State Board of Physicians - Naturopathic Doctors - Prescriptive Authority and Administration of Medication
Summary
HB867 expands the scope of practice for licensed naturopathic doctors in Maryland by removing the existing Naturopathic Doctors Formulary Council and replacing the current formulary-based prescribing framework with direct statutory authority. Under the bill, naturopathic doctors would be authorized to prescribe, within the scope of naturopathic medicine, prescription drugs and Schedule III, IV, and V controlled dangerous substances. The bill also updates the administration provisions to allow naturopathic doctors to administer natural medicines and nonprescription drugs through additional routes, including intramuscular, subcutaneous, and intravenous administration.
The bill retains several limits on naturopathic practice. Naturopathic doctors would still be prohibited from prescribing Schedule II controlled dangerous substances, performing surgery, using general or spinal anesthetics, administering ionizing radioactive substances, or practicing outside their licensed profession. The bill also continues to bar cosmetic prescribing and does not expand authority into other regulated health professions. The effective date is October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB867 would amend the Health Occupations Article provisions governing naturopathic doctors by repealing § 14-5F-04.1, which currently establishes the Naturopathic Doctors Formulary Council and formulary process, and by revising § 14-5F-14 to create direct prescriptive authority in statute. It would broaden the medication administration routes available to naturopathic doctors and expand the range of controlled substances they may prescribe, while preserving prohibitions on Schedule II drugs and other higher-risk medical acts. The bill would primarily affect licensed naturopathic doctors, the State Board of Physicians, and patients receiving naturopathic care.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive of expanding naturopathic practice authority, at least from the bill sponsor’s perspective. The legislation is framed as a modernization of prescribing and administration rules for naturopathic doctors, suggesting an intent to streamline regulation and increase access to care. However, because no hearing transcript or vote history is provided, there is no documented public record here of broader support or opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention is the expansion of prescribing authority for naturopathic doctors, especially the ability to prescribe Schedule III-V controlled dangerous substances and to administer medications intravenously, subcutaneously, and intramuscularly. Supporters would likely view this as an appropriate expansion aligned with naturopathic training and patient access, while opponents may be concerned about patient safety, scope-of-practice boundaries, and whether naturopathic education sufficiently prepares practitioners for controlled-substance prescribing. Another possible issue is the repeal of the Formulary Council, which removes a separate review body that previously helped limit and oversee the formulary-based approach.