Massachusetts now has Full Practice Authority

Posted

Specializes in Psych/Mental Health. Has 5 years experience.

Massachusetts just joined the rest of New England in full practice independence for APRNs.

The governor of Massachusetts signed a bill that will give NPs, Psych CNSs, and CRNAs FPA. The bill will also make telepsych reimbursement parity permanent. (Some telehealth visits will also continue to have parity for another 2 years.)

To be eligible for FPA, an NP must have 2 years of supervised clinical experience by either a physician OR an independent NP.

The Bill was passed unanimously by both the state senate and house.

MikeFNPC, MSN

Specializes in FNP. 260 Posts

Just saw that.  So happy for them.  Can't wait for it to come to Texas, if ever.  

Momma1RN, MSN, RN, APRN

Has 8 years experience. 219 Posts

Amazing! I am from MA and I honestly never thought I would see this happen. Way to go! 

Spinmass, ADN, BSN, RN, EMT-B

Has 6 years experience. 90 Posts

On 1/5/2021 at 8:29 PM, Momma1RN said:

Amazing! I am from MA and I honestly never thought I would see this happen. Way to go! 

I am from MA and now live in CT right on the MA border and also never thought it would happen.  I am glad that practicing in MA will be an option when I am done with school. 

myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN

Specializes in ICU, trauma, neuro. Has 14 years experience. 1,453 Posts

It's also a very good thing that "one route" to get to the two years is to work under an IP NP.  In some other states this is not an option.

umbdude, MSN, NP

Specializes in Psych/Mental Health. Has 5 years experience. 1,198 Posts

Yes it was surprising to see this language in the bill. It makes logical sense.

 

myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN

Specializes in ICU, trauma, neuro. Has 14 years experience. 1,453 Posts

6 hours ago, umbdude said:

Yes it was surprising to see this language in the bill. It makes logical sense.

 

It makes "logical sense" however it was my impression that it violated the AMA's "soft approach" to opposing IP for NP's rather than outright opposition. The trend in other states (like the recent bills in Penn and Florida) has been to allow IP, but only after several thousand hours under MD supervision.  This can be "hard to come by" if the MD you worked under was unwilling to "sign off" at the end of the proposed period or at the very least puts them in a position of extreme bargaining power.    Not sure why the AMA "dropped the ball" on this one.  

Now if we could only get IP in either Cali or Texas it would be significant enough to actually alter the dynamics of the job market nationally for NP's in a positive direction.

db2xs

730 Posts

Woot woot!

12 hours ago, myoglobin said:

Now if we could only get IP in either Cali or Texas it would be significant enough to actually alter the dynamics of the job market nationally for NP's in a positive direction.

Ditto that!

umbdude, MSN, NP

Specializes in Psych/Mental Health. Has 5 years experience. 1,198 Posts

On 1/14/2021 at 9:12 PM, myoglobin said:

Not sure why the AMA "dropped the ball" on this one.  

MA nursing lobbyists had been at this for almost a decade, and I think the pandemic pushed it by the finish line. When the covid emergency protocol went into effect, part of it was allowing NPs with 2 years of experience to work without collaboration. It's kind of hard to argue that if NPs can practice independently during a crisis, they can't during normal times.

On 1/14/2021 at 9:12 PM, myoglobin said:

Now if we could only get IP in either Cali or Texas it would be significant enough to actually alter the dynamics of the job market nationally for NP's in a positive direction.

CA already has IP (recently). It's just a lot more arduous (3 years of MD-supervised experienced in CA and possibly more education requirements). There are so many restrictions that makes it unattractive for NPs in other states to independently practice there.

db2xs

730 Posts

11 minutes ago, umbdude said:

CA already has IP (recently). It's just a lot more arduous (3 years of MD-supervised experienced in CA and possibly more education requirements). There are so many restrictions that makes it unattractive for NPs in other states to independently practice there.

AB 890 was passed recently but it's a bit more complicated than can be explained. If anyone wants to know the dirty details, I'm enclosing a summary of how AB 890 works in California. Thanks. 

Overview of AB 890.pdf

myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN

Specializes in ICU, trauma, neuro. Has 14 years experience. 1,453 Posts

2 hours ago, db2xs said:

AB 890 was passed recently but it's a bit more complicated than can be explained. If anyone wants to know the dirty details, I'm enclosing a summary of how AB 890 works in California. Thanks. 

Overview of AB 890.pdf

So Cali will allow IP after three years of Cali MD supervision, but still doesn’t require NP’s to pass ANCC boards? So even if in ten years after building successful practices in Wash, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado and Wyoming (states I have added NP licenses to) I will still need to work under an MD in Cali?

Edited by myoglobin
Info

umbdude, MSN, NP

Specializes in Psych/Mental Health. Has 5 years experience. 1,198 Posts

47 minutes ago, myoglobin said:

So even if in ten years after building successful practices in Wash, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado and Wyoming (states I have added NP licenses to) I will still need to work under an MD in Cali?

Yes that's my understanding. Also, I think that 3-years of supervised experience must take place in CA.  So if you have supervised experience in another state for 10 years, you will need 3 years of supervised experience in CA. I think that's why AANP still doesn't recognize CA as having independent practice.

The Massachusetts bill has a clause stating that NPs need 2 years of supervised experience but it opens the door to allow those who had always practiced independently (e.g. in another state) with 2+ years of experience to gain IP.