Bills: SB295, HB378

Keywords: SB295, Delaware, Title 24, aesthetician, aesthetics, cosmetology, barbering, electrology, nail technology, scope of practice, license display, apprentice permit, Board of Cosmetology and Barbering, microdermabrasion, microneedling, dermaplaning, chemical peel, exfoliation, lash extensions, brow tinting

Summary: The Senate Legislative Oversight Committee met in hybrid format, approved the minutes from its April 22 and May 13 meetings, and then heard two bills. HB 420 would modernize massage therapy licensure by allowing the Board of Massage and Bodywork to decide which coursework may be completed in a hybrid format and which must remain in person, while also removing outdated references to a license type the board no longer issues. The sponsor said the change would improve access for students who cannot easily travel or stop working, while preserving public protection through board rules. Public testimony on HB 420 was entirely supportive. Robert Overmiller spoke in favor, and Mackenzie Francis of Alpha School of Massage also supported the bill, citing workforce growth in massage therapy and arguing that hybrid education would expand access, especially for students entering the field later in life. No committee questions or objections were raised. The committee then discussed HB 378, which would continue the Council of Corrections’ partnership with the Criminal Justice Council and avoid the sunset of that arrangement in 2026. Members noted the bill stemmed from a prior Joint Legislative Oversight effort to provide the council with staff support and training. Robert Overmiller again testified in support, and there was no opposition or further public comment. The meeting concluded after discussion of the two bills, with no votes recorded in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes microneedling, medical-grade chemical peels, and more.

Summary: The joint Assembly and Senate Business and Professions sunset oversight hearing focused first on the Board of Registered Nursing (BRN), with committee chairs emphasizing oversight, consumer protection, workforce access, and economic mobility. BRN leaders reported improvements since the last review, including faster licensing timelines, streamlined enforcement, higher consumer satisfaction, growth in pre-licensure enrollment, and expanded data collection. Members questioned the board about nurse practitioner scope and supervision, international and military pathways to licensure, online nursing education and clinical requirements, rural workforce shortages, and the 30-unit LVN-to-RN option. BRN staff explained California’s tiered advanced practice system, the NCLEX and certification requirements, English proficiency rules, clinical hour standards, and the board’s role in approving programs and supporting schools through nursing education consultants. Several members and the board president also discussed the need to retain new graduates, improve diversity in the workforce, and better support nontraditional students and rural placements. Public comment on the BRN sunset review was extensive and largely supportive of the board, while also urging policy changes. Nurse practitioner, nurse anesthetist, nurse midwife, and nursing education groups generally supported the BRN report and especially backed clarification of APRN-to-RN delegation authority under issue 13. Other commenters asked for clearer implementation of AB 890, more flexibility for clinical nurse specialists, streamlined renewals for nurse midwives, and changes to federal loan limits affecting graduate nursing education. Higher education representatives and private nursing schools raised concerns about duplicative BRN documentation, clinical placement bottlenecks, and barriers faced by out-of-state and online programs seeking to serve California students. The California Medical Association and some physician groups opposed easing transition-to-practice requirements for out-of-state nurse practitioners and cautioned against changes to specialty and delegation rules, while the California Nurses Association and others stressed the importance of community college pathways, new graduate support, and workforce retention. The hearing then moved to the Physical Therapy Board of California. Board leadership reported that the board oversees more than 41,000 active licensees, has seen about 15% growth since 2021, and continues to maintain high exam pass rates among California physical therapy and physical therapist assistant programs. The board described its mission as consumer protection through licensing, enforcement, continuing competency oversight, and stakeholder engagement. The vice president’s remote testimony encountered technical problems, so the executive officer continued with a brief overview of the board’s work and its commitment to efficient service and public protection. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.