Tennessee House Bill HB1950

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Refer: 2/4/26
• Refer: 3/11/26
• Refer: 3/24/26
• Chaptered: 5/1/26
• Passed: 5/1/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63, Chapter 17, relative to professions of the healing arts.

Impact

The proposed amendments will have a considerable impact on state laws governing the practice of speech language pathology and audiology. By allowing individuals to work under a provisional license, it enhances opportunities for recent graduates and helps address gaps in service accessibility during the licensure process. Additionally, the bill removes the requirement for an American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA) certificate of clinical competence for eligibility of the provisional license, potentially broadening the pool of candidates eligible to practice.

Summary

House Bill 1950 aims to amend Tennessee Code Annotated relating to the professions of the healing arts, specifically focusing on the licensure requirements for speech language pathologists and audiologists. The bill proposes significant changes, particularly allowing for the issuance of provisional licenses to individuals who have completed their educational requirements but are awaiting full licensure. This would enable these individuals to practice in a supervised capacity while gaining the necessary clinical experience.

Sentiment

The general sentiment regarding HB 1950 appears to be supportive among stakeholders involved in the speech and audiology fields. Advocates suggest that these changes will facilitate quicker entry into the workforce for new graduates, thereby increasing the availability of services. However, while there may be support for easing some licensure restrictions, concerns about maintaining quality standards and ensuring appropriate supervision for provisional practitioners may exist among more skeptical members.

Contention

Notable points of contention may revolve around the balance between increasing accessibility to practice for new professionals and upholding rigorous professional standards. Critics of removing the ASHA certification requirement might argue that it could compromise the competency of those practicing under provisional licenses. Additionally, there could be discussions about the adequacy of supervision provided during the provisional period, as this is essential for the training and development of future licensed practitioners.