9-1-1 Immediate Response Needed
9-1-1 Immediate Response is needed
Our proposal to amend the Nurse Practice Act is in jeopardy. Legislators and other stakeholders are questioning why the phrase "in collaboration with a physician" needs to be removed from our statute and they are asking for evidence that there is actually a problem.
Over the years, NPs have maintained that having the word "collaboration" in our Nurse Practice Act raises problems with insurers and employers. Now that we are ready to remedy this problem, we must have testimony from NPs who are being adversely affected by the fact that the word "collaboration" is in our Nurse Practice Act. Letters, memos or other written communications from insurance companies or employers to the NP stating that the reason for the denial, restriction in practice or low reimbursement is because we are required to have a physician involved in our practice are first level evidence. If NPs have such correspondence, that would of course be very good and we would be glad to have it. Another acceptable source of evidence is that the NP has is a recollection of a verbal exchange with the insurance company or employer in which a requirement for "collaboration" was the basis for the denial, restriction in practice or low reimbursement, and can put that in writing. The stories must be FIRST PERSON, something that happened to the NP himself/herself, not someone else. The story must be clear that lack of physician involvement in the practice was the reason for the problem with the insurance company or employer.
If you have a letter or have had a conversation with an employer or insurance company that would demonstrate that having a reference to "collaboration" in our Nurse Practice Act has been a barrier to your practicing within your scope of practice, I ask that you take a few moments to send that information to Deniseg.Link@gmail.com now.
Our petition to remove the collaboration phrase from the Nurse Practice Act depends on getting this evidence.