Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did CMS, HHS, or the Department of Labor change rules affecting nurse scope of practice between 2017 and 2021?
Executive summary
Between 2017 and 2021 federal agencies made several Medicare- and policy-level changes that affected how nurses — especially advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and nonphysician practitioners (NPPs) — could document, bill, and in some cases substitute for physician activities, while leaving clinical scope of practice primarily governed by state law (see CMS documentation and PA supervision changes and CMS IRF rule) [1] [2]. The pandemic prompted many states to temporarily loosen NP practice limits via gubernatorial orders, but those were state actions and often temporary rather than direct HHS/DOL regulatory rewrites [3].
1. CMS reduced documentation burdens and allowed verification in place of re‑documentation
In its finalized 2020 Physician Fee Schedule changes (implemented in CY2021), CMS revised documentation rules so physicians, PAs and APRNs can “review and verify” — sign and date — notes made by other clinicians instead of re‑documenting them. CMS presented this as a burden reduction measure that affects how teams including nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists document Medicare services [1].
2. CMS loosened some physician‑supervision phrasing for PAs to increase flexibility
The CY2020/CY2021 final rule updated regulations on physician supervision of physician assistants to allow greater flexibility consistent with state scope‑of‑practice laws; CMS framed this as permitting PAs to practice more broadly so long as state law allows it [1]. CMS invited feedback to identify Medicare regulations that are more restrictive than state laws and limit clinicians from working at the top of their license [4].
3. Federal rulemaking adjusted which clinicians can perform required IRF face‑to‑face visits
In the 2021 Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) rulemaking CMS had proposed broader delegation of rehabilitation‑physician duties to NPPs; after pushback, the final rule allowed a nurse practitioner, PA, or clinical nurse specialist to perform one of three required face‑to‑face visits in later weeks of an IRF stay when consistent with state scope‑of‑practice law — a narrower change than originally proposed [2].
4. CMS signaled intent to identify overly restrictive federal supervision rules
CMS publicly solicited input to find Medicare regulations that impose supervision requirements beyond state scope of practice, explicitly naming APRNs and PAs as clinicians “limited” by those federal rules and seeking to modernize policy [4]. That initiative is regulatory process and request for comment rather than an across‑the‑board change to state practice law [4].
5. Medicare billing policies (including “incident‑to”/indirect billing) remained contested and under scrutiny
Independent reporting and professional letters to CMS show debate over indirect/incident‑to billing that can attribute NP/PA services to physicians for Medicare payment purposes; groups like AANP and PA organizations raised concerns in letters and studies pointed to potential Medicare cost and attribution issues — matters CMS continued to review rather than fully revise between 2017–2021 in a single sweeping action [5].
6. Federal actions did not supplant state law as the primary determinant of clinical scope
Multiple CMS documents and guidance repeatedly emphasize that services by NPPs must be within the scope of practice for the state where they practice; CMS changes typically address Medicare payment, supervision evidence, documentation, or facility rules, while clinical authority and licensure remain a state responsibility [6] [1].
7. COVID-era state executive orders expanded NP authority temporarily; federal agencies mainly adjusted payment/documentation to reduce friction
Scholarly reviews documented many governors issuing executive orders granting temporary full practice authority to NPs during COVID‑19; those state orders are separate from CMS/HHS regulatory steps, though CMS’s burden‑reduction and supervision flexibility moves made federal policy more permissive in documentation and certain Medicare billing/coverage contexts [3] [1].
8. Competing viewpoints and interest groups shaped final outcomes
Physician groups warned the CMS IRF proposal risked diluting physician supervision and clinical quality; CMS narrowed the IRF change in the final rule, explicitly conditioning NPP substitution on state scope of practice [2]. Nursing and nursing‑advocacy organizations celebrated CMS removing “bedside” phrasing in an earlier Omnibus Burden Reduction final rule as recognition of broader RN roles — an administrative change that affects regulatory text but not state licensure law [7].
Limitations and unresolved items: available sources describe CMS payment, supervision, and documentation changes and state COVID‑era executive orders affecting NP practice, but they do not provide a single consolidated list of every HHS/DOL regulatory text change from 2017–2021 affecting nurse scope of practice; detailed DOL rule actions on scope are not described in the provided results (available sources do not mention a DOL rule changing clinical scope) [1] [3].