Tennessee House Bill HB1917

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Refer: 2/4/26
• Refer: 3/25/26
• Refer: 3/31/26
• Refer: 4/6/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8; Title 33; Title 36; Title 49; Title 52; Title 56; Title 63 and Title 68, relative to professional counselors.

Impact

If enacted, HB1917 would significantly impact state laws governing the practice of counseling. It introduces a tiered licensure system that distinguishes between limited practice and fully licensed counselors. This change is projected to create clearer pathways for professionals entering the field, ensuring that licensing aligns with the practitioners' education and experience levels. Furthermore, it restructures existing statutes to include revised definitions and requirements for counseling licensure and practice.

Summary

House Bill 1917 proposes amendments to the Tennessee Code Annotated concerning professional counselors. The bill introduces the designation of 'limited practice professional counselor' alongside the established 'licensed professional counselor.' This aims to clarify the qualifications and scopes of practice for counselors operating within the state, specifically addressing the educational and supervisory experience required for licensure. The introduction of this classification is intended to facilitate a more structured and defined regulation of counseling practices in Tennessee.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB1917 appears to be supportive among those advocating for a more organized and coherent regulatory framework for the counseling profession. Many stakeholders believe that defining the roles and responsibilities of different tiers of practitioners will lead to improved service delivery in mental health care. However, there may also exist concerns regarding the implications of tiered practice on service availability for communities, particularly in rural areas where access to mental health professionals is already limited.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise from the potential implications for current practitioners who fall under the existing licensure framework. Some may face challenges in transitioning to the new classifications or fear losing their ability to practice. Additionally, there could be debate about whether the new requirements adequately address the diverse needs of individuals seeking counseling services, especially in terms of accessibility. The bill’s effectiveness may hinge upon how it balances regulatory efficiency with the necessity of ensuring adequate mental health support for the public.