AN ACT relating to music therapy.
SB21 creates a new statutory framework in Kentucky for the licensure and regulation of professional music therapists. It defines music therapy and the scope of practice, establishes the Kentucky Board of Licensure for Professional Music Therapists, and gives that board authority to issue licenses, renewals, fees, continuing education rules, ethics standards, and disciplinary regulations. The bill requires applicants to be at least 18, hold a qualifying degree in music therapy or equivalent training, and be board-certified by the Certification Board for Music Therapists, while also allowing some reciprocity for applicants licensed in other jurisdictions with substantially equivalent standards.
The bill also sets renewal, retirement, and reinstatement rules, including biennial renewal after December 31, 2027, a grace period, automatic suspension and revocation for failure to renew, and a process for returning to practice after retirement. It prohibits unlicensed persons from using protected titles such as “licensed professional music therapist” or “LPMT” after the effective implementation date, while carving out exceptions for other licensed professionals, students in supervised training, and people whose music use is incidental to another regulated profession. The bill further creates a dedicated fund for board operations and imposes criminal penalties for violations or aiding violations of the act.
SB21 would add a new licensing chapter to KRS Chapter 309 and bring music therapy under state occupational regulation. It would create a new board within the Public Protection Cabinet, authorize administrative rulemaking, establish licensure and renewal requirements, and give the board enforcement powers over applicants and licensees. The bill also affects related health, education, and counseling professions by expressly preserving their existing authority to use music incidentally in their work, while limiting how music therapists may describe services involving speech-language, communication, mental health, and substance use disorders. It would also create a new trust and agency fund and authorize fines for unauthorized practice or title use.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive and professional-regulatory in nature. The bill is structured as a standard licensure measure, suggesting an intent to formalize credentials, protect the public, and clarify scope of practice rather than to expand or restrict music therapy in a controversial way. No recorded opposition, amendments, or divided votes are included in the available context.
The main points of potential contention are scope-of-practice boundaries and professional overlap. The bill carefully limits music therapists from diagnosing physical, mental, or communication disorders and from representing themselves as authorized to treat speech-language, mental health, or substance use disorders, which may be important to allied professions such as speech-language pathology, psychology, counseling, and audiology. Another possible issue is the creation of a new licensing board and the associated fees, disciplinary authority, and criminal penalties for unlicensed practice. The bill also distinguishes between board-certified music therapists and other professionals who use music therapeutically, which could raise questions about reciprocity, grandfathering, and how existing practitioners transition into the new licensing system.