WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1950

Audiologists and Speech Pathologists - As introduced, removes requirement that persons seeking licensure as speech language pathologists be members of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. - Amends TCA Title 63, Chapter 17.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Iris Rudder

Tennessee bill removes mandatory ASHA membership requirement for speech-language pathologist licensure, potentially expanding the professional workforce while raising questions about quality standards.

Action def. in Health Committee to 3/24/2026
#audiologistsandspeechpathologists
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1950

Legislative bill overview

HB 1950 removes the mandatory requirement that speech-language pathologists in Tennessee hold membership in the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) as a condition for state licensure. The bill modifies Tennessee Code Annotated Title 63, Chapter 17, which governs licensing requirements for audiologists and speech pathologists.

Why is this important

This change affects who can practice speech-language pathology in Tennessee and could expand the pool of eligible professionals by removing a private membership requirement. It raises questions about professional standards, consumer protection, and whether ASHA membership is necessary to ensure quality care or simply creates a barrier to entry.

Potential points of contention

  • Professional standards debate: ASHA membership typically requires continuing education and ethical compliance; removing this requirement could lower professional standards or, alternatively, may be viewed as unnecessary gatekeeping that prevents qualified practitioners from working
  • Cost and access concerns: ASHA membership fees may deter qualified professionals from licensure; eliminating the requirement could reduce barriers for underserved populations but might also reduce accountability mechanisms
  • Consumer protection vs. market access: Supporters may argue mandatory association membership protects patients through oversight; opponents may contend it's anti-competitive and limits workforce availability without clear public benefit

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.