An Act to create 440.18 of the statutes; Relating to: registration of out-of-state health care providers to provide telehealth services. (FE)
AB212 would create a new statutory section allowing certain out-of-state health care professionals to register with the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services, or the relevant credentialing board, so they may provide telehealth services to patients located in Wisconsin. To qualify, the provider must hold an active, unencumbered license or similar authorization in another state, have no disqualifying disciplinary history in the prior five years, designate an in-state agent for service of process, and comply with Wisconsin scope-of-practice rules. Registered providers would receive a unique telehealth identification number and could renew their registration on the same cycle used for their profession in Wisconsin.
The bill also imposes ongoing obligations and limits on registered telehealth providers. They must maintain malpractice liability insurance when Wisconsin law requires comparable in-state practitioners to carry it, and they must notify the department or board within five business days if their out-of-state credential is restricted or if disciplinary action is initiated or taken anywhere. The department or board could discipline, suspend, or revoke the telehealth registration for failures to report adverse actions, violations of the new section, or other conduct that would justify discipline under Wisconsin law. The bill expressly bars these registrants from opening a Wisconsin office or providing in-person care in the state unless they obtain a Wisconsin credential.
AB212 would change Wisconsin law by creating a new registration pathway in chapter 440 for out-of-state telehealth practice, rather than requiring a full Wisconsin credential in every case. It would also require DSPS to publish a public website list of registered telehealth providers, including identifying information, education and training, specialty, board certification, disciplinary history, malpractice coverage, and service-of-process contact information. The bill would take effect on the first day of the seventh month after publication.
The general sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, but the bill’s introduction and referral suggest it was presented as a professional licensing and telehealth access measure. The fact that it ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 indicates it did not advance into law during the session.
The main points of contention likely center on balancing access to telehealth against state oversight and patient protection. Supporters would likely favor expanding access to care, especially for shortages in specialized or rural services, while critics may be concerned about allowing non-Wisconsin providers to practice without a full state credential, the adequacy of disciplinary oversight across state lines, malpractice coverage, and whether the public registry and reporting requirements are sufficient safeguards.
AB212 would add a new registration category in Wisconsin statutes for out-of-state health care providers delivering telehealth services, modifying the state’s licensing framework under chapter 440. It would affect DSPS and applicable credentialing boards by giving them authority to register, renew, discipline, and publicly list eligible telehealth providers, while preserving Wisconsin’s scope-of-practice and malpractice insurance requirements for professions that already have them. The bill would also affect out-of-state physicians and other licensed clinicians seeking to serve Wisconsin patients remotely, but it would not authorize in-person practice without a Wisconsin credential.
No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so the public record here does not show detailed debate. Based on the bill text, the measure appears intended to expand telehealth access while maintaining regulatory safeguards, suggesting a generally pro-access, pro-licensure posture. Its failure to pass indicates it did not secure enough support to become law, but the available materials do not identify specific floor or committee opposition.
The likely contention is between expanding telehealth access and preserving Wisconsin’s control over health care licensing and discipline. Supporters would emphasize easier access to remote care and the ability to use qualified providers already licensed elsewhere, while opponents may worry about reduced oversight, reliance on out-of-state disciplinary systems, and whether the bill sufficiently protects patients through insurance, reporting, and public disclosure requirements. Another possible point of concern is the exclusion of in-person practice and the administrative burden on DSPS and credentialing boards to monitor multi-state credentials and disciplinary actions.