To amend sections 109.572, 4731.07, 4731.071, 4731.224, 4731.2210, 4731.24, 4731.25, 4731.251, 4776.01, and 4776.20 and to enact sections 4789.02, 4789.03, 4789.04, 4789.05, 4789.06, 4789.07, 4789.08, 4789.09, 4789.10, 4789.11, 4789.12, and 4789.99 of the Revised Code to license and regulate the practice of naturopathic medicine.
SB385 creates a new licensing and regulatory framework for naturopathic medicine in Ohio. It makes it unlawful for a person to practice or hold themselves out as a naturopathic physician, naturopathic doctor, naturopath, or similar title without a state medical board license, and it assigns the State Medical Board responsibility for administering the new chapter. The bill sets eligibility standards for licensure, including age, education from an approved naturopathic program, passage of a national naturopathic exam, good moral and professional character, and compliance with criminal records check requirements. It also establishes application, renewal, reinstatement, and restoration procedures, along with fees, continuing education requirements, and reciprocity/endorsement pathways for out-of-state practitioners.
The bill defines the scope of practice for licensed naturopathic medicine, allowing certain diagnostic testing, diagnostic imaging, and a broad list of naturopathic devices, substances, and therapies such as vitamins, botanicals, homeopathic medicines, hydrotherapy, therapeutic exercise, and musculoskeletal manipulation. At the same time, it expressly prohibits prescription drugs, surgery beyond minor superficial care, and practice as other licensed health professionals. The bill also creates disciplinary authority, including summary suspension, probation, permanent revocation in serious cases, and reporting obligations for facilities, insurers, and practitioners. It adds criminal penalties for unlicensed practice and ties naturopathic licenses into existing state systems for criminal background checks, child and adult care screening, and license suspension for trafficking in persons convictions.
The bill’s impact on state law is substantial because it adds an entirely new occupational licensing chapter, Chapter 4789, and amends multiple existing statutes to incorporate naturopathic medicine into the State Medical Board’s oversight structure. It extends the board’s recordkeeping, public directory, impairment-monitoring, disciplinary, and criminal-record-check provisions to naturopathic licensees, and it makes naturopathic practitioners subject to the same general enforcement and administrative processes used for other health professions regulated by the board. It also creates a new fifth-degree felony for a first violation of the unlicensed-practice prohibition, with a fourth-degree felony for subsequent violations.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and available context is regulatory and protective rather than adversarial: the bill is designed to formalize an existing practice area, set minimum qualifications, and create public-safety guardrails. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided context, there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition. The structure of the bill suggests an effort to legitimize naturopathic practice while placing it under a conventional licensing and discipline regime.
The main points of contention likely center on scope of practice and professional oversight. Supporters of naturopathic licensure would likely favor the bill as a pathway to recognition, consumer transparency, and standardized qualifications. Potential critics may focus on the breadth of permitted therapies, especially the inclusion of homeopathic and botanical treatments, and on whether the bill allows naturopaths to perform procedures or use modalities that overlap with medicine, nursing, chiropractic, or other licensed professions. Another possible concern is the State Medical Board’s role in regulating a profession that some may view as outside traditional medical practice, as well as the bill’s criminal penalties for unlicensed practice and its use of broad disciplinary authority.
SB385 would add a new Chapter 4789 to the Revised Code, creating a state licensing scheme for naturopathic medicine and expanding the State Medical Board’s jurisdiction to include naturopathic practitioners. It amends several existing statutes governing criminal background checks, board records and directories, impairment monitoring, disciplinary reporting, and license verification so that naturopathic licensees are treated similarly to other board-regulated health professionals. It also establishes criminal penalties for unlicensed practice and makes naturopathic licenses subject to suspension, renewal, restoration, and discipline under the new chapter.
No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded public debate to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and professional-regulation bill: it legalizes and formalizes naturopathic practice while imposing licensing standards, oversight, and disciplinary controls. The overall tone is affirmative toward creating a regulated pathway, rather than restrictive or hostile toward the profession.
The likely areas of contention are the scope of practice granted to naturopathic licensees and the decision to place the profession under the State Medical Board. Supporters would likely argue that licensure improves patient safety, clarifies qualifications, and prevents unlicensed practice. Opponents may question whether the bill authorizes therapies and procedures that overlap with or resemble medical practice, whether some modalities are sufficiently evidence-based, and whether the board’s disciplinary and enforcement powers are too broad for a profession that is not conventional medicine. The criminal penalties for unlicensed practice and the board’s authority to limit or suspend licenses in impairment or misconduct cases could also draw scrutiny.