AB 393 would prohibit hospitals and psychiatric hospitals in Nevada from employing physicians as employees for the purpose of practicing medicine, homeopathic medicine, or osteopathic medicine, except in limited circumstances. The bill preserves existing exceptions for certain facilities already authorized by law, and it adds two new exceptions: hospitals may employ physicians who are in approved graduate medical education programs, and hospitals or psychiatric hospitals owned or operated by the state government may employ physicians.
The measure also exempts religious healing facilities and federal facilities from the new prohibition. It further ties violations of the new employment restriction to the state’s existing hospital licensing and enforcement framework, allowing the Division of Public and Behavioral Health to deny, suspend, or revoke licenses, impose administrative penalties of up to $5,000 per day per violation, seek injunctions, and use related enforcement tools already available under Nevada law.
Impact
AB 393 would amend Nevada’s hospital licensing statutes in Chapter 449 of NRS by creating a new statewide rule against direct hospital employment of physicians, while incorporating that rule into existing enforcement and penalty provisions. It would affect hospitals and psychiatric hospitals, the Division of Public and Behavioral Health, and county district attorneys involved in enforcement actions. The bill would also make conforming changes to licensing, penalty, injunction, and definitional provisions so that violations of the new physician-employment restriction are treated similarly to other hospital licensing violations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a regulatory and structural change rather than a response to a documented controversy, and no committee transcript or vote record is provided to show formal support or opposition. The drafting suggests an intent to preserve the traditional contractor model for physicians in Nevada hospitals while carving out narrow exceptions for training programs and state-run facilities. Because there are no recorded hearings or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be measured directly, but the bill’s tone is prescriptive and enforcement-oriented.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether hospitals should be allowed to employ physicians directly at all, since the bill would prohibit that practice except in limited cases. Potentially affected stakeholders include hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, physician groups, medical trainees, and state-operated facilities. Supporters may view the bill as clarifying Nevada law and preserving professional independence, while opponents may argue it restricts staffing flexibility, could complicate recruitment and retention, and may interfere with integrated care models. The bill’s exceptions for graduate medical education and state-owned or state-operated facilities suggest an effort to address some operational concerns, but the core prohibition remains broad.
Health facilities: certificate of need; allowable use of hospital swing beds; expand to include behavioral health patients. Amends sec. 134 of 1974 PA 258 (MCL 330.1134).
Requires DHS to provide psychiatric service dogs to first responders, health care workers, and other frontline workers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorders due to the COVID-19 pandemic.