Ohio Senate Health Committee - 4-15-2026

Chairman Huffman. Here. Vice Chair Johnson. Here. Ranking Member Liston. Senator Ingram. Here. Senator Manchester. Senator Rogner. Here. Senator Romachuk. A quorum will act as a committee. I'll ask the committee members to look over the minutes

Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member Liston, and members of the Senate Health Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on Senate Bill 385. This legislation aims to establish licensure and regulatory standards for naturopathic doctors in Ohio. Naturopathic medicine merges modern science and natural therapies to support the body's inherent ability to heal. Naturopathic doctors are trained health care professionals who specialize in disease prevention and long-term wellness. They provide personalized primary care for people of all ages and sexes. The overall goal of the bill is to create a regulatory framework for naturopathic medicine to protect patient safety, set educational and clinical standards, and establish a licensure pathway for qualified practitioners. This bill defines scope of practice for licensed naturopathic doctors, minimum education and clinical training requirements, examination and licensure processes, continuing education, disciplinary and consumer protection mechanisms, transition provisions for currently practicing naturopathic professionals, and fits within the framework already established for MDs and DOs. A quick summary of the bill includes the following. It prohibits an individual from representing himself as a licensed practitioner of naturopathic medicine, unless indeed the individual is licensed by the state medical board, establishes a criminal penalty for violating that prohibition, creates licensing requirements for the practice of naturopathic medicine, and requires the state medical board to regulate the licensing of naturopathic medicine. Establishes services and individual license to practice naturopathic medicine can and cannot perform. Outlines circumstances in which the state medical board may limit, revoke, suspend, or refuse to issue, renew, or reinstate a license. Does not allow for prescriptive privileges and does not in any way advance the scope of practice for naturopathic physicians. This is not an increase of scope bill. The intent of this legislation is to further legitimize the practice of naturopathic medicine within Ohio, as is already the case in 26 other states and territories. Many naturopathic doctors already operate within the state without accreditation, despite fulfilling the education and training requirements. This will bring NDs, naturopathic doctors, in line with their MD and DO colleagues, while simultaneously filling gaps in access to care, especially for our more rural regions throughout the state Through recognized certification naturopathic doctors will be able to operate to the extent of their scope and training while also ensuring patient safety and care. Certification sets the standards for medical practice across the state. This is the case for all health care professionals already. This legislation does not criminalize those who practice more holistic or traditional forms of naturopathy, but they will no longer be able to advertise themselves as licensed medical providers or board certified unless indeed they have that license or that proper accreditation. A lot of work has gone into this bill already, and we are certainly anticipating that more work will need to be done as we continue to work with our interested parties and the state medical board on refining the language and regulatory framework, and it has not been an easy task.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question in regard to what the naturopathic people do now. because it's as if they're doing something to somebody and acting as if it's legitimate, and it's not. And so there is no naturopathic doctor licensure certification in the state of Ohio now. I'm asking.

there is no licensing process. That's what we're seeking to do. However, naturopathic doctors work all over the place. Many have had a great deal of training and have been accredited and certified by national boards in other states and others who just don't want to go that path. So we kind of have two different groups. We have those folks that are seeking licensure and accreditation, and we have those folks that really don't want any part of that. and they're more traditional naturopaths and holistic people doing their own thing. And the training varies incredibly widely on that. They can have a good bit of education, and there might be a pathway forward for them to get licensure with the education they have. And there are other things that aren't as formal, like things you can get online and courses you can go to. And then the bulk of their practice or someone teaching it to them, things like that. Places like the Cleveland Clinic do have naturopaths on staff, I believe. And throughout our state, we have people who are offering this as an alternative form of therapy, using natural things, and things that aren't like, you know, from Eli Lilly or Pfizer, you know, pills or different things that you can go to the physical therapist and get, or you can go to the doctor's office and get.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So there are people doing holistic medicine, and they are already in use, which I thought I knew, but maybe after we're doing this, I thought maybe I was wrong. So will those people who are already practicing and have been practicing holistic or naturopathic medicine for periods of time will they be grandfathered in in any way as to this accreditation or will it be they have to go take additional classes or something of that nature

that is sort of what might happen. This bill does not aim to stop anybody from doing what they're doing. it seeks to categorize and license and establish training standards for that licensure. And if you look at MDs and DOs, a lot of folks think, well, they have a medical board, they have a pharmacy board, and those things are to take care of doctors. It's just the opposite. It's for patient safety that we're regulated that way, and they can be quite harsh if someone steps out of line. So for the legitimate practice of medicine, whatever it is, there needs to be some oversight to make sure that the public is being protected. So proper licensure of people who have been highly trained and accreditation standards for a legitimate form of medical practice should be the standard. Mr. Chair, so there is a, we will be grandfathering some persons in.

You would either pursue licensure through proper accreditation as it will be established, or you would continue to do the other but not represent yourself as a naturopathic physician that's licensed and accredited. It doesn't say that.

Okay.

All right.

Chairman, I think you're right on the money with that, absolutely. and the degree of training varies as widely as anything I've ever seen as far as people practicing. And again, the intent is not to delegitimize folks that are stepping up and doing holistic medicine of various types if they have people that want to do that. This bill doesn't address that. It really just does what I stated before. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much.

Sorry to surprise you. No, no, it's good. We're ready. Chair Huffman, Vice Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Liston, and members of the Senate Health Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on Senate Bill 354, which upon enactment would join Ohio to the Interstate Podiatric Medical Licensure Compact. At its core, Senate Bill 354 would enact the Interstate Podiatric Medical Licensure Compact and allow Ohio to join other participating states in creating a more efficient pathway for licensure. Because this committee has already considered and passed numerous interstate compacts, I will briefly summarize how this compact operates. But before I do, I would like to mention that there will be an amendment forthcoming at a future hearing that does correct some typos and incorrect references in the model language itself, conforming the bill to updated compact model language from the Federation of Podiatric Medical Boards. And I'd like to thank Senator Liston and her staff, as well as Nat Petroski from the Minority Caucus, for bringing the issues with the model language to the compact leader's attention and for drafting the amendment. Like other licensure compacts, this legislation functions as a contract between states. It does not create a national license, and it does not override Ohio law. Instead, each state retains full authority over licensure, regulation, and discipline within its borders. The compact simply creates an additional expedited pathway for qualified professionals to obtain licenses in multiple states. As of today, five states, including Ohio, have introduced the IPMLC language, with other four being Iowa, Arizona, Florida, and Maryland. This compact is unique from the other compacts, needing only four states to form the compact commission. As you recall, all the other compacts that went before this were seven states. It also establishes a coordinated system for information sharing among the states, ensuring that disciplinary actions and investigations are communicated efficiently. This maintains oversight while reducing administrative burdens that slow the licensure process for podiatrists seeking to practice in another state. Currently, podiatric physicians are not covered under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact. That was a compact that we passed several years ago for doctors, which serves allopathic MDs and osteopathic DO physicians. As a result, despite performing highly specialized and often essential care, podiatric professionals do not have the access to the same streamlined, multi-state licensure pathway as their health care counterparts. In response, national stakeholders developed a profession-specific solution. While the Council of State Governments and the Department of Defense did not directly develop this compact due to the relatively small size of the podiatric profession, experienced professionals who have worked on other interstate compacts were engaged to create the model legislation. This effort was led by the Federation of Podiatric Medical Boards in collaboration with licensing boards and stakeholders across the country. The results is a carefully constructed compact that reflects proven frameworks while addressing the unique needs of podiatric medicine. The need for this legislation is driven by changes in health care delivery and workforce demands. Podiatric medicine plays a critical role in treating conditions such as diabetes, mobility impairments, and lower extremity injuries. Yet, under the current system, barriers to multi-state licensure can limit access to care, particularly in rural and underserved communities. By improving license portability, the compact allows providers to respond more efficiently to patient needs, including through telemedicine and cross-state practice. This proposal also has strong support from both providers and patients. Podiatric physicians benefit from reduced costs, faster licensure, and particularly those military families who frequently relocate and must navigate new state licensing requirements. By streamlining multi-state licensure, the compact reduces career disruption and allows military spouses and service members who are podiatrists to continue practicing without necessary delay. Hospitals and health care systems gain greater flexibility in recruiting and retaining qualified professionals. Most importantly, patients benefit from expanded access to specialized care and improved continuity of treatment. In closing, Senate Bill 354 builds on a model that this committee knows well. It reduces unnecessary barriers, modernizes licensure, and expands access to care, all while preserving Ohio's regulatory authority. It is a practical step forward that benefits providers, strengthens our health care system, and most importantly, serves patients across our state. I appreciate you taking the time to hear this sponsor testimony this morning and would appreciate any questions the committee might have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to know, how many podiatrists have come to Ohio with a license from some other state and not been able to practice?

