NBCOT and state regulatory agencies: allies or adversaries?

I n April 1996, occupational therapists were notified that the American Occupational Therapy Certification Board (AOTCB) is now the National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy (NBCOT). The name change is indicative of a fundamental shift in purpose from managing administration of the certification examination and verifying credentials to instituting a recertification program on a 5-year cycle. According to NBCOT Executive Director Roy Swift, accountability to the public is not well served by lifetime certification (Hettinger, 1996). I do not disagree with Swift's concerns for professional accountability and credibility. In an earlier article, I argued that "our professional obligation must extend beyond the provision of quality care in our own practices to supPOrt for the consumer protection practices of our regulatory agencies" (Low, 1992, p. 375). However, I do disagree with the approach that the NBCOT Board of Directors have determined. The goajs assumed by NBCOT are being met at the state level. All 50 states have some form of statutorily supported regulation in place Goe, 1996). State licensing agencies are charged with consumer protection, and many states have vigorous investigation departments. In 1995, the Texas Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners, which is accountable for 4,055 licensees, investigated 22 of29 complaints G. Polichino, personal communication, July 8, 1996); the AOTCB received only 69 complaints from across the entire country (AOTCB, 1995a). Many state licensing agencies affirm accountability for consumer protection through continuing education Jaclyn F. Low