Nursing board debates bill to let out‑of‑state volunteer practitioners work statewide during emergencies
Loading...
Summary
Board staff outlined AB 1558, which would allow approved volunteer registries to authorize out‑of‑state licensed practitioners to practice in California during emergencies; staff warned of tracking, scope‑of‑practice and enforcement challenges and members suggested tying volunteers to specific facilities or clarifying registries' data requirements. No final board vote on the bill was recorded in the available transcript.
The Board of Registered Nursing spent substantial time on AB 1558, a measure that would recognize additional volunteer health practitioner registration systems and allow licensed practitioners from other states to practice in California during a declared emergency if they sign up with an approved registry.
Marissa Clark, the board's chief of legislative affairs, summarized the bill and said approved systems would have to accept applications before or during an emergency, include accessible licensure and good‑standing information, be able to share registrant identities and status with the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA), and meet one of several operational conditions (for example, be operated by a disaster relief organization or a licensing board). Clark said the bill limits volunteers to the narrower scope of practice between their home state and California and gives licensing boards a role in modifying or restricting services and in reporting or seeking discipline when appropriate.
Executive Officer Loretta Melby described how EMSA handled out‑of‑state practitioners during COVID under the federal/state emergency mechanism (MSAA/EMSA): EMSA assigned practitioners to specific facilities and provided BRN with lists so the board could check for complaints and, where appropriate, notify the practitioner's home state. Melby warned that AB 1558, as drafted, could allow volunteers to work anywhere in California rather than being tied to a single facility, creating oversight gaps. "This is slightly different," Melby said. "They're not tied to a facility that they come in and they can work anywhere. And that's not something that we are aware of where they're working and where they're providing the service." (Loretta Melby, executive officer.)
Several board members pressed staff on operational capacity and enforcement. Board member David Lawler recommended an amendment to require volunteers be tied to a specific facility, a change staff acknowledged would address BRN's principal oversight concern. Tricia Wynne and others asked whether BRN has the manpower to handle increased complaint workflows; Marissa Clark said the bill is early in the legislative process and that fiscal impacts would be analyzed later by appropriations staff.
Board members also discussed uniformity across states and legal consequences when conduct may violate California scope of practice but not the home state's rules. Clark noted the bill mirrors model acts from the Uniform Law Commission and that cross‑state adoption would be needed to fully harmonize disciplinary outcomes.
The transcript shows motion activity and friendly amendment suggestions during the AB 1558 discussion and that public comment windows opened with no speakers. The available transcript does not record a definitive final roll‑call vote on AB 1558 in the segments provided to this report.
Why it matters: AB 1558 seeks to expand the pool of deployable clinicians in emergencies but raises practical questions about tracking, scope limits, facility assignment, and who ultimately enforces discipline. Board members indicated support for the policy goal but urged clarifying amendments to reduce oversight and patient‑safety risks.
What happens next: Staff indicated they would continue to track the bill, engage with EMSA and authors, and refine fiscal and operational analyses as the bill moves through policy and appropriations committees.
