There have been just a few new developments on the legislative front concerning dry needling. In Georgia, Bill GA SB169, introduced in the 2025 legislative session, has been referred to 2026. As discussed in a previous blog, the bill aims to change healthcare professionals’ education and training requirements for performing dry needling. It proposes to require licensed healthcare professionals to complete 1,365 hours of coursework and training, including 705 hours of medical theory and diagnosis instruction, 660 hours of clinical training, a clean needle technique course, and performing at least 500 dry needling treatments on 100 different patients under direct supervision. A Special Committee will attempt to find common ground during the summer and fall, which seems challenging given the “demands” by the acupuncture lobby concerning the suggested content and required number of hours of education. There is no evidence of frequent significant dry needling adverse events caused by physical therapists in Georgia, which raises questions about why the current regulations would need to be changed.
Let’s have a closer look at some acupuncture groups’ ongoing opposition to other healthcare professionals using dry needling, especially considering that there is no indication that dry needling has negatively impacted the practice of acupuncture. Throughout the country, acupuncturists have used a consistent but limited number of arguments about why other healthcare providers should not be allowed to use dry needling, ranging from claiming that dry needling would belong exclusively to the field of acupuncture to maintaining that dry needling by other healthcare providers would constitute a significant public health risk. I have testified in many states, and only once did an acupuncturist (in Washington State) express fear that dry needling by physical therapists would threaten their income and financial stability. A representative of the Florida State Oriental Medical Association (FSOMA) testified that “allowing physical therapists to practice dry needling will take patients in need of acupuncture and desiring acupuncture away from licensed acupuncturists.” Yet, the administrative court judge in Florida charged with assessing the claims made by FSOMA concluded that dry needling performed by physical therapists would neither pose an increased risk of harm to patients nor cause patients to confuse dry needling with acupuncture.
The suggested minimum required education hours in Georgia appear to be completely random. In Florida, the FSOMA and the Florida Acupuncture Association recommended that legislators require PTs to complete 200 hours of live post-graduate dry needling training before using dry needling on patients, much less than the 1,365 hours of combined coursework and training suggested in Georgia. In sharp contrast, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled against any minimum number of hours to use dry needling. The dry needling regulations of the Commonwealth of Virginia do not stipulate any minimum number of hours either, and physical therapists in North Carolina and Virginia did not cause a sudden increase in significant adverse events.
In conclusion, it is safe to conclude that there are no logical reasons to change the dry needling requirements in Georgia. Unless the acupuncturists who are proposing this new bill can provide objective evidence justifying any change in the educational requirements to use dry needling by a range of healthcare providers, the 2026 Georgia Legislative Session should not consider this bill.