How about this?

Thank you.

And that's interesting.

I guess maybe my concern, Mr. Chair, is that when we talk about going to areas that are underserved, there's no way you can dictate where those people go to once they get that compact licensure. And because they have the compact licensure, the question becomes, are they coming to Ohio to practice or do they have the compact licensure so that they can practice anywhere else? The other compacts have required seven states. So are they also practicing in all the other six states other than Ohio? Because they have the compact, are they coming to Ohio to practice? Which makes a difference. You can get the compact licensure, so what? If you're not coming to Ohio to practice, then all we've done is we've allowed people to practice everywhere else. I'm not against any of the compacts. I just think it's important for us to pay attention to the fact that it's not always bringing people to service those folks who have been underserved.

But you're right. You can't make them go to rural areas or places that are underserved. And were there already people that had their license and they just got the compact license? Were they already practicing and then they just went and got the compact license?

No, don't worry.

I love it.

Right.

It really does.

That's right. Thanks. Thank you.

This is great.

Thank you, Senator.

Through the chair one of the things within podiatry is I kind of look into scope There seems to be a pretty large difference in states in terms of what podiatrist scope is defined as whether it includes ankles, whether it includes toes, whether there are specific hand diseases, and then some variability in terms of which board licensed them, whether it's a medical board or a specific podiatric board. And I guess, do you anticipate that causing any difficulty or challenges within the compact process or for Ohio as we think about a podiatrist coming with a slightly different scope experience into the state?

Toes. Some places they are now at your toes versus ankles.

I mean, that would be medical malpractice, and I would think if they're not trained, they should not be operating on such elements. Although, I don't know, it's not necessarily training.

How are those challenges resolved? And I guess the answer that I'm hearing from you and I want to make sure is that really it's in Ohio they have to stay within that scope. If it's broader, one would hope that they simply don't do the thing that they're not, haven't been doing, even if they originally had training in it.

Yeah. Thank you.

Dr. Reta Mahdi, Ohio Radiological Society. Chairman Huffman, Vice Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Liston, and members of the Senate Health Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 479 to modernized contrast administration and supervision in medical imaging. My name is Dr. Rekha Mahdi. I'm a fellowship-trained abdominal imager at Cleveland Clinic and have been in practice as a subspecialty radiologist for nearly 14 years. I currently also serve as the Director of Quality and Safety Department of Imaging Diagnostics Institute, where I lead enterprise-wide safety and quality efforts with a particular focus on contrast safety, regulatory compliance, safety event review, systems-level learning, and initiatives to improve diagnostic accuracy and deliver high-reliability care. While I am here today on behalf of the Ohio Radiological Society, I am pleased to share that Cleveland Clinic is also a strong proponent of House Bill 479. House Bill 479 modernizes contrast supervision requirements and brings Ohio into alignment with current federal policy The American College of Radiology or ACR updated its policy and contrast administration in 2024 to align with changes from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS, which allow greater flexibility in physician supervision for certain contrast procedures under general supervision, meaning the physician may be offsite, but immediately available. This approach was designed to provide greater flexibility for imaging facilities while maintaining patient safety by ensuring that a trained individual is present onsite to recognize adverse reactions, initiate immediate treatment, and activate emergency response when needed. Currently, Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3701-83-52 requires onsite or direct supervision by a physician in freestanding diagnostic imaging centers. The goal of House Bill 479 is to align through trained onsite personnel and established protocols. In addition, national guidance from the American College of Radiology, including the ACR Manual on Contrast Media, supports a systems-based approach to contrast safety. This emphasizes standardized protocols, team-based care, and immediate availability of trained personnel and emergency medications, rather than requiring a physician to be physically present in all cases. Contrast-enhanced imaging is essential to modern medicine. For example, in abdominal imaging, contrast-enhanced CT and MRI are essential for detecting and characterizing cancers, evaluating organ function, and guiding treatment decisions, and many cases directly determines diagnosis and next steps in care. From a safety standpoint, contrast administration is very well established and highly regulated. Severe reactions are rare, and when reactions occur, they are often mild and self-limited. The key to patient safety is immediate availability of trained personnel, standardized protocols, and the ability to rapidly recognize and treat reactions, including prompt administration of first-line therapies such as epinephrine when indicated. This team-based protocol-driven approach is already the standard across most high reliability health systems. For example, at Cleveland Clinic, we have implemented enterprise-wide training, simulation-based education, and standardized barriers to care, particularly in outpatient and community settings. These constraints can delay or limit access to needed imaging without improving safety. House Bill 479 removes these barriers while preserving appropriate safeguards, allowing patients to receive timely, high-quality imaging closer to home. This is especially important in the context of increasing demand for advanced imaging and ongoing workforce constraints in radiology. Enabling appropriate remote supervision allows us to use our clinical resources more effectively while maintaining the same high safety standards. In summary, this bill modernizes regulations, aligns with federal policy and national professional safety standards and supports our safe and efficient team-based care and improves access to essential diagnostic imaging for patients across Ohio. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. Thank you to Representative Schmidt for introducing this important bill and to you, Chairman, for holding hearings. I am happy to answer any questions at this time.

A couple. So the probability today, compared to 20 or 30 years ago,

Severe reaction, 1 in 10,000, yeah, very low.

My other question, so the Cleveland Clinic has a number of MRI centers around this. They've got four here in Columbus, one in Dayton, three in Youngstown, and starting to build some around. Now, under the current law, they have to have a doctor on site.

And so this, what does this bill do in the sense of that doctor?

All right. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your time today.

That will end the second hearing on 479. Next up, the second hearing on House Bill 162, an act of my child, my chart act. First up, proponent Katie DeLand.

Any questions for the witness?

Through the Chair, Senator Ingram, I think that's much more reasonable. Age 12 is arbitrary. I'm not sure where they even got that from. 18 is, you know, they are their own adults at that point, So I would be fine with the proxy access starting at age 18.

Through the chair, Senator Ingram. I mean, in my realistic common sense world, as long as you're paying for your child's insurance, you should have access to their records. But age 18, to give them proxy access, I mean, what I will do, actually, Sam turned 18 last month. And so I think the understanding with him would be if you don't give me proxy access or if you're going to guard me on some of this, you can be on your own. And your lawn mowing job two hours a day on the Saturday is not going to cut that. So I think that's just a conversation to have with your child, but at 18, they are a legal adult. I think that's a much more reasonable and common sense approach to this.

Yes, through the chair. I agree.

One real quick. I think the proxy over 18 is difficult because how is the hospital supposed to know that you're paying for the insurance or you're not paying for it?

And I don't think you've been able to do an evaluation of all the systems, but this isn't an isolated to Premier Health. Every hospital has a different policy, and you're trying to get it a little bit more unified, correct?

Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much.

All right. Next up, Lisa Breedlove-Chaffee, Parents' Rights in Education.

Any questions for the witness? Seeing none, thank you very much.

Next up, Jocelyn Pethtel.

