Health Care Practitioner Transparency Act
Senate Bill 332, the Health Care Practitioner Transparency Act, would require advertisements for health care services that name a practitioner to identify the type of license, certification, or registration held by that practitioner. It also prohibits deceptive or misleading statements about a practitioner’s credentials, education, board certification, or licensure. The bill is aimed at making it clearer to patients who is providing care and what qualifications that person actually has.
The bill further restricts the use of certain medical titles by individuals who are not licensed to practice medicine in North Carolina. It bars unlicensed individuals from holding themselves out as physicians or using a long list of physician specialty titles, such as surgeon, cardiologist, pediatrician, psychiatrist, or M.D./D.O., when the intent is to suggest they practice medicine. At the same time, it preserves the ability of licensed health care professionals to use titles and abbreviations authorized under their own licensing laws.
If enacted, the bill would amend Chapter 90 of the North Carolina General Statutes by creating a new Part 2 in Article 37 governing health care practitioner advertising and representation, and it would add a related identification framework in Part 1. It would apply to a broad range of licensed or certified health care practitioners, including physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, mental health professionals, chiropractors, optometrists, physical therapists, and others listed in the bill. Violations would be treated as unprofessional conduct and could trigger disciplinary action by the relevant licensing boards, with each day of noncompliance counted as a separate violation. The bill also directs multiple licensing boards to adopt temporary rules to implement the new requirements, and it takes effect October 1, 2025.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive of consumer transparency and clearer professional identification in health care advertising. The measure is framed as a patient-protection and anti-misrepresentation bill rather than a broad regulatory overhaul. No opposing statements, amendments, or recorded roll-call votes were provided to indicate formal controversy in the available context.
The main potential point of contention is the scope of the advertising and title restrictions, especially the detailed list of prohibited physician specialty titles for non-physicians and the requirement to disclose licensure type in advertisements. Health care practitioners and professional boards may differ on whether the bill is a necessary transparency measure or an overly broad restriction on professional marketing and title usage. Another possible issue is enforcement, since violations are tied to disciplinary action and daily penalties through multiple licensing boards, which could raise concerns about compliance burdens for practitioners working in multiple settings or across different professions.