Pennsylvania House Bill HB1000

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 7/24/25
• Refer: 7/24/25

Caption

Further providing for definitions, for State Board of Psychology and for powers of the board; providing for prescription certificate, for prescribing and administrative practices and for controlled substances; and further providing for refusal, suspension or revocation of license, for reporting of multiple licensure and for penalties and injunctions against unlawful practice.

Summary

HB1000 would amend Pennsylvania’s Professional Psychologists Practice Act to create a new framework for “prescribing psychologists.” It expands the statutory definitions to include prescription certificates, prescriptive authority, psychotropic medication, collaborative relationships with primary care providers, and telemedicine. The bill also revises the definition of the practice of psychology and updates the State Board of Psychology’s membership and powers to account for psychologists who may prescribe medication. The bill establishes detailed qualifications for a prescription certificate, including a doctoral psychology license, a master’s degree in clinical psychopharmacology, specified coursework, supervised clinical practicum hours, a national certification exam, liability insurance, and continuing education. It authorizes prescribing psychologists to prescribe and administer psychotropic medication, order and review lab tests, and use telemedicine for these services, while prohibiting delegation of prescribing authority and generally barring narcotic prescribing except for certain FDA-approved opioid addiction treatments. It also requires ongoing coordination with a patient’s primary care provider and special procedures for minors under 14 if a guardian refuses to authorize contact with the primary care provider. The bill would also update enforcement and disciplinary provisions to cover prescription certificates and prescribing psychologists, including grounds for discipline, reporting of multiple licensure, civil penalties, and injunctions against unlawful practice. The State Board of Psychology would be required to promulgate implementing regulations within one year, and the substantive provisions would take effect 60 days after enactment. In practical terms, the measure would expand the scope of practice for a subset of licensed psychologists and create a new regulated pathway for medication prescribing within the psychology profession. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of formal debate or floor sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill’s sponsors and its structure, the measure appears to be a professional scope-of-practice expansion intended to increase access to mental health treatment, especially for psychotropic medication management. The overall sentiment in the available record is therefore best characterized as supportive or proactive, but not documented through discussion or voting history. The main points of contention likely concern patient safety, training standards, and professional boundaries. The bill’s supporters would likely emphasize expanded access to care, especially in underserved areas and for telemedicine-based treatment, while critics may question whether psychologists should be authorized to prescribe medication at all, whether the training requirements are sufficient, and whether the collaborative relationship requirement adequately protects patients. The restrictions on narcotics, the requirement for primary care coordination, and the board’s rulemaking authority appear designed to address those concerns.

Impact

HB1000 would amend the Professional Psychologists Practice Act to create a new licensure and certification structure for prescribing psychologists, expand the State Board of Psychology’s membership and regulatory authority, and add new disciplinary and enforcement provisions tied to prescriptive practice. It would affect licensed psychologists seeking prescriptive authority, the State Board of Psychology, primary care providers who must collaborate in patient care, and patients receiving psychotropic medications, including through telemedicine. The bill would also interact with Pennsylvania’s controlled substances framework by allowing limited prescribing of controlled substances only within the new certificate system and under board oversight.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. From the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to be framed positively as a mental health access and professional modernization bill, with an emphasis on regulated prescribing authority rather than unrestricted expansion. The available materials do not show recorded opposition or amendment debate.

Contention

The likely areas of contention are the scope of practice for psychologists, the adequacy of the education and supervised clinical experience required for prescribing authority, and the patient-safety implications of allowing non-physicians to prescribe psychotropic medication. Supporters would likely argue that the bill improves access to mental health treatment and creates a tightly regulated pathway with collaboration and training safeguards. Opponents or skeptics would likely focus on whether the board-approved training is enough, whether telemedicine prescribing is appropriate, and whether the primary care collaboration requirement is sufficient to protect patients, especially minors and those receiving controlled substances.