SB 1333 rewrites key parts of the Naturopathic Doctors Act to give licensed naturopathic doctors broader clinical authority. It replaces narrow, supervised allowances for wound care and drug furnishing with a defined list of "minor office procedures," expands drug authority to include Schedule II through V controlled substances, and removes the statute’s prior supervision and standardized‑procedure framework.
Those changes fold previously carved‑out independent prescribing permissions into the main prescribing section, amend prescription‑writing language in the Health and Safety Code, and leave the Act’s statutory sunset clause open (extending operation past the current January 1, 2027 date but without specifying a new repeal date). The result is materially greater independent clinical autonomy for naturopathic doctors — with implementation and oversight left primarily to the Board of Naturopathic Medicine and other regulators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Business and Professions Code Sections 3640 and 3640.5 to (1) define and authorize a set list of minor office procedures that naturopathic doctors may perform and (2) authorize naturopathic doctors to furnish, order, or prescribe drugs including Schedule II–V controlled substances without the prior supervision/standardized‑procedure framework that previously constrained such activity.
Who It Affects
Directly affects licensed naturopathic doctors, the California Board of Naturopathic Medicine, pharmacies and pharmacists who dispense controlled substances, and clinics employing naturopathic providers. It also implicates insurers, professional liability carriers, and state prescribing oversight systems (e.g., PDMPs).
Why It Matters
The bill shifts substantial clinical responsibilities from delegated or supervised practice into independent practice for naturopathic doctors, changing credentialing, prescribing workflows, and regulatory oversight. Compliance officers and clinic operators must reassess training, privileging, DEA/controlled‑substance procedures, and malpractice coverage.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1333 recasts what naturopathic doctors are allowed to do in California by expanding procedural and prescribing authority. The bill replaces a narrow permission to provide "repair and care incidental to superficial lacerations and abrasions, except suturing," and the removal of superficial foreign bodies, with a broader, enumerated category called "minor office procedures." That list explicitly includes care and operative procedures for lacerations and skin lesions, incision and drainage of abscesses, trephination of subungual hematomas, superficial biopsies, removal of foreign bodies, and the topical and parenteral use of local anesthetic solutions and their adjuncts.
On medicines, the bill rewrites the statutory furnishing/ordering/prescribing language to permit naturopathic doctors to furnish, order, or prescribe legend drugs and controlled substances identified in Schedules II through V. The prior statutory regime required naturopathic doctors to operate under standardized procedures or physician supervision for furnishing controlled substances; SB 1333 removes that supervision/standardized‑procedure requirement in favor of direct authorization, while retaining language that the Board must certify satisfactory pharmacology coursework for the practitioner.The bill also cleans up cross‑references: it repeals the separate section that previously listed a narrower set of drugs naturopathic doctors could independently prescribe or administer, instead consolidating those authorities into the main prescribing provision.
It amends the Health and Safety Code’s prescription‑writing definition to name naturopathic doctors acting under the new furnishing/prescribing section among professionals who may issue prescriptions, aligning pharmacists’ legal obligations to accept drug orders from naturopathic doctors under that authority.Practically, clinics and pharmacies will need to operationalize several changes: credentialing naturopathic doctors for minor office procedures (including equipment, infection control, and emergency plans), ensuring practitioners hold whatever pharmacology certification the Board requires, and updating dispensing workflows and PDMP reporting to reflect new prescribers. At the same time the bill leaves the Board and other agencies responsibility for specific regulations (for example, the bill preserves the Board’s authority to regulate ocular and intravenous routes of administration).
The bill also changes the statutory sunset language to extend the Act beyond January 1, 2027 but the new repeal date is left blank, creating immediate uncertainty about the Act’s term.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 1333 replaces the limited "repair and care incidental to superficial lacerations" authorization with an explicit list of "minor office procedures," including incision and drainage of abscesses and superficial biopsies.
The bill authorizes naturopathic doctors to furnish, order, or prescribe legend drugs and controlled substances in Schedules II through V under state law.
Statutory physician supervision and the standardized‑procedure framework that previously governed naturopathic furnishing of drugs are removed from the bill’s main prescribing provision.
The bill repeals Section 3640.7, consolidating previously separate independent‑prescribing permissions into Section 3640.5.
The statute’s sunset clause is amended so the Naturopathic Doctors Act continues past January 1, 2027, but the bill does not specify a new repeal date, leaving the extension open.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Defines 'minor office procedures' and broadens procedural authority
This amendment replaces prior, narrower language about superficial wound repair and foreign‑body removal with a defined menu of "minor office procedures." It expressly permits superficial biopsies, incision and drainage of abscesses, trephination of subungual hematomas, and the topical/parenteral use of local anesthetics. The practical implication is that naturopathic clinics must adopt clinical policies, supplies, and infection‑control systems commensurate with those procedures and ensure clinicians have training and competence documentation.
