Supervision of Advanced Practice Registered Nurses; definitions; eligibility requirements for physicians; limits; exceptions; responsibilities; disciplinary action; penalties; effective date.
HB1812 creates a new section of Oklahoma law governing the supervision of Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) by physicians. It defines key terms such as APRN, supervising physician, proper physician supervision, and mid-level provider, and sets eligibility standards for physicians who want to supervise APRNs. Those standards include holding an unrestricted Oklahoma medical license, having DEA and Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics controlled-substance authority, and being trained in the APRN’s specialty or the services the APRN provides.
The bill also requires a written supervision agreement between each supervising physician and APRN. That agreement must describe any supervision fees, the APRN’s scope of practice, any limits on controlled-substance prescribing, and the level of supervision required, and it must be filed with the relevant licensing board. Supervising physicians must notify APRNs of anticipated unavailability, report changes in the relationship within 14 days, and maintain proper supervision, including chart review, emergency planning, and an alternate physician. The bill directs the boards to adopt rules on supervision expectations and authorizes disciplinary action for noncompliance; it also requires annual reporting on complaints and a public list of physicians willing to supervise APRNs.
In practical terms, the bill would affect the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners and the State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, as well as APRNs and physicians who enter supervision arrangements. It would codify supervision requirements in Title 59 and could influence how APRNs obtain and maintain prescriptive authority, especially for controlled substances. The bill also bars the boards from charging fees for tracking supervision relationships and sets an effective date of November 1, 2025.
The available vote history suggests the bill had at least some committee support, passing the House Public Health Committee 4-2 as amended by committee substitute. The text and caption indicate the bill is aimed at tightening and formalizing physician oversight of APRNs, which may appeal to those seeking clearer accountability and standards. At the same time, the detailed supervision, fee, and reporting requirements suggest the bill could be viewed as restrictive or administratively burdensome by APRNs or others favoring greater practice autonomy.
HB1812 would add a new statutory framework in Title 59 regulating APRN supervision, including physician qualifications, written agreements, reporting duties, board rulemaking, and disciplinary consequences. It would directly affect APRNs, supervising physicians, and the state medical and osteopathic boards by imposing new compliance obligations and limiting how supervision relationships are structured and compensated.
The limited voting record shows mixed but generally favorable committee sentiment, with the bill advancing 4-2 from House Public Health Committee as amended. The bill appears to have support from lawmakers interested in formal oversight and accountability, while the opposition likely reflects concerns about added regulation, supervision costs, and constraints on APRN practice.
The main points of contention are likely the degree of physician control over APRN practice, the requirement for written supervision agreements filed with the board, and the ability of physicians to charge supervision fees. APRNs and supporters of expanded scope-of-practice authority may view the bill as overly restrictive, while supporters of the measure may argue it ensures patient safety, clearer accountability, and proper oversight for prescribing and clinical practice.