Michigan House Bill HB4509

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/21/25
• Refer: 5/21/25
• Report Pass: 9/3/25
• Report Pass: 10/16/25
• Engrossed: 10/28/25
• Refer: 10/30/25

Caption

Health occupations: audiologists; audiologist and speech language pathologist licensure compact; provide for. Amends secs. 16801 & 17601 of 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.16801 & 333.17601) & adds secs. 16187, 16804 & 17603a.

Summary

HB4509 would add Michigan to the Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Interstate Compact and make related changes to the Public Health Code. The compact is designed to let audiologists and speech-language pathologists who hold a valid home-state license practice in other member states under a “compact privilege,” including through telehealth, while still being subject to the laws and disciplinary authority of the state where the patient is located. It also creates a multistate compact commission to administer the agreement, adopt binding rules, maintain a shared data system, and coordinate licensure, investigations, and disciplinary reporting among member states. The bill also amends Michigan’s definitions of the practice of audiology and speech-language pathology to recognize compact-privilege holders as licensed for purposes of state law. New sections would authorize compact-privilege practice in Michigan for audiologists and speech-language pathologists from other member states, while preserving Michigan’s ability to regulate scope of practice, discipline, and enforcement within the state. The act would take effect one year after enactment, and the compact itself would become operational once 10 states join.

Impact

The bill would amend the Public Health Code by adding a new compact section and by updating the audiology and speech-language pathology practice provisions to recognize out-of-state practitioners operating under a compact privilege. It would create legal authority for Michigan to participate in interstate licensure reciprocity for these professions, require background checks and data sharing, and allow Michigan to enforce its practice standards and take adverse action against compact privilege holders practicing in the state. It would also establish that compact rules and commission actions are binding on member states to the extent consistent with state and constitutional limits.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It was reported favorably out of committee and later passed the House on third reading by a wide margin, including an immediate-effect vote of 101-3. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate substantial opposition in the materials supplied. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a routine professional-licensure modernization measure rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

The main policy issues embedded in the bill are not reflected in recorded debate, but the text itself shows the likely areas of concern: interstate licensure reciprocity, the extent of authority given to the compact commission, mandatory data sharing and criminal background checks, and the balance between mobility for practitioners and state control over discipline and scope of practice. Another possible point of contention is the treatment of telehealth and whether remote practice should be recognized as broadly as in-person practice. The bill also preserves state authority over adverse actions and single-state licenses, which may have been intended to address concerns about weakening Michigan’s regulatory oversight.