Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Workforce topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nebraska committee hears bill to remove automatic physician liability for physician assistants
Summary
The Health and Human Services Committee heard LB914 to repeal a statute that automatically assigns physicians liability for physician assistant (PA) negligence. Supporters said the change would align law with modern team-based practice and not reduce patient protections; lawmakers pressed on insurance, supervision, and excess-liability fund implications.
Senator Brian Harden introduced LB914 to the Health and Human Services Committee, asking legislators to repeal a statute that currently assigns physicians automatic liability for every negligent act or omission of a physician assistant (PA). Harden said the change would make PAs responsible for the care they personally provide while leaving physicians liable for their own actions under standard malpractice law.
The Nebraska Academy of Physician Assistants’ legislative chair, Bethany Berg, told the committee that current statute can assign physician liability even when a physician never saw or participated in the patient’s care. "Current Nebraska law automatically assigns physician liability for every negligent act or omission of a PA even in situations where the physician never saw the patient or participated in the care," she said, arguing the law is out of step with modern PA practice and that PAs are licensed professionals who carry malpractice insurance.
Why it matters: Supporters said LB914 would remove a legal deterrent to physician–PA collaboration that can hamper staffing in rural and underserved areas. Committee members probed the interaction between the bill and existing liability insurance structures, asking whether PAs would be eligible for the state’s excess liability fund and whether separating liability would lower physicians’ premiums.
Committee questions focused on the malpractice insurance fund and premium effects. Berg said the bill does not change the excess liability fund’s eligibility, structure, or coverage and that her organization did not currently plan to seek inclusion in that fund. She said available research suggests the statute change should not materially alter malpractice premium costs, but she deferred specific premium and billing questions to insurers and employers.
The committee heard no opponents in person. The clerk reported three online proponents and one neutral comment for the record. Chair Harden closed the LB914 hearing after members indicated no further questions.
The next step: LB914 remains before the Health and Human Services Committee for deliberation; advocates said the bill preserves patient protections and supervision requirements while aligning law with current clinical practice.
