North Dakota Senate Bill SB2040

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/7/25
• Refer: 1/7/25
• Report Pass: 1/13/25
• Engrossed: 1/15/25
• Refer: 2/13/25
• Report Pass: 3/7/25
• Enrolled: 3/14/25
• Passed: 3/18/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 2 of section 43-60-02 and subsection 1 of section 43-60-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the ordering of genetic testing by genetic counselors and examinations required for genetic counseling licensure.

Summary

SB 2040 makes two targeted changes to North Dakota’s genetic counseling law. First, it clarifies that a licensed genetic counselor may order genetic testing only when acting in coordination with a North Dakota licensed health care provider within that provider’s scope of practice, while preserving the rule that the referring or primary provider remains responsible for supervising patient care and receiving reports. The bill also reiterates that genetic counselors are not authorized to practice medicine, and it requires referral to a medical provider if counseling reveals a condition needing medical assessment or treatment. Second, the bill adjusts licensure requirements for genetic counselors. It keeps the existing education pathways, but extends the time allowed to complete the certification examination from four years to five years after the initial exam and preserves the limit of three attempts unless the board allows an exception by rule. The bill also retains the board’s authority to evaluate an applicant’s moral character, professional capability, and disciplinary history, with some flexibility to modify the restriction for cause.

Impact

The bill amends sections 43-60-02 and 43-60-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, affecting the scope of practice for licensed genetic counselors and the standards for obtaining licensure. It does not create a new profession or expand independent practice; instead, it reinforces physician or provider oversight for genetic testing orders and preserves referral obligations when medical issues are identified. It also gives applicants for genetic counseling licensure more time to pass the certification exam, which may affect workforce entry and licensure timing for prospective counselors.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly noncontroversial and received strong support in both chambers. It passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a wide margin, with only two dissenting votes. The lack of committee transcript material suggests there was little recorded public dispute, and the vote totals indicate general agreement with the bill’s regulatory clarifications and licensure adjustments.

Contention

The main policy issue is the boundary between genetic counseling and the practice of medicine. The bill preserves provider supervision and referral requirements, which likely reassures medical professionals and regulators concerned about independent ordering of tests or treatment decisions. Any potential concern would come from those seeking broader autonomy for genetic counselors or from stakeholders focused on licensure barriers, but the final language reflects a compromise that modestly eases exam timing while maintaining oversight and scope limits.