Revises provisions relating to chiropractic physicians and chiropractic assistants. (BDR 54-630)
AB 513 revises Nevada’s chiropractic licensing and regulatory framework in a broad set of ways. The bill creates a new temporary certificate for chiropractic assistants who already hold a comparable credential in another U.S. jurisdiction and reside there, allowing them to work in Nevada for up to 15 business days under the supervision and control of a chiropractic physician. It also makes it unprofessional conduct for a chiropractic physician to employ someone as a chiropractic assistant unless that person has a regular certificate or the new temporary certificate.
The bill also updates the Chiropractic Physicians’ Board of Nevada. It changes board composition by increasing the number of chiropractic physician members from four to five and eliminating the seat reserved for a representative of indigent, uninsured, or otherwise financially constrained patients. In addition, it modernizes education references to include doctor of chiropractic degree programs, revises examination authority so the Board may set exam timing and content, and removes statutory passing scores and some related retake provisions. Applicants for licensure and reinstatement must now submit attestations that they have read, understood, and will follow the governing statutes and regulations.
AB 513 further loosens or updates several training and administrative requirements. It removes the prior minimum 12-month training requirement for chiropractic assistant certification, revises preceptor program eligibility for students, and changes certain fee provisions by eliminating some fees for providing lists and rule copies while expanding the Board’s authority to charge for review of continuing education courses and dry needling qualification courses. The bill also revises cease-and-desist order contact information requirements and updates the reinstatement process for expired licenses to rely more on attestation and less on examination-based reinstatement.
The bill’s impact on state law is to streamline licensure and assistant certification processes, give the Board more discretion over examinations and administrative procedures, and tighten enforcement against unlicensed assistant use and unauthorized chiropractic practice. It also adjusts the Board’s membership and fee structure, which may affect professional representation and Board operations. Overall, the bill appears to be a regulatory modernization measure rather than a major substantive expansion of chiropractic practice.
The general sentiment around AB 513 appears strongly favorable. It passed the Assembly 41-1 and the Senate 21-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little recorded opposition. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, but the voting history suggests the bill was viewed as a routine professional-licensing update with limited controversy.
The main points of contention, based on the text, are likely to have centered on the Board composition change and the relaxation of certain training and examination requirements. Stakeholders concerned with public representation may object to removing the board seat focused on indigent and uninsured patients, while some may question whether eliminating fixed exam standards and the 12-month assistant training minimum reduces oversight. On the other hand, chiropractic professionals and regulators likely supported the bill’s flexibility, portability for out-of-state assistants, and administrative simplification.
AB 513 amends Chapter 634 of NRS to expand temporary practice options for chiropractic assistants, revise licensure and reinstatement requirements for chiropractic physicians, alter Board membership, and modify fee authority and disciplinary provisions. It gives the Board greater discretion over examinations and training standards, removes certain statutory fee items, and updates enforcement language to cover temporary assistants and cease-and-desist orders. The bill affects chiropractic physicians, chiropractic assistants, applicants, students in preceptor programs, and the Chiropractic Physicians’ Board of Nevada.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support and little opposition. It passed the Assembly 41-1 and the Senate 21-0, suggesting that lawmakers generally viewed it as a technical or modernization measure for chiropractic regulation rather than a controversial policy change. No committee testimony was provided, but the voting record indicates a positive overall sentiment.
Likely areas of contention include the removal of the Board seat for a member representing indigent, uninsured, or otherwise underserved patients, which could be seen as reducing consumer or public-interest representation. Another possible concern is the bill’s reduction of prescriptive training and testing requirements, including eliminating fixed passing scores and the 12-month minimum training requirement for chiropractic assistants, which some may view as weakening safeguards. Supporters, by contrast, likely favored the increased flexibility, portability for out-of-state assistants, and streamlined administrative authority for the Board.