Expanding the scope of practice of naturopathic doctors, specifying continuing education requirements, increasing the required amount of professional liability insurance and modifying certain provisions relating to the licensure and regulations of naturopathic doctors.
HB 2366 would expand and revise Kansas’s naturopathic doctor licensure act by broadening the scope of practice for licensed naturopathic doctors and updating related regulatory provisions. The bill authorizes naturopathic doctors to perform and order a wider range of examinations and tests, order diagnostic imaging, prescribe or administer a broader set of nonprescription and prescription medications, use additional routes of administration, provide care to pregnant patients, perform minor office procedures and naturopathic acupuncture, and use non-diagnostic ultrasound. It also adds recordkeeping requirements, including maintaining patient records for at least 10 years, and requires certain prescribing naturopathic doctors to document prescriptions, have adequate training, and register with the DEA to prescribe authorized controlled substances.
The bill also amends Kansas pharmacy and controlled substances statutes to recognize naturopathic doctors as practitioners/prescribers for certain purposes and to align definitions with the expanded naturopathic scope. It revises the naturopathic licensure act’s definitions, disciplinary provisions, renewal requirements, advisory council structure, and fee framework, while repealing and replacing existing sections. In practical terms, the measure would change how naturopathic doctors are regulated, what services they may provide, and how they interact with pharmacies, controlled substances rules, and other licensed health professions.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s framing is supportive of expanding access and authority for naturopathic doctors, as shown by the bill’s introduction at the request of the Kansas Naturopathic Doctors Association and the Health and Human Services committee. However, the floor vote shows the measure was highly divided and did not pass emergency final action, failing 58-58 in the House. That close split suggests substantial support existed, but not enough to overcome opposition.
The main points of contention are the expanded clinical authority and prescribing powers granted to naturopathic doctors, especially the ability to prescribe prescription-only drugs and certain controlled substances, use intravenous and other invasive routes, and provide care in areas that overlap with conventional medical practice. The bill also raises concerns about boundaries with other licensed health professions, since it expressly prohibits surgery, labor and delivery, pregnancy termination procedures, and certain imaging interpretation, while still expanding the scope enough to affect physicians, pharmacists, and other healthcare providers who may share patients or supervise related services.
HB 2366 would substantially amend Kansas statutes governing naturopathic doctors, the pharmacy act, and controlled substances law. It would expand the legal scope of practice for naturopathic doctors, add new compliance and recordkeeping duties, and revise licensure, discipline, renewal, and advisory council provisions under the naturopathic doctor licensure act. It would also update statutory definitions in the pharmacy and controlled substances acts so naturopathic doctors are treated as practitioners/prescribers for certain drug-related purposes, affecting pharmacies, prescribers, and patients who receive naturopathic care.
The bill appears to have been generally supported by naturopathic medicine advocates and introduced with backing from the Kansas Naturopathic Doctors Association, indicating organized interest in expanding the profession’s authority. At the same time, the 58-58 House vote on emergency final action shows the proposal was controversial and lacked a majority at that stage. The evenly split vote suggests a mixed legislative sentiment, with meaningful support but also significant resistance.
The most notable contention is over how far naturopathic doctors should be allowed to practice. Supporters appear to favor broader diagnostic and prescribing authority, while opponents likely object to granting naturopathic doctors powers that overlap with physicians, advanced practice nurses, and pharmacists, especially around prescription drugs, controlled substances, intravenous administration, and pregnancy-related care. The bill’s explicit limits on surgery, labor and delivery, pregnancy termination, and certain imaging interpretation reflect attempts to draw boundaries, but those boundaries themselves are part of the debate over patient safety, professional scope, and regulatory oversight.