This bill establishes a temporary personal income tax credit for certain licensed health care professionals who serve as preceptor clinicians and provide unpaid clinical instruction to students in New York State educational programs. Eligible preceptors include physicians, physician assistants, specialist assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists, registered professional nurses, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and midwives. The credit is set at $1,000 for each 100 hours of preceptor instruction, up to a maximum of $3,000 per taxpayer per year.
The credit applies only to clinical preceptorships for students preparing to enter specified health professions, including medicine, nursing, physician assistant studies, nurse anesthesia, and midwifery, and only when the instruction occurs in designated specialties such as family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, emergency medicine, psychiatry, or general surgery. The bill also caps the statewide amount of credits at $3 million annually for tax years 2026 through 2030, allows unused credit amounts to be carried forward, and directs the commissioners of education and taxation and finance to create certification and reporting procedures for administering the program.
In terms of state law, the bill amends the Tax Law by adding a new personal income tax credit under section 606 and authorizes the education and tax departments to adopt implementing rules and share certification records for enforcement and administration. The measure is temporary: it takes effect immediately, applies to taxable years beginning January 1, 2026, and expires on December 31, 2030.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill itself is supportive of workforce development in health care, especially the training pipeline for students entering shortage-prone clinical fields. Although no committee transcript or vote record is provided, the structure of the bill suggests an incentive-based approach intended to encourage experienced clinicians to take on teaching responsibilities without direct compensation.
The main point of contention likely concerns the fiscal cost and the narrow targeting of the benefit. Potential questions include whether a tax credit is the best way to recruit preceptors, whether the $3 million annual cap is sufficient to address training shortages, and whether the credit should be limited to specific professions and specialties. Another possible issue is administrative complexity, since the program requires certification of hours and coordination between the education and tax departments.
The bill would amend the Tax Law to create a new refundable? no, nonrefundable personal income tax credit structure for qualifying preceptor clinicians, affecting licensed physicians, nurses, midwives, and related practitioners who provide unpaid clinical instruction. It would also require the State Education Department and the Department of Taxation and Finance to establish certification and reporting procedures, thereby adding an administrative framework for verifying eligible hours and claims. The credit would be available for a limited period from tax year 2026 through 2030, with a statewide annual cap of $3 million.
No committee discussion or vote record is included, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators. Based on the bill text and sponsor framing, the measure appears generally favorable toward expanding the health care training pipeline by rewarding clinicians who mentor students. The policy approach suggests broad support for addressing preceptor shortages, though the absence of recorded debate means any actual legislative sentiment cannot be confirmed from the provided materials.
Likely areas of contention include the fiscal impact of creating a new tax expenditure, the adequacy of the $3 million annual cap, and whether the credit should be limited to certain professions and specialties rather than all clinical educators. Some may question whether a tax credit effectively reaches clinicians who are already providing unpaid instruction, while others may view the certification and reporting requirements as burdensome. The bill’s narrow eligibility criteria and temporary sunset may also draw scrutiny from stakeholders seeking broader or permanent support.