MSHA members in action.

SLPA Draft Bill

Hello MSHA members!

We are fast approaching our Fall Convention. Here is the final proposal  SLPA bill draft for the licensure board meeting on 10/17/18. Click on the link to access the whole document.

The following are comments received by MSHA following the email blast and posting of the Assistant Draft Bill.  The responses are not from the MT Board of Speech-Language Pathologists & Audiologists, but will be sent to them.  Please continue to send your comments and questions on this topic to MSHA.

Thank you, Lezlie Pearce-Hopper, 2018 MSHA President

“Who will be carrying the bill?”

Moffie Funk

“Change bill title to SLPA and AuDA Licensure Bill”

The title is prescribed by legislative drafting manual

“I have a question regarding the telemedicine component.  Can you specify the requirements of a “facilitator?”  I’m thinking specifically of clients who participate in telemedicine due to travel restrictions or remote locations.  I may have read it wrong.  The document is not suggesting that these clients would need to find a licensed “facilitator” to supervise their sessions on site, correct?”

The bill makes no changes to telemedicine.

“The biggest thing I noticed was that you could just repeal all of section 7 which talks about registration. Once the license is created this becomes obsolete as the “registration” was the minimal authority granted to board as opposed licensing. If assistants are licensed then they would fall under normal renewal statutes. Registration ceases to exist.”

I agree with this.  We could repeal registration.

“What are the anticipated requirements for SLPA?  What would the testing entail?”

That would be set by rulemaking by the board.  Statute is not the appropriate place to put this, as requirements may change as the profession develops, and we don’t want to have to go back to the legislature every time we need to change the licensing and testing requirements.  Most other professions are governed by rule setting testing and licensure requirements.

 “I’m not sure that the term “non-medical diagnosis” is appropriate in the description of what SLPs and AuDs may diagnose.  For example, dysphagia, and receptive or expressive aphasia are commonly used in the medical setting and are appropriately diagnosed by a speech-language pathologist.

I supervise a very excellent speech aide.  Is the board giving consideration to a grandfather clause for already established speech aides?”

This would be a better question for the board.