Recasts drug authority to include Schedules II–V and removes supervision requirement
Section 3640.5 is rewritten to authorize furnishing, ordering, or prescribing drugs — explicitly including Schedule II through V controlled substances — under the naturopathic statute. The language removes the prior statutory dependence on standardized procedures and physician supervision as a precondition for furnishing drugs. The bill retains a provision requiring Board certification that the naturopathic doctor completed adequate pharmacology coursework, but shifts the default toward independent prescriptive authority, which raises questions about DEA registration, dispensing controls, and PDMP integration.
Eliminates separate independent‑prescribing carve‑out
Section 3640.7 — which previously listed certain drugs naturopathic doctors could independently prescribe (epinephrine, hormones, vitamins and similar agents) — is repealed. Those items are pulled into the main prescribing section, consolidating prescriptive authority in one place. That simplifies statutory structure but requires careful regulatory clarity to avoid conflict with other health‑care practice sections and to confirm which specific drugs are authorized for independent use versus those that will remain subject to any Board‑issued limits.
Preserves the Act past current sunset date but leaves new date blank
The bill amends the chapter’s repealer provision so the Naturopathic Doctors Act remains in effect beyond January 1, 2027, but inserts a blank rather than a new repeal date. That drafting leaves the Act as continuing law without a concrete sunset, which will require follow‑up or administrative interpretation to determine whether the intent is an indefinite extension or a later specified date.
Adds naturopathic doctors to prescription‑writing list in the Health & Safety Code
This change explicitly lists naturopathic doctors acting under the amended §3640.5 among professionals authorized to write or issue prescriptions for purposes of confidentiality and prescription‑regulation provisions. For pharmacists and institutions, this aligns statutory authority but also creates immediate operational questions: pharmacies must accept drug orders from naturopathic prescribers, verify licensure and any pharmacology certification, and ensure PDMP and dispensing rules are followed.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Licensed naturopathic doctors — gain expanded independent authority to perform enumerated minor procedures and to prescribe or order Schedule II–V drugs, increasing the services they can offer and reducing reliance on physician supervision.
- Patients seeking naturopathic care — potentially benefit from greater on‑site treatment options (e.g., abscess drainage, biopsies) and improved access to medications through a single provider relationship.
- Clinics and outpatient facilities that employ naturopathic doctors — can broaden service lines and revenue streams by integrating procedural care and expanded prescribing into practice models.
- Pharmacies in communities with naturopathic practices — may see increased legitimate prescription volume and closer collaboration opportunities with naturopathic prescribers.
Who Bears the Cost
- California Board of Naturopathic Medicine — faces heavier regulatory workload to set competency standards, pharmacology coursework requirements, procedure regulations (especially for IV/ocular routes), and enforcement mechanisms without additional funding noted in the bill.
- Pharmacists and pharmacy managers — must update verification processes, accept drug orders from a new class of prescribers, and reconcile any ambiguities about which drugs naturopathic doctors may lawfully prescribe.
- Insurers and payers — may face higher utilization for procedural services and prescriptions and will need to determine coverage, billing codes, and medical necessity standards for procedures performed by naturopathic doctors.
- Supervising physicians and previously required supervisors — lose a statutory supervisory role (and associated oversight leverage) for drug furnishing, while remaining clinically accountable in other settings.
- Professional liability insurers and employers — will need to reassess malpractice coverage and credentialing requirements for naturopathic doctors performing minor invasive procedures and prescribing controlled substances.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between improved access and practitioner autonomy on one hand, and patient safety and regulatory oversight on the other: SB 1333 increases independent clinical authority for naturopathic doctors (procedures and controlled‑substance prescribing) to expand access and streamline care, but it simultaneously removes statutory supervision guardrails and leaves key competency, monitoring, and DEA/PDMP integration details to regulation or later guidance — a trade‑off that forces regulators to decide how much oversight is enough to manage risk without negating the bill’s autonomy goals.
SB 1333 makes significant, operationally consequential changes but leaves several practical implementation questions unanswered. The bill preserves a Board certification requirement for pharmacology coursework, yet it simultaneously eliminates the statutory supervision and standardized‑procedure regime that previously structured which drugs naturopathic doctors could furnish and under what conditions.
That combination raises immediate questions about how the Board will verify practitioner competence, whether the Board will limit certain high‑risk drugs by regulation, and how licensing and continuing education requirements will be enforced.
The expansion into minor invasive procedures and Schedules II–V prescribing intersects with federal controlled‑substance law and DEA registration requirements; state authorization alone does not grant DEA registration, and the bill does not mention DEA processes, PDMP reporting specifics, or dispensing limits. The bill’s repeal of the separate independent‑prescribing carve‑out and the consolidation of prescriptive authority simplify the statute but create drafting ambiguity: parts of the amended 3640.5 text appear internally inconsistent and retain cross‑references to supervision and standardized procedures in places, which could generate litigation or regulatory confusion.
Finally, the blank extension of the Act’s sunset is an unusual drafting outcome that creates statutory uncertainty about the legislature’s intended time horizon for these expanded authorities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.