HB0996 would create a new statutory framework in Tennessee for “prescribing psychologists,” allowing certain doctoral-level psychologists to obtain state certification to prescribe psychotropic medications and other drugs within a limited mental and behavioral health scope. The bill defines both an initial certificate to prescribe, which would allow supervised prescribing, and an advanced certificate to prescribe, which would authorize independent prescriptive authority after additional education, examination, and supervised clinical experience. It also sets out training requirements, renewal requirements, recordkeeping duties, and limits on what prescribing psychologists may do.
The bill requires a psychologist seeking prescriptive authority to hold a doctoral-level psychology license, complete a post-doctoral master’s program in clinical psychopharmacology, pass a prescribing exam, and complete a supervised fellowship involving at least 100 patient evaluations. Prescribing psychologists would be limited to treating behavioral health, mental, nervous, substance abuse, emotional, or cognitive disorders, and would be prohibited from prescribing narcotic drugs or opiates, administering electroconvulsive therapy, or prescribing for patients not concurrently under the care of a physician or other primary care provider. The bill also directs the psychology board to adopt rules, coordinate with the board of pharmacy, and establish procedures for denial, suspension, revocation, and remediation.
In addition to creating the new certification system, the bill amends several other Tennessee Code provisions to recognize prescribing psychologists in areas involving controlled substances, pharmacy-related reporting, nursing and allied health practice, sleep medicine, and chiropractic-related provisions. It also makes conforming changes so that other licensed healthcare professionals may carry out orders issued by a psychologist or prescribing psychologist when those orders are within the scope of psychology. The act would take effect immediately for rulemaking purposes and on July 1, 2025, for all other purposes.
The general sentiment reflected in the available history is cautious and procedural rather than fully resolved on the merits. The only recorded vote shows the House Health Subcommittee deferring the bill to summer study by a 9-0 vote, which suggests interest in the concept but a desire for more review before advancing it. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor debate or detailed public discussion in the provided materials.
The main point of contention is the expansion of prescribing authority to psychologists, especially because the bill would allow limited independent prescribing after specialized training. Likely concerns include patient safety, overlap with physicians and other prescribers, the adequacy of training and supervision, and the scope of drugs that could be prescribed. Supporters would likely emphasize expanded access to mental health treatment, especially in underserved areas, while the bill’s restrictions on narcotics, opiates, and unsupervised prescribing appear designed to address those concerns.
HB0996 would amend Tennessee law to create a new licensure and certification pathway for prescribing psychologists and to integrate that role into multiple parts of the state’s health and controlled-substances statutes. It would affect Title 63 psychology licensing provisions, Title 39 controlled-substance definitions, Title 53 drug-related provisions, and additional sections touching nursing, sleep medicine, and chiropractic-related law. The bill would also require the psychology board and pharmacy board to coordinate on lists and status changes for authorized prescribers, and it would authorize rulemaking on training, renewal, discipline, and remediation.
The available legislative history suggests a neutral-to-cautious sentiment. The bill did not advance out of the House Health Subcommittee and instead was deferred to summer study by a unanimous 9-0 vote, indicating no recorded opposition at that stage but also no immediate consensus to enact the proposal. Because there are no committee transcripts in the record provided, the discussion appears limited to the procedural outcome rather than substantive debate.
The central controversy is whether psychologists should be granted prescriptive authority at all, and if so, how broad that authority should be. Potential critics are likely to focus on training standards, supervision, and whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe independently after the advanced certificate process. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill could improve access to behavioral health care, especially where psychiatric prescribers are scarce. The bill’s safeguards—such as limiting prescriptions to mental and behavioral health conditions, barring narcotics and opiates, and requiring concurrent care by a physician or primary care provider—appear aimed at addressing these concerns.