As a parent of four school-aged children, I have personally experienced the frustrations that stem from the lack of access to my children's crucial health information. Recently, August of 2023, we encountered a particularly troubling circumstance that solidified my support for this legislation. My daughter, who is with me here today, had a scheduled video conference call with her surgeon right before she was to undergo a major surgery on her ankle. unfortunately I was unable to access the link for the appointment because we could not access her health portal which we did not know existed this oversight not only caused us significant stress right before an already stressful procedure but it also resulted in her missing valuable classroom time at school because I had to pull her out of class to try to access her portal and gain access to that video link that we needed The obstacles in accessing our children's health information not only disrupt their education and their wellbeing, but it also hinders parental involvement in their healthcare. The My Child, My Chart bill aims to empower parents with the ability to easily access their children's medical records, ensuring they are better equipped to manage appointments, treatments, and contribute to their health decisions. I felt that health organizations need to be held to a higher standard. This fiasco could have been avoided if we had been properly informed of the fact that my access was going to be restricted without proper consent from my child. I was told over the phone during this ordeal that the video link was sent to my child's chart, which I had just had access to, and then all of a sudden her information was just gone from my access. she didn't even know she had a MyChart. We couldn't access her chart because she didn't even have access to her own chart. There was no email on file or anything for her to be able to access her own medical records. This could have been avoided if there had been transparency and proper education regarding the changes in the MyChart restrictions. By investing in the accessibility of pediatric health information, we are prioritizing the health and productivity of our children, as well as supporting families during critical times when timely access to health data may make all the difference. Please ensure that all health facilities are being transparent and informing both the parent and the child of these changes being implemented to our access of vital health information. Thank you so much for considering the importance of my perspective as you deliberate on this vital piece of legislation. I urge you to support House Bill 162 for the sake of countless families who share similar struggles. Thank you so much for your attention to this matter. I accept any questions at this time.

Through the chair, thank you for coming up and testifying. Thank you for coming with your mom. One of the things in this bill is that it makes sure that parents know when, well, obviously when this will happen, but also in what circumstances the information might otherwise be privileged for the minor, right? The circumstances where a young person would come and have more confidential conversations with a health care provider. One of the things I've been thinking about is adding to that that the minor should know, so that there's a conversation between both of you. And I guess I just wanted to get your thoughts on adding the sort of the parent and the minor are informed each year about what that looks like.

Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much.

I'll make note that there's written testimony on your iPads from Meredith Friedhoff, Ohio woman lead right. And that will end our second hearing on Senate Bill 162. Next up, the first hearing on Senate Bill 375, Manning and Huffman allowing physicians with revoked license to apply for reinstatement. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. And for clarification, Senator Manning, there was no drugs involved, no drug abuse or prescribing. There was falsification of research is basically what happened. And there was no harm to any patients or anything like that. He falsified and showed great remorse that he did that. And this doesn't guarantee somebody after five years gets their license back. It just gives the board the ability to petition the board, pay a fee for the further investigation. They can look at what he's done, what he hasn't done in those five years to get his license back, and then they can make their decision. They can make their decision, this guy is still qualified to practice in the state. And they may put some qualifications. You can't do this or you have to report to the board so many times or do anything like that. So there's no guarantee. It's just giving people an opportunity just like we do in the criminal justice system once they've been convicted of something to get their life back. And with that, we'll take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just, because it says on here, to be eligible for reinstatement, an applicant must demonstrate to the board that the applicant has met the following conditions, and one of which has been treated for an underlying mental or physical illness by a provider recognized in the accordance with the law, governing physician licensure, but only if the mental or physical illness was the grounds for the replication. So if it had been a drug abuse case, then they would have had to have gone through some kind of rehabilitation or something, and then that would be one of the checks that they'd have to be able to be reinstated. Okay. So there are already some things here that say if you do these things, it doesn't guarantee that you get your license back. But if you do these things, you could... You'll be considered. Okay. You'll be considered. Then they'll take that and say, hey, look, maybe they have an alcohol problem, and in that five years, they went back to rehab four times. Well, if I'm sitting on the board, I would say, you know, you probably don't qualify. But if they go through a program and they stay sober for the last four years, I think it's something to consider for the board.

