Why It Matters
Pennsylvania currently has no licensing requirements for medical imaging specialists and radiation therapists — a regulatory gap that leaves patients without a formal guarantee that the professionals operating diagnostic and treatment equipment have met any state-defined standard of competency. A bill advancing through the state legislature aims to close that gap and align Pennsylvania with the majority of states that already impose such requirements.
What Happened
The House Professional Licensure Committee passed legislation Wednesday by unanimous vote that would establish licensing requirements for professionals working in six medical imaging and radiation therapy specialty areas. The bill, House Bill 2173, was introduced jointly by Rep. Kyle Mullins (D-Lackawanna) and Rep. Bryan Cutler (R-Lancaster) — a bipartisan pairing that underscored the measure’s broad appeal in committee.
Cutler, whose professional background was in the medical imaging field before he entered elected office, framed the legislation in terms of patient protection. “This bill was premised really on patient safety,” he said. Mullins echoed that rationale, arguing the measure would give patients greater confidence in the credentials of those providing their care. “This bill will help to assure patients that they receive the highest quality of care administered by medical imaging professionals,” Mullins said.
Unlike physicians, nurses, and many other healthcare workers — who are subject to state licensing boards — medical imaging specialists and radiation therapists in Pennsylvania currently operate without a comparable framework. House Bill 2173 would create one, covering professionals across six specialty areas who use imaging and radiation therapy technology.
By the Numbers
- 6 — specialty areas that would fall under the new licensing requirements
- Unanimous — the committee vote, with no recorded opposition in the panel
- ~75% — the share of U.S. states that already have licensing requirements for medical imaging specialists
- 4 — medical societies representing radiologists and sonographers that submitted letters of support for the bill
One Point of Opposition
Not all healthcare groups backed the measure. The American College of Cardiology opposed the bill, raising concerns about how its credentialing standards for cardiovascular technologists would interact with the proposed state licensing structure. The College currently requires cardiovascular technologists to complete training through Cardiac Credentialing International and obtain certification either as a registered cardiovascular invasive specialist or a registered cardiovascular electrophysiology specialist. The organization’s opposition suggests ongoing questions about how existing professional credentialing frameworks would fit alongside a new state licensing regime.
This dynamic reflects a broader tension in healthcare workforce regulation, where professional associations that have developed their own rigorous credentialing pathways sometimes resist government licensing structures that may not align precisely with their standards. Pennsylvania nurse practitioners have faced similar regulatory debates in their push for independent practice rights, a parallel discussion playing out in Harrisburg around scope-of-practice boundaries.
Zoom Out
Pennsylvania’s lack of licensing requirements for medical imaging professionals places it in a diminishing minority nationally. Roughly three-quarters of states have enacted similar frameworks, a trend reflecting growing recognition among state legislatures that the complexity of modern imaging and radiation technology warrants formal credentialing oversight. States that have moved in this direction generally point to patient safety outcomes and clearer pathways for professional accountability as the primary justifications.
The bipartisan sponsorship of House Bill 2173 is notable in a legislative environment where healthcare workforce policy can quickly become contentious. The unanimous committee vote suggests the patient safety argument — rather than scope-of-practice disputes or labor market considerations — has dominated early deliberations.
What’s Next
House Bill 2173 now moves to the full House chamber for consideration. If it clears the floor, the bill would advance to the Senate, where the American College of Cardiology’s objections and any competing credentialing concerns may receive additional scrutiny. Pennsylvania House races later this cycle could also affect the political calculus around pending legislation, depending on how the legislative calendar unfolds before adjournment.