Professional music therapists; provide for licensure by State Department of Health.
House Bill 50 creates a new state licensure framework for professional music therapists in Mississippi, administered by the State Department of Health and overseen with advice from a five-member Music Therapy Advisory Committee. The bill defines music therapy as a clinical, evidence-based service delivered by a board-certified music therapist and sets out what activities are included in the practice, while also making clear that music therapy does not include diagnosing or assessing physical, mental, or communication disorders. It establishes application standards, reciprocity for out-of-state and military-related applicants, a grandfathering pathway for experienced practitioners, biennial renewal requirements, and rules for inactive status.
The bill also restricts use of the titles “music therapist,” “licensed professional music therapist,” and “LPMT” beginning January 1, 2026, to individuals who hold the new license, while preserving room for other licensed professionals, students in accredited programs, and supervised practitioners to use music in their work without holding themselves out as music therapists. It requires collaboration with other providers and special education teams when music therapy is used for clinical, developmental, or educational needs, and it bars licensees from substituting for audiologists, speech-language pathologists, or occupational therapy practitioners. The bill adds disciplinary authority, fee-setting authority, and a special fund in the state treasury to support implementation and administration of the licensing program.
HB50 would add a new chapter to Title 73 of the Mississippi Code and place music therapists under state licensure and regulation for the first time. It would require the Department of Health to issue licenses only to applicants who meet education, certification, and good-standing requirements, with a limited grandfathering provision for long-time practitioners and reciprocity for qualified out-of-state and military-related applicants. It also creates a dedicated special fund for licensing fees and authorizes the board to impose sanctions, including suspension, revocation, fines, and refusal to renew, thereby affecting practicing music therapists, employers, and facilities that use music therapy services.
The available context suggests generally favorable or at least supportive sentiment toward the bill, with no recorded committee transcript objections or recorded votes in the provided materials. The bill’s findings emphasize public health, safety, welfare, and consumer protection, indicating that supporters view licensure as a way to professionalize the field and protect the public from unqualified practice. Because no committee discussion or voting history is included, there is no evidence here of organized opposition or divided sentiment in the legislative record provided.
The main potential points of contention are the creation of a mandatory licensure regime and the scope of the title and practice restrictions beginning in 2026. Practicing music therapists who are not yet board-certified, as well as professionals in related fields who use music incidentally in therapy, may be concerned about whether the bill could limit their work or require additional compliance. Another possible issue is the bill’s boundary-setting with audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and occupational therapy practitioners, since it explicitly prevents music therapists from representing that they can treat communication disorders or replace those licensed services. The grandfathering provision and the advisory committee’s role in certifying experienced practitioners may also be points of attention because they determine who can continue practicing under the new system.