Pennsylvania House Bill HB2070

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/3/25
• Refer: 12/3/25

Caption

Further providing for definitions, for training and license required and exceptions and for physical therapist assistant, education and examination, scope of duties and certification.

Summary

HB2070 would amend Pennsylvania’s Physical Therapy Practice Act to expand and clarify the scope of physical therapy by adding a statutory definition of “dry needling” and expressly including it within the definition of physical therapy. The bill defines dry needling as a physical intervention using a filiform needle to stimulate trigger points and to diagnose and treat neuromuscular pain and functional movement deficits, while making clear that it does not include acupuncture or stimulation of auricular or other points associated with oriental medicine. The bill also adds a licensing safeguard by requiring a licensed physical therapist to complete a board-approved dry needling certification program before performing dry needling. In addition, it revises the rules for physical therapist assistants to state that they may not perform evaluation, testing, dry needling, interpretation, planning, or modification of patient programs, reinforcing that those functions remain with the licensed physical therapist. The bill would take effect 60 days after enactment.

Impact

HB2070 would amend the Physical Therapy Practice Act by broadening the statutory description of physical therapy and by creating an explicit legal framework for dry needling in Pennsylvania. It would affect licensed physical therapists by conditioning their ability to perform dry needling on completion of an approved certification program, and it would limit physical therapist assistants by expressly excluding dry needling and other higher-level clinical functions from their scope of practice. The bill also helps distinguish physical therapy dry needling from acupuncture under the Acupuncture Licensure Act, reducing overlap between the two regulated professions.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a professional licensure and scope-of-practice clarification rather than a controversial policy change, with an emphasis on defining training requirements and protecting patient safety through certification and supervision rules.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is scope of practice: physical therapists may support the bill as a way to formally authorize and standardize dry needling, while acupuncture practitioners or others concerned about professional boundaries may object to the expansion or clarification of what physical therapists can do. Another likely issue is the certification requirement itself, which could be viewed as a necessary safety measure by supporters but as an added regulatory burden by some practitioners. The explicit exclusion of acupuncture-related techniques suggests the bill is also intended to avoid conflict with the Acupuncture Licensure Act and related professional licensing boundaries.