Establishes the Capital Region preceptor stipend program to be administered by the office of the professions, under which qualified preceptor clinicians shall receive a $5,000 stipend; provides for such funds to be distributed from the office of the professions account.
This bill establishes the Capital Region preceptor stipend program within the Education Law and directs the chief administrative officer of the Office of the Professions to administer it. The program would pay a $5,000 stipend to qualified preceptor clinicians in the Capital Region who provide unpaid clinical preceptorships to students in approved New York educational programs preparing them for careers as physicians, physician assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, specialist assistants, and midwives.
The bill defines who qualifies as a preceptor clinician, identifies the Capital Region counties covered, and limits eligible clinical preceptorships to certain practice areas such as family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, OB/GYN, emergency medicine, psychiatry, home healthcare, general surgery, and gerontology. It also requires the Office of the Professions to create application, acceptance, denial, and revocation procedures, and to conduct an annual review and audit of applicants and stipend distributions. The State Finance Law is amended so that appropriated funds in the Office of the Professions account may be used to pay these stipends, with first-year payments capped at $5 million.
In practical terms, the bill would create a new state-funded incentive for health care professionals in the Capital Region to supervise students in clinical training without direct compensation from the preceptorship itself. It would add a new statutory program and funding authority, but only for a specific region and a specific category of health care educators, rather than creating a statewide benefit.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of the program’s purpose: the findings describe New York’s health care staffing shortages, burnout, and the importance of preceptorships for recruitment and retention. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no additional evidence of opposition or support from debate or roll call history. Based on the text alone, the bill appears intended as a workforce-development measure to encourage clinical teaching and strengthen the health care pipeline.
The main point of potential contention is scope and cost. The program is limited to the Capital Region, which may raise questions about regional equity compared with other parts of the state, and the first-year funding cap of $5 million could prompt scrutiny over budget impact and program reach. There may also be administrative concerns about eligibility standards, auditing, and how the Office of the Professions will determine which preceptors qualify and how revocations will be handled.
The bill would amend the Education Law by adding a new section creating the Capital Region preceptor stipend program and would amend the State Finance Law to authorize use of the Office of the Professions account for stipend payments. It would establish a new state-administered payment program for qualifying unpaid clinical preceptors in the Capital Region, require rulemaking and annual reporting/auditing, and authorize up to $5 million in first-year payments from appropriated funds.
The bill’s stated purpose is strongly supportive of health care workforce development, emphasizing staffing shortages, burnout, and the value of preceptorships in training and retaining future clinicians. No votes or committee transcripts are available, so there is no recorded legislative debate to indicate opposition; the available context suggests a generally favorable policy rationale centered on recruitment, retention, and clinical education.
The likely areas of contention are the program’s geographic limitation to the Capital Region, which may be viewed as uneven treatment compared with other regions, and the fiscal commitment, including the $5 million first-year cap. Additional concerns could involve whether the stipend is sufficient to change behavior, how eligibility will be defined and enforced, and whether the Office of the Professions can administer application, denial, revocation, and audit processes effectively.