Board of Respiratory Therapy; composition, powers, authorities revised; requirements for licensure revised; criminal penalties for certain actions provided
HB299 revises Alabama’s laws governing the State Board of Respiratory Therapy and the licensure and regulation of respiratory therapists. The bill expands the scope of practice so respiratory therapists may work under the direction of a licensed advanced practice provider, not just a physician, and updates the statutory definition of respiratory therapy to reflect that change. It also modernizes licensure requirements, including allowing the board to require criminal background checks, clarifying reciprocity and temporary licensure provisions, and preserving a pathway for certain currently practicing individuals to obtain licensure.
The bill also changes the board’s structure and administration. It increases the board from six to seven members, adding an additional respiratory therapist seat, and revises appointment, term, and diversity requirements. The measure updates the board’s authority over fees, continuing education, discipline, hearings, and public license records, while also adding explicit criminal penalties for fraudulently obtaining a license or practicing/holding oneself out as a respiratory therapist without a valid license. It repeals an older notice provision tied to 2004-era practitioners and sets the act’s effective date for October 1, 2026.
HB299 would amend multiple sections of Chapter 27B of the Code of Alabama 1975 governing respiratory therapy. Its practical effect would be to broaden who may supervise respiratory therapists, expand the board’s regulatory and disciplinary tools, add criminal enforcement for unlicensed practice and license fraud, and revise board composition and licensure pathways. Affected parties include respiratory therapists, advanced practice providers, hospitals, licensing applicants, temporary license holders, and the Alabama State Board of Respiratory Therapy.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and advanced to second reading and the calendar, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material. Based on the bill’s content, it appears to be a professional regulation and workforce modernization measure rather than a highly partisan proposal. The overall tone of the legislation is administrative and permissive, aimed at updating practice rules and licensure standards.
No specific objections or amendments are reflected in the provided committee or floor record, so there is no documented contention in the source material. Potential points of debate, based on the text alone, could include the expansion of supervision authority from physicians to advanced practice providers, the addition of criminal penalties for unlicensed practice, the use of background checks, and the increase in board membership and regulatory authority. However, the provided record does not identify any person or group taking a position for or against those changes.