SB 164 creates a new licensing framework in Indiana for professional music therapists, to be administered by the medical licensing board. It defines the practice of music therapy, establishes a five-member music therapy advisory council, and sets out education, certification, age, criminal-history, and disciplinary-history requirements for licensure. Applicants generally must hold at least a bachelor’s degree in music therapy or a related field, pass or hold certification from the Certification Board for Music Therapists, and meet character and fitness standards. The bill also provides a temporary pathway for currently practicing, board-certified music therapists to obtain a license if they apply by July 1, 2026.
The bill also specifies the scope of practice for licensed professional music therapists, including assessment, treatment planning, implementation, evaluation, collaboration with other providers, and a range of music-based interventions. It clarifies that music therapists may not diagnose or assess physical, mental, or communication disorders, and it limits their role in relation to speech-language pathology and audiology. The bill includes renewal, reinstatement, and disciplinary provisions, and it creates a misdemeanor offense for knowingly and intentionally using protected titles such as “licensed music therapist,” “licensed professional music therapist (LPMT),” or “music therapist” without a license beginning July 1, 2026.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new article to the Indiana Code governing music therapy licensure and to create a related criminal statute for unlawful practice. It would bring music therapy under state professional regulation, give the board authority over licensing and discipline, and restrict title usage to licensed individuals. It also preserves certain exemptions for other licensed professionals, students in accredited programs, supervised trainees, and limited out-of-state practitioners, while setting boundaries to avoid overlap with other regulated health professions.
Overall sentiment appears generally supportive and professional-regulatory in nature, with the bill framed as a consumer-protection and standards-setting measure rather than a controversial policy change. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from legislators in the available record. The structure of the bill suggests an effort to formalize an existing field and recognize national certification standards.
The main points of contention likely concern scope of practice and professional turf boundaries. The bill explicitly limits music therapists from diagnosing disorders or representing themselves as speech-language pathologists or audiologists, which suggests sensitivity around overlap with other health professions. Another possible issue is the criminal penalty for unauthorized title use and the licensing requirements tied to board certification, which could be seen as protective of the profession but potentially burdensome for practitioners who do not fit the new credentialing pathway.
SB 164 would add a new licensing article to the Indiana Code for licensed professional music therapists, placing the profession under the medical licensing board and creating an advisory council to assist with rulemaking, fees, public education, and disciplinary review. It would establish licensure standards, renewal and reinstatement rules, a grandfathering pathway for certain existing practitioners, and enforcement authority including sanctions and a misdemeanor offense for unlawful title use. The bill also amends the criminal code to define the new offense tied to unauthorized practice of music therapy.
No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no documented legislative debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a broadly supportive professional-regulation bill intended to recognize music therapy as a licensed healthcare-related occupation and to standardize qualifications and consumer protections. The tone of the proposal is administrative and protective rather than ideological.
The most likely areas of contention are the licensing thresholds and the boundaries between music therapy and other licensed professions. Requiring board certification, a degree, and criminal-history screening could be viewed as ensuring quality, but also as limiting entry to the field. The bill also carefully excludes diagnosis and communication-disorder treatment, which may reflect concern from audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and other providers about scope-of-practice overlap. The criminal penalty for using protected titles without a license may also draw attention from practitioners who use music therapeutically but do not seek state licensure.