This report is a Regulatory Board Review which requires by law a determination of whether or not the Board is necessary for the protection of public health and safety. The finding of this report is that licensing the practice of speech-language pathology and audiology is necessary for public protection. In determining if there is a need for the Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, a primary consideration is whether the unregulated practice of the profession would clearly endanger the health and safety of the public. Table 1 identifies potential harm from improperly performed assessments and treatments.

The scope of practice for speech language pathologists and audiologists has been expanding. Since regulation was first enacted, new technologies have allowed for more specialized diagnosis and treatment, including invasive procedures. Approximately 75% of the individuals typically treated by speech-language pathologists and audiologists nationwide are under age 11 or aver age 65. Children and older persons may be more vulnerable to incompetent professionals they may encounter.

Nationwide, 47 states regulate the practice of audiology and 44 regulate speech pathology. All but three states regulate by licensure, as opposed to certification or registration. Other states have also examined the need for regulation of speech-language pathologists and audiologists. The findings are illustrated below:

• South Carolina determined that the Board should be continued. Termination of regulation of speech pathology and audiology would pose a threat to public health, safety and welfare.

 
• Hawaii determined that the practices of speech pathology and audiology require special skills and technical knowledge and that potential harm exists from incompetently performed assessments and/or treatment procedures....

Issue 2: The Board Is Complying with Applicable Laws and Rules.

The Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology has complied with applicable laws and rules. These laws and rules, primarily found within the Board's own article of Code and in the general provisions of Chapter 30, are important in the effective operation of a licensing board. The Board has complied with the following requirements:

• The Board is listed in the state government listing of the Charleston area telephone book;

 
• A representative of the Board has attended the orientation session provided by the State Auditor's Office;

 
• The Board meets at least once annually;

 
• The Board maintains a record of its proceedings;

 
• The Board files meeting notices as required by the Open Governmental Proceedings Act;

 
• The Board submits annual reports to the Governor and the Legislature;

 
• The Board has established continuing education requirements as a prerequisite to license renewal;

 
• The Board maintains a register of applicants;

 
• The Board has set fees by rule.

 

The passage of House Bill 4062 during the 2000 Regular Legislative session required licensure boards to promulgate legislative rules detailing procedures for the investigation and resolution of complaints against licensees. The Board's rules (Code of State Rules §29-4) do detail these procedures. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Board informs the licensee by certified mail. The licensee must submit a written response to the Board within thirty (30) days. The Board then sends a copy of the response to the complainant. The investigator has sixty (60) days to review the complaint and report findings to the Board. Then the Board may either dismiss the complaint or suspend the license if it determines there is cause. The Board may refuse to renew a license or may suspend a license if it determines there is probable cause to believe that the speech-language pathologist's or audiologist's conduct, practices or acts constitute an immediate danger to the public. In FY 1999, the Board received one complaint which was closed after being reviewed by the Board. In FY 2000, the Board investigated a complaint alleging that an individual was practicing audiology in West Virginia without a license. The Board investigated and denied an application for licensure in the state due to a violation of rules governing the practice of audiology. A review of complaints indicate that the Board provides the fundamental components of "due process" by giving notice and the opportunity for a hearing. The complaint form provided by the Board is available in Appendix C. Table 2 indicates that West Virginia is similar to other states when the number of complaints received is measured as a percent of the total number of licensees.
 

Financial independence and accountability are necessary for the effective operation of a licensure board. Receipts collected from licensure fees are deposited in a special revenue account, and the Board's expenses are disbursed from and charged to this account, as required by §30-1-10. Table 3 shows that the Board is self-sufficient and able to carry out its licensing responsibilities as required by law, WVC §30-1-6(c).

Conclusion
The Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology has significantly improved its performance since a 1998 Preliminary Performance Review identified six areas of concern to the Legislative Auditor. The Board is accessible to the public and is in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 30 of the West Virginia Code. Through its licensure requirements, the Board assures the public that its members are competent to practice the professions and, therefore, serves to protect society's more vulnerable members from incompetent and unscrupulous providers.

Recommendation 1:
The Legislature should consider continuing the Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology.