AB60 revises Nevada law governing peer recovery support services and substance use disorder prevention by creating a new, separately defined credential for a “certified prevention specialist.” The bill defines that role as a natural person who supervises, reviews, and implements evidence-based prevention and wellness interventions in schools and communities, and it prohibits anyone from holding themselves out as such unless they are certified by the Nevada Certification Board or, if that board stops certifying, by the Division of Public and Behavioral Health. It also continues and clarifies existing rules for peer recovery support specialists and supervisors, including age and certification requirements, internship provisions, and the ability of the Division to impose civil penalties or seek injunctions for violations.
The bill expands the regulatory framework for these behavioral health roles by directing the State Board of Health to adopt rules on certification, renewal, discipline, endorsement, fees, and exemptions. It also adds certified prevention specialists to mandatory reporting laws for suspected child abuse and neglect and older-person/vulnerable-person abuse, and it places them within the same professional-exemption structure that already applies to peer recovery support specialists and related behavioral health practitioners. In addition, it requires employers and contractors to conduct child abuse/neglect screening for certified prevention specialists and peer recovery support personnel who have regular and substantial contact with minors, and it allows the Division to impose penalties for noncompliance.
AB60 also changes the duties of certified substance use disorder prevention coalitions. Those coalitions, which the Division uses as primary local and regional prevention entities, must employ or contract with certified prevention specialists as needed to carry out coalition functions such as advising the state, convening stakeholders, coordinating prevention efforts, and reporting on regional needs and outcomes. The bill further makes conforming amendments across multiple chapters of Nevada law so that the new credential is recognized consistently in licensing, disciplinary, and exemption provisions.
The bill’s impact on state law is to formalize prevention work as a regulated behavioral health credential and to broaden oversight of people working in prevention and peer recovery settings, especially where minors are involved. It creates new certification and enforcement authority, updates mandatory reporter lists, and imposes new staffing expectations on prevention coalitions. It also includes transition provisions for the shift from Nevada Certification Board certification to Division certification if that change occurs, and it repeals an obsolete statutory definition.
The available voting history suggests the bill was broadly supported and not especially controversial in final passage, clearing the Assembly 41-1 and the Senate 21-0. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to identify specific objections. Based on the bill’s structure, any likely points of contention would center on the new certification mandate, expanded reporting obligations, and the added compliance burden on employers and prevention coalitions, but the final votes indicate little visible opposition.
AB60 amends multiple provisions of Nevada law in Chapter 433 and related statutes to create and regulate a new certified prevention specialist credential, extend mandatory reporting and child-safety screening requirements to that role, and align it with existing peer recovery support specialist rules. It also requires substance use disorder prevention coalitions to use certified prevention specialists and updates exemptions from other behavioral health licensing chapters so the new credential is recognized consistently across state law.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall. It passed the Assembly 41-1 and the Senate 21-0, indicating strong bipartisan support and little visible opposition at final passage. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no detailed record of debate, but the vote margins suggest the measure was viewed as a technical and policy-oriented strengthening of behavioral health prevention oversight rather than a highly divisive proposal.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials because there are no committee transcript excerpts. Based on the bill text, the most likely areas of concern would be the new certification requirement for prevention specialists, the expansion of mandatory reporting duties, the child-abuse screening and termination requirements for workers with contact with minors, and the administrative burden placed on prevention coalitions and employers. However, the near-unanimous final votes suggest these issues did not generate substantial opposition in the Legislature.