Mandatory Licensing of Dieticians
The Ohio Board of Dietetics (OBD) is responsible for the mandatory licensing and regulating of all Ohio practitioners of dietetics. The mandatory licensing of dietetics has come under scrutiny from some Ohio policymakers who are questioning the necessity of mandatory licensing.
In an effort to restrain what some feel is an unnecessary stifling of the practice of dietetics a bill has been introduced in the Ohio General Assembly that would change the scope of the OBD powers to only include those who voluntarily submit to licensure. The main argument against this change is that mandatory licensing is necessary to protect the public.
Dietetics, as defined by the OBD, is the skill and act of assessing, recommending, educating, creating standards for and planning nutritional and food needs of individuals and communities [1]. Registered dieticians, in Ohio, have exclusive rights to perform the above tasks with “specific exemption for licensed health professionals and others ” [2].
The OBD is responsible for “establishing standards … for Ohio dietitians” [3]. Also, they have authority to review and investigate all complaints of licensees and anyone practicing without a license. Thus, the OBD has regulatory power over dietitians who voluntarily submit to licensure as well as individuals whom the OBD considers to be practicing dietetics. Ostensibly, this expansive purview was given “to protect the public.” [4]
Yet the consistent results of various studies from the mid-1980s to 2001 affirm there is little to no risk to the public by having a non-regulated dietetic field. A recent report from the Colorado Office of Policy and Research found “that regulation of this [dietetic] profession is not necessary” and “dietitians failed to submit compelling evidence of public harm” in the existing unregulated industry of Colorado. [5]
According to the same report, however, Ohio stands out among regulated states because it received the most complaints during the years studied. The OBD logged 141 complaints during 2001, more then three times the second highest reported complaints of 45 in Iowa.
The high number of complaints in Ohio relative to other states might suggest to some need then for mandatory licensing of dietetic practioners in Ohio in order to protect the public. A closer look at the nature of the complaints, however, makes evident that the OBD is not spending its time investigating complaints from injured dietetic patients. Only one of the resulting disciplinary actions of a complaint to the OBD had to do with the quality of dietetics advice received. [6] Looking solely at complaints, it is not clear that unlicensed dieticians are harming consumers.
Elimination of the mandatory licensure of dieticians would not leave the public without a ways to seeking retribution if someone receives maltreatment. For example, the Attorney General of the State of Ohio insures individuals who are injured in the state protection under the Ohio Revised Code. In addition, the Common Law of the State of Ohio and the Consumer Sales Practice Act cover malpractice issues. [7]
In a free society, a compelling reason must exist for government intrusion into private transactions between individuals. In the case of physician licensure, for example, the fact that physician malpractice can easily result in death provides such a reason for mandatory licensure. In the case of dietetics, however, little evidence exists of excessive harm to the public from unlicensed practice.
Footnotes:
[1] The Ohio Board of Dietetics, “Consumer Information: In Ohio - Facts Consumers Need to Know,” http://www.state.oh.us/obd/CONOBD.pdf, accessed November 2003.
[2] Ibid.
[3] The Ohio Board of Dietetics, “Mission,” http://www.state.oh.us/obd/obdmission.htm, accessed November 2003.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Office of Policy and Research, “Sunrise Review 2001,” http://www.dora.state.co.us/opr/2001dietitians.pdf, accessed November 2003.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Testimony of C. Michael Piacentino before the Ohio House Commerce and Labor Committee, 10 June 2003.
Casey Burnett was a Fall 2003 research intern with The Buckeye Institute.
