State Specific Variations in Nurse Practitioner Practice Authority

Bobbi Markel
Nov 3
4 min read

State specific collaboration requirements shape the NP practice experience across the U.S.

tech using an emr system-electronic medical records - advanced practice partners

State-specific NP-MD collaboration requirements dramatically shape clinical practice. For NