On November 19, the House Health Committee considered a substitute version of House Bill (HB) 177, the advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) independent practice legislation, currently under consideration by the Ohio General Assembly.
The original version of the bill, introduced back in April, eliminated provisions of current law that required an APRN who is a certified nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, or certified nurse-midwife, to practice with a standard care arrangement with a collaborating physician or podiatrist. The substitute bill would instead require that an APRN must complete 2,000 clinical hours before being able to practice without a standard care arrangement with a collaborating practitioner. The substitute bill additionally allows an APRN that has completed 2,000 clinical hours to enter into a standard care arrangement with an APRN that has not completed the required hours.
The substitute bill requires the Board of Nursing to establish quality assurance standards for clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse-midwives, and certified nurse practitioners with less than 2,000 clinical hours. The substitute bill would not require the Nursing Board to establish quality assurance standards for clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse-midwives, and certified nurse practitioners with 2,000 or more clinical hours.
Also on November 19, the Ohio State Medical Association, the Ohio Osteopathic Association; the Ohio Chapter, American College of Emergency Physicians; the Academy of Medicine of Cleveland and Northern Ohio; the Ohio Dermatological Association; and the Ohio Psychiatric Physicians Association testified in opposition to Substitute HB 177. The Ohio Academy of Family Physicians plans to offer opponent testimony at the hearing (date to be determined).
Now is the time to reinforce your opposition to this legislation! Please use the American Academy of Family Physicians’ Speak Out system to contact your legislator today to let them know that physicians and APRNs are not interchangeable.
If high-quality, appropriate patient care is the goal for patients in our state, legislators should vote NO on Substitute HB 177!