Wednesday, March 17, 2010
SB 263 Update
In the month of February, 2010 nurse practitioners presented their case for the passing of Virgnia Senate Bill 263 to a subcommittee of the Senate Education and Health Committee. Physicians also presented their case in opposition to SB 263. Unfortunately, the senators failed to make a motion for any action on the bill. Consequently, the bill has died for the year. Although there will be no further action for the passing of SB 263 during this year, we are still in full support for its passing in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We support this bill in that it would be a good asset to rural places who don't have medical care to begin with. We feel that they should be under the supervision of a physician as they are right now. We were discussing this and saying how the NP should be able to practice in rural areas under supervision, but the doctor not having to be present. The NP could meet with the physician and send to them pertaining to the care of the patient. So we are half and half. We like the extended practicing in rural areas, but we still think a physician should supervise. Maybe some changes can be made to this bill to help it pass next time.
ReplyDeleteWe support this bill as well, and were disappointed that it had died for the year. We agreed that an experienced NP should be able to practice without a physician under the same roof to expand area the health care can reach. This could be a small step in the direction that health care could be attainable for all Americans.
ReplyDeleteGroup 2, thank for your support. We are disappointed as well, but hopefully with the efforts through this blog we will raise awareness for the year to come. Having nurse practitioners work independently will bring about great benefits and make health care more accessible to many. Collaborating with physicians is one thing, but nursing is a separate scope of practice, and working under the limits of the board of medicine should not be. We believe with the strong voice of nurses across this country that it would be a large step, not just a small step.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Group 9’s post, our group feels that it would be hard to set limits on which areas would need physician supervision. We also agree that rural areas may benefit from having NP practices by allowing the community to seek health care closer to their home. However, we do not feel that NP’s should need physician supervision. This would only limit their scope of practice more and decrease their independence of providing quality and timely patient care. We believe that NP’s would be better directed under the Board of Nursing rather than the Board of Medicine. Nurse Practitioners have the education and clinical experience to have their own practices to better serve patients by providing excellent professional care.
ReplyDelete