Licensed and Unlicensed Practitioners Compared: Training, Regulation and Scope (Without Ranking People)

This page compares routes of training and legal status as sources describe them. It does not rate any person, school or profession, and it does not say who gives better care. It is information only; it does not replace care from a doctor. For serious or worsening symptoms, see a medical doctor first, and in a US emergency call 911.

What "licensed" and "unlicensed" mean here

A license is granted and monitored by a government agency; certification comes from a professional organization. [1] "Unlicensed" in this page means a practitioner who does not hold a government license in the profession, for example a traditional naturopath, which NCCIH describes as not eligible for licensing in the United States. [2] Being licensed or certified is not always a guarantee of being qualified, and the reverse is not a verdict either. [1]

The comparison

Sources differ by place, so this table uses the United States unless a cell says otherwise.

The physician column is only a reference point, because many readers want to know how the routes line up. Nurse practitioners, PAs and dietitians have their own pages: ND, MD, DO, NP and PA and dietitians and nutritionists.

More detail on licensed ND training and exams

Where licensing exists, NCCIH says naturopathic physicians must graduate from a 4-year naturopathic medical college and pass national board exams. [2] The exam board NABNE describes an approved program as one with CNME accreditation or candidate status and a minimum four-academic-year, in-residence curriculum. [10] Its Part I exam may be taken after biomedical science coursework is complete, and Part II after Part I is passed. [11] NABNE says the NPLEX measures minimal competence in the medical knowledge needed to be a safe practitioner, and that passing it does not guarantee a license. [7] CNME and NABNE are naturopathic education and examining bodies, so those two descriptions come from them; NCCIH's description comes from a US government agency.

An association of accredited naturopathic colleges states in an article posted by a regulatory federation that online or correspondence graduates are not eligible for licensure as NDs in any jurisdiction that licenses them. [12] CNME says it does not accredit programs delivered primarily or entirely online. [3]

More detail on unlicensed naturopaths

NCCIH says traditional naturopaths may train through non-accredited programs that vary in length and content. [2] Proper evidence not found for a single standard length or curriculum of those programs: we checked NCCIH and the WHO naturopathy benchmarks and found no common figure for non-accredited programs. For context, WHO's 2010 benchmark for a Type I programme (for people with no prior health training) suggests at least two years full-time, no fewer than 1500 hours and no less than 400 hours of supervised clinical training. [13] That is a reference for countries, not a rule that any program meets.

Rules for titles are local. Ontario's regulator says "naturopath" is a protected title, so using it without registration is unauthorised practice there. [14] A consumer health site says Australia has no law governing who can use the description. [15] Check your own place; see title protection.

What neither category tells you

• It does not tell you whether a given test or treatment works. Evidence is judged separately; see how to evaluate a therapy claim.
• It does not replace a medical diagnosis. For cancer, NCCIH says not to use unproven products or practices to replace or delay medical treatment. [16] In one study, patients who chose alternative medicine alone for curable cancers had a greater risk of death than those who had conventional treatment. [17]
• It does not tell you about one person's judgment, honesty or communication. For that, use the checks on how to verify a credential.

Debate about the profession, including the profession's own response, is summarized on criticism of naturopathy and the profession's response.