Dietitian licensure compact.
SB 375 adopts the Dietitian Licensure Compact in Indiana, creating a new Article 14.7 in Title 25 of the Indiana Code. The compact is designed to let licensed dietitians practice across state lines through a “compact privilege” while keeping each member state’s authority over licensure, discipline, and public protection. It sets out the compact’s purpose, definitions, eligibility standards, and the structure of the interstate commission that would administer the agreement.
Under the bill, a dietitian who meets uniform education, supervised practice, examination, and home-state licensure requirements could obtain a compact privilege to practice in other member states, including by telehealth, without needing separate licenses in each state. The compact also addresses military spouses, home-state changes, continuing education, criminal background checks, adverse actions, investigations, data sharing, rulemaking, dispute resolution, withdrawal, amendment, and severability. The bill also adds a related immunity provision in Indiana’s tort claims chapter for members and staff of the compact commission.
The bill would add a new interstate licensure framework to Indiana law for dietitians and dietitian nutritionists, and it would supersede conflicting state laws to the extent they interfere with the compact. It also amends Indiana’s immunity statutes to cover members, officers, employees, and representatives of the Dietitian Licensure Compact Commission. If enacted, Indiana would join a multi-state regulatory system that changes how dietitians obtain authorization to practice across state lines, how disciplinary information is shared, and how Indiana recognizes out-of-state compact privileges.
The bill’s stated policy direction is strongly pro-compact and pro-portability, emphasizing improved access to dietetics services, reduced administrative burden, and support for military families. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate opposition or support beyond the bill’s text. The overall tone of the legislation is collaborative and administrative rather than controversial, reflecting a standard professional licensure compact model.
The main points of potential contention are the balance between interstate portability and state regulatory control, the compact commission’s rulemaking and enforcement authority, and the extent of data sharing and background-check requirements. States and licensees may also scrutinize the requirement to comply with remote-state jurisprudence rules, the handling of adverse actions across member states, and the compact’s provisions allowing commission rules to have the force of law. Another possible issue is the commission’s immunity and the bill’s preemption of conflicting state laws, which could raise concerns about state sovereignty and oversight.