Practice of nursing; providing for independent prescriptive authority of Advanced Practice Registered Nurses who meet certain requirements. Effective date.
SB 569 would expand the prescribing authority of certain Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) in Oklahoma. Under the bill, Certified Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Nurse Specialists, and Certified Nurse-Midwives who have completed at least three years of supervised practice with prescriptive authority may apply to the Oklahoma Board of Nursing for independent prescriptive authority. That authority would last for the term of the APRN license, be renewable with the license, and could be approved, denied, suspended, or revoked by the Board. The bill also allows the Board to charge application and renewal review fees.
The measure also adds malpractice insurance requirements for APRNs, generally requiring coverage of at least $1 million per occurrence and $3 million aggregate per year, with an exception for certain federal employment or contracts. It directs the Board of Nursing to adopt advertising rules for APRNs and requires the medical licensing boards to post and maintain online lists of physicians available to supervise APRNs. The bill further clarifies that APRNs may not perform services or prescribe medications beyond what state law allows.
SB 569 makes several conforming changes across the Oklahoma Pharmacy Act, Nursing Practice Act, and Controlled Dangerous Substances Act. It updates definitions to recognize APRNs with independent prescriptive authority, revises the rules for APRN prescriptive authority and endorsement licensure, and distinguishes between APRNs who still require physician supervision and those who do not. It also amends controlled-substance provisions so that APRNs with independent authority may prescribe and administer Schedule III, IV, and V drugs without supervision, while APRNs without that authority remain subject to supervision requirements.
Overall, the bill appears to be framed as a professional scope-of-practice expansion for advanced practice nurses, with added regulatory guardrails. Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded legislative debate or voting history in the supplied materials to indicate formal support or opposition. The bill text itself suggests an effort to balance expanded autonomy with oversight through licensure standards, malpractice coverage, Board rulemaking, and continued limits on controlled substances and scope of practice.
SB 569 would significantly revise Oklahoma statutes governing nursing, pharmacy, and controlled substances by creating a new pathway for independent prescriptive authority for certain APRNs and by updating related definitions and procedures. It would affect the Oklahoma Board of Nursing, the State Board of Pharmacy, the State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, and the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners, while also changing the prescribing and dispensing rules applicable to APRNs, pharmacists, and supervising physicians. The bill would take effect November 1, 2025.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text, the measure appears generally supportive of APRN autonomy and professional practice expansion, while also incorporating regulatory safeguards such as experience requirements, malpractice insurance, Board approval, and continued limits on scope and controlled substances.
The main policy tension in SB 569 is between expanding APRN independence and preserving physician oversight. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s creation of independent prescriptive authority for experienced APRNs and the ability to practice without a supervision agreement, while opponents may object to reduced physician supervision, especially for prescribing authority and controlled substances. Additional points of potential contention include the malpractice insurance mandate, the Board’s authority to approve or deny applications and set fees, and the requirement that physician licensing boards publish lists of available supervising physicians, which may be seen as either a transparency measure or an administrative burden.