Health occupations: counselors; professional counselors licensure compact; provide for. Amends sec. 18101 of 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.18101) & adds secs. 16190a & 18105a.
HB4591 would join Michigan to the Counseling Compact, an interstate licensure agreement for Licensed Professional Counselors. The bill authorizes counselors who hold a valid, unencumbered home-state license in another compact member state to practice in Michigan through a “privilege to practice,” including by telehealth, without obtaining a separate full Michigan license. It also allows Michigan-licensed counselors to practice in other member states under the compact, subject to the laws and scope-of-practice rules of the state where the client is located.
The bill adds a new section to the Public Health Code establishing the compact in Michigan law and creates a new section recognizing compact privileges as equivalent to licensure for purposes of Michigan counseling law. It also amends the definition section for counseling practice and clarifies that a person practicing under a compact privilege is authorized to engage in counseling and is treated as a licensed professional counselor under state law. The act would take effect one year after enactment, while the compact itself would become operational only after the tenth state joins.
In practical terms, the bill would change how Michigan regulates counselor mobility by shifting some licensure recognition and disciplinary coordination to a multi-state commission. Member states would share licensure, investigative, and adverse-action information through a data system, follow compact rules on background checks and continuing education, and retain authority over discipline for practice occurring within their borders. The compact also includes provisions for military spouses, telehealth practice, interstate transfers of a counselor’s home state license, and enforcement mechanisms if a member state fails to comply.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly favorable. The bill advanced out of committee with unanimous votes in the recorded committee actions and then passed the House on third reading by a substantial margin, including an immediate-effect roll call. That pattern suggests broad support for improving counselor mobility and access to behavioral health services.
The main points of contention are likely to center on interstate licensing authority, state oversight, and the compact commission’s rulemaking power rather than on the bill’s general purpose. The compact requires Michigan to recognize out-of-state licenses under specified conditions, participate in a shared data system, and accept commission rules that can affect licensure administration. It also raises familiar concerns about privacy of investigative information, the scope of telehealth practice, and how much control the state retains over discipline and standards for counselors practicing across state lines.
HB4591 would amend the Public Health Code by adding a new compact section and by recognizing compact privileges as equivalent to a Michigan licensed professional counselor license for purposes of state law. It would not eliminate Michigan’s licensing system, but it would create an alternate interstate pathway for qualified counselors from compact states to practice in Michigan and for Michigan counselors to practice elsewhere under compact rules. The bill also updates the statutory definition of counseling-related practice and clarifies that compact-privilege holders are subject to the same obligations as licensed professional counselors under the article.
The recorded legislative action shows strong support and little visible opposition. The bill was reported favorably through committee stages without recorded dissent and then passed the House 83-23 on third reading with immediate effect, indicating that most lawmakers viewed the compact as a positive step for workforce mobility and access to mental health services. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote margins suggest the bill was broadly well received.
Likely areas of concern involve the balance between interstate reciprocity and state regulatory control. The compact gives a national commission authority to adopt binding rules, requires data sharing on licensure and investigations, and allows remote-state practice based on another state’s license, which may prompt questions about oversight, confidentiality, and due process. Some lawmakers or stakeholders may also be wary of how disciplinary actions, telehealth practice, and criminal background checks are handled across state lines, even though the compact preserves remote-state authority over practice within its borders.