Occupational Licensing and Regulation
Peer supporters would need state certification in Ohio
The proposal sets rules for who can use peer-support titles and says those workers could not hold themselves out for pay without a valid certificate. It also allows a short transition period while the new system takes shape.
Ohio would tighten the rules around peer recovery, youth peer and family peer support. The bill also gives the board more power over discipline, renewals and out-of-state credentials.
- The board would be renamed and given a wider behavioral-health role.
- Peer supporters and qualified mental health roles would come under its certification system.
- Old references to the board would still be read as the new board name.
- The bill would tighten how peer-support titles can be used.
- The board would keep powers to issue, deny, restrict, or discipline credentials.
Ohio lawmakers are weighing a bill that would make peer recovery, youth peer and family peer supporters get state certificates before they can hold themselves out for pay. The measure also would broaden the board’s authority over discipline, renewals and out-of-state credentials.
For workers, that matters because a state board is often the gatekeeper for a credential. It sets the standards, issues the certificates, and helps define who can use a title in the field. For employers and clients, it is one of the main signals that a person has met the rules the state expects.
A wider definition of the job
The most visible change is the name itself. Chemical dependency language points to addiction-related care, which is still part of the picture. But the bill would place that work inside a larger behavioral-health frame. In plain terms, Ohio would be saying that the board’s reach should not stop at substance use treatment.
That broader frame matters because behavioral health covers more than one kind of service. It can include recovery support, counseling-related roles, and other mental health functions that do not fit neatly under the old board title. The bill does not erase the board’s original mission. It expands it.
Who would fall under the new umbrella
The bill would require the board to certify peer supporters and qualified mental health professionals. The peer supporter side is especially concrete. The proposal refers to peer recovery supporters, youth peer supporters, and family peer supporters. These are people who use lived experience or close experience with recovery to support others, usually in a structured, state-recognized role.
The bill also reaches qualified mental health roles. It includes qualified mental health practitioners, along with qualified mental health assistants and qualified mental health specialists in the board’s certification structure. One excerpt says a qualified mental health practitioner certified under this chapter may supervise a qualified mental health assistant or a qualified mental health specialist. That shows the proposal is not only adding titles. It is also defining how those roles connect to one another in practice.
Another part of the bill would let the board determine which category fits an applicant best. Based on its evaluations, the board could decide whether an individual is most appropriately certified as a qualified mental health assistant, a qualified mental health specialist, or a qualified mental health practitioner. In other words, the board would not just hand out one generic approval. It would place people into the role that matches their training and function.
Old names would still count
The bill also tries to prevent confusion after the rename. It says that whenever the old board name is used in a statute, rule, contract, grant, or other document, it should be read as the Behavioral Health Professionals Board. That kind of fix sounds technical, but it is the part that keeps daily paperwork from breaking.
Without a conforming-reference rule, a state rename can create a lot of small problems. A contract might still use the old title. A grant document might point to the old board. A rule might cite a name that no longer appears in the code. The bill’s answer is simple: treat the old and new names as the same authority, so the change does not strand existing documents.
That matters for workers too. Credentials often travel with someone through job applications, employer onboarding, continuing education records, and supervision arrangements. If a board’s name changes but the legal references do not move with it, people can end up stuck in paperwork trouble that has nothing to do with their actual qualifications.
Titles, supervision and the transition period
The proposal also contains rules meant to keep titles from being used loosely. One section would make it unlawful, beginning one year after the amendment takes effect, for someone to hold themselves out to the public as providing peer recovery support services, youth peer support services, or family peer support services for pay unless they hold a valid certificate from the board. A separate provision says a peer supporter may not practice as an individual practitioner.
There is also a transition option built into the bill. At the board’s discretion, a person could be allowed to keep practicing as a peer recovery supporter, youth peer supporter, or family peer supporter until a date the board specifies. That date could not go beyond the period allowed in the bill after the board’s first rules on those peer supporter credentials take effect. The point is to give the system time to adjust while still moving toward a more formal credentialing structure.
The bill also updates title language in a broad way. It covers terms such as certified peer supporter, certified peer recovery supporter, certified youth peer supporter, certified family peer supporter, licensed peer supporter, licensed peer recovery supporter, licensed youth peer supporter, licensed family peer supporter, and peer supporter. That tells you the proposal is trying to clean up how these roles are named in state law, not just who gets certified.
How the board would regulate the field
The board’s authority would not be limited to certification. The bill also says the Behavioral Health Professionals Board could issue licenses, certificates, or endorsements to applicants who already hold comparable credentials in another state. It could also look at people who have satisfactory work experience, a government certification, or a private certification in a place that does not offer the exact license or certificate they are seeking. That gives Ohio a path for recognizing outside experience instead of forcing every applicant through the same narrow route.
At the same time, the board would retain strong enforcement powers. It could refuse to issue, renew, or restore a license, certificate, or endorsement. It could also suspend, revoke, or otherwise restrict those credentials, issue a reprimand, or impose a fine under rules adopted for the chapter. So while the bill broadens the board’s reach, it also keeps the board in the role of referee.
The bill says the fees it sets would be nonrefundable and should be high enough to cover the board’s costs in carrying out the chapter and the rules under it. That is another sign the board would remain a self-contained regulator, with its own credentialing and enforcement machinery.
Who sits on the board and what happens next
The board structure would also reflect the wider behavioral-health focus. The governor would appoint voting members with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the seats would include people who are peer recovery supporters, youth peer supporters, family peer supporters, qualified mental health assistants, qualified mental health specialists, and qualified mental health practitioners certified by the board. The governor could wait to fill those spots until certification for those roles has begun, or appoint someone who otherwise meets the same qualifications.
That mix is important because it shows the board is meant to be populated by people who understand the field from the inside. A board like this does not just oversee the work. It also helps define what counts as legitimate experience, what training should matter, and how different parts of the behavioral-health system connect.
The proposal also places the board within a state review process designed to catch actions that could raise antitrust concerns. In practical terms, that means Ohio is pairing the expansion of professional authority with a check on how that authority is used. For a board that decides who gets recognized, supervised, or disciplined, that guardrail is part of the bill’s design too.
For the public, the broad effect is straightforward. Ohio would be building a larger credentialing home for workers in recovery support and mental health care, while keeping old references alive so the system does not lose its footing during the change. For workers, the proposal could reshape how titles are used, how certifications are earned, and how the state defines the jobs people do every day.