examination, and licensure requirements, including a doctoral degree, a qualifying psychopharmacology exam, intensive didactic coursework, and supervised clinical experience. It also allows an exemption for psychologists who completed the U.S. Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project.
The bill sets out how prescribing psychologists would practice once certified. They would be required to keep prescription records, consult and collaborate with a patient’s primary care physician before prescribing or changing medication, and comply with board rules and all state and federal prescribing laws. The measure also requires renewal of certification with continuing education, mandates professional liability insurance of at least $250,000, and imposes special reporting requirements for psychologists authorized to prescribe controlled substances.
HB 23 would also create an interim panel to help the Board of Psychology develop rules and a formulary for prescribing psychologists. The panel would include representatives from medicine, pharmacy, and psychology, and would recommend rules by February 1, 2026. The formulary would limit the drugs that prescribing psychologists may use to those customarily used for mental, nervous, emotional, behavioral, substance abuse, or cognitive disorders, with additional guidance for patients under 18 and restrictions on Schedule II controlled substances and drugs primarily used for other conditions.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it would add a new category of licensed mental health professional with limited prescribing authority and create a regulatory framework for certification, renewal, discipline, and formulary development. It would affect the Board of Psychology, the Board of Medicine, the Board of Pharmacy, psychologists seeking prescriptive authority, and patients receiving mental health treatment, while also interacting with existing laws governing controlled substances, professional licensing, and medical prescribing.
The available legislative history shows no recorded votes or committee debate, but the bill ultimately died in the Health Professions & Programs Subcommittee. Based on the text, the measure appears designed to expand access to mental health medication management while maintaining guardrails through training, collaboration with physicians, insurance, and a limited formulary. Likely points of contention include whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe at all, the adequacy of the training requirements, the scope of the formulary, and the requirement that patients have a primary care physician before receiving a prescription from a psychologist.
HB 23 would amend Florida law by creating s. 490.0065, F.S., establishing a new certification system for psychologists to obtain prescriptive authority. It would authorize the Board of Psychology to certify, renew, discipline, and set rules for prescribing psychologists, while also creating reporting, insurance, and continuing education requirements. The bill would also establish an interim panel to develop rules and a formulary, affecting the regulation of psychotropic prescribing, controlled substances, and professional practice standards in Florida.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so the bill’s sentiment must be inferred from its structure rather than debate. The bill appears generally supportive of expanding mental health treatment options by allowing qualified psychologists to prescribe under a regulated framework, but it also includes substantial safeguards that suggest an effort to address safety and professional oversight concerns. Its death in the Health Professions & Programs Subcommittee indicates it did not advance, which may reflect unresolved concerns or insufficient support.
The main likely points of contention are whether psychologists should be granted prescriptive authority, whether the education and supervised experience requirements are sufficient to ensure patient safety, and how broad the formulary should be. Additional concerns may include the requirement that a patient have a primary care physician before a psychologist may prescribe, the limits on Schedule II controlled substances, and the role of other professions—especially physicians, psychiatrists, pharmacists, and advanced practice nurses—in shaping or limiting the new authority. The bill’s interim panel structure suggests that interprofessional oversight was intended to address these concerns, but the absence of debate records leaves the specific objections unrecorded.