And don't worry. They're not scary people up here. We're all right. I'm a 66-year-old, and I've been healthy all my life. I grew up on one of the largest apple farms in the state of Ohio called Grand River Orchards. And I ate an apple a day, and it worked. I was healthy. In 2020, I received the COVID vaccine from Johnson & Johnson, the Jensen, and only one vaccine. After about six months of receiving that, I started having diarrhea, and it continuously got worse and worse and worse, to the point where I was almost homebound, bedbound, bathroom bound, I went to the doctor, and they put me on budesonide, which is a steroid, and knowing I'm allergic to steroids. And I did three weeks of that. Then they sent me to a colonoscopy, and I aspirated during the colonoscopy more than once. They continued the colonoscopy. threw me in my room, told me, go home, you'll be better. And in that colonoscopy afterwards, I started vomiting at home, had to go to the emergency room, had to be admitted and given drugs to help me stop vomiting from the colonoscopy. Then the diarrhea didn't stop, so I went to my gastro, and he put me on another round of budesonide, which I'm allergic to. So I went through that, and after that it didn't stop, the diarrhea. I was still confined to my house. So by this time, when I started this after my jab in 2020, I weighed 145 to 150 pounds, depending on what I ate, and I was very active. I came home from my granddaughter's birthday party in October of 2024 up in Boston, and when I got off the plane, my husband looked at me and said, oh my God, I weighed 89 pounds. I took medicines, over-the-counter medicines, to help me be able to stay at my granddaughter's birthday party. So then I found out by ivermectin. I started doing research myself because we have Google and anybody can do anything and find anything. I found ivermectin and I went, I want that. My husband is an attorney and he found it for me out of the state of Florida, Boca Raton, all family pharmacy. And it's American made. It's in pill form. it's not a horse medicine. It's for human consumption. So I started taking it. I had to talk to a doctor on FaceTime because I couldn't get to Florida. Talked to him on FaceTime. He prescribed me 12 milligrams of ivermectin. I started taking it, and within three days, I stopped having diarrhea. I spent four years almost dying, and my doctors could not do anything for me. And when I asked them for ivermectin they looked at me like I was asking them for heroin And they still look down at me because I still on ivermectin I take ivermectin every single day I take 12 milligrams some days, and I take 24 milligrams on other days, depending on how I'm feeling. It has let me have my life back. I can travel. I can go to the grocery store. I can play with my granddaughter. I can run. I can go in a swimming pool. and I'm a happy camper now. And I think it should be allowed for any kind of situation. I know he's doing it, Senator Lang, for cancer, but I think that all of these problems in the human body are somewhat of a parasite, and the ivermectin is said for parasites, so it's helping me with my colitis. Stage 4 colitis, I was almost dead. I'm still alive. And so I'm still getting my ivermectin out of the state of Florida and spending $150 once a month down in the state of Florida instead of in the state of Ohio. And the people in Florida are not having diarrhea because they can get ivermectin. And I can't. I have to go down there. I have to get it from them. And I just don't understand when a medicine like ivermectin, which was founded in Japan in 1974 in soil, and it was brought to America, and it was made from avvermectin to ivermectin, and it stops diarrhea. And in fact, during the COVID, None of the people in Africa got COVID because they're all on ivermectin because they have so many parasites down there. But we, all around the rest of the world, got COVID because we weren't allowed to have ivermectin. And we weren't allowed to have any of the other medicines that were going to take care of this COVID. Now, I lived five years sick because doctors wouldn't give me ivermectin. So for Senator Lange and all the other people with cancer and diarrhea, colitis, Crohn's disease, anything, brain problems, anything, Ivermectin should be allowed to be prescribed and also not having our doctors look at us like we're insane because we want it. Thank you.

I just have one. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Regarding the reporting responsibility of the pharmacist who would be dispensing, the bill says they still have to report back to your primary doctor that you've gotten the ivermectin. So does that seem to be a problem?

to report back to the primary care physician that this person has come in and gotten the ivermectin. if they dispense it. And so because We want this to be a continuum of care. We don't want the pharmacist doing something without the doctor knowing.

So for clarification, this bill would say you don't need a prescription. There would be a protocol with your pharmacist. Okay. And if you didn't have a doctor, or if you don't have a prescription, the pharmacist would then relay the information back to your doctor and say I dispensed ivernectin to your patient Okay As a patient are you okay with that that we telling your doctor that we

Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony today. That will end our second hearing on Senate Bill 249. And having nothing else on the agenda today, Health Academy will be adjourned.