Nurse midwifery FAQs to be updated to reflect SB 667; committee approves changes pending legal review

The Nurse Midwifery Advisory Committee of the California Board of Registered Nursing voted on Oct. 12, 2025, to update frequently asked questions on the BRN website to reflect statutory changes enacted by SB 667 and related provisions, pending a legal review and a report at the next NMAC meeting.

The committee’s vote followed a sustained discussion among members and BRN staff about removing outdated references to “standardized procedures” for certified nurse‑midwives (CNMs) and clarifying CNMs’ authority to furnish and dispense certain drugs and devices under policies and protocols mutually agreed with physicians. Chair Shaw Bautista opened the agenda item and BRN staff explained which text on the site required revision.

Why it matters: stakeholders including the California Midwives Association and practicing CNMs have said the BRN website still contains language that predates statutory changes and has created confusion for hospitals, health systems and clinicians seeking to align local policy with current law.

Board staff described the intended edits as largely explanatory: removing obsolete references to standardized procedures, adding references to the Business and Professions Code where the law now sits, and clarifying CNMs’ authority in areas such as furnishing certain controlled substances, laboratory director roles for waived CLIA tests, and ability to provide first‑trimester abortion care where within scope. Staff said legal review would check for unintended conflicts with pharmacy, DEA or other statutes before posting.

Paris Malouf Burry, representing the California Midwives Association, urged speed. “We have effectively spent the first hour and 42 minutes of the 2‑hour long meeting getting nothing done other than talking about how we could make changes if we were going to make changes,” she told the committee. “The BRN’s website still says that we require standardized procedures… I have sent repeated emails and received 0 response.”

BRN staff responded that most website edits have been made and that the FAQ section remained under review to ensure any clarifications do not cross into rulemaking. Chief of Licensing Macaulay Fusarin said staff would remove or reword statutory references and link readers to the Business and Professions Code rather than embedding bill text; legal counsel Reza noted the board must avoid creating new regulatory obligations by FAQ wording.

The committee approved a motion to proceed with the changes as discussed, subject to legal review, and added that staff must report back on the status of updates at the next NMAC meeting. The committee also asked that stakeholders who provided suggested edits be notified when the website changes are published.

Votes at a glance: the meeting recorded three formal votes relevant to this discussion — approval of prior meeting minutes (approved), a subcommittee membership change (approved), and approval of the FAQ updates pending legal review (approved by roll call). Staff said they will notify requestors after legal review and when the FAQs go live.

The committee discussed longer‑term items that could not be resolved at the meeting: whether to add comparative materials for hospital‑based versus community‑based midwifery practice and how to present operational examples without straying into employer or privileging policy. Staff recommended further off‑line work with legal counsel and suggested subcommittees coordinate follow‑up work.

The committee adjourned after confirming the staff will perform legal review and circulate the revised FAQ language and links to statutory citations prior to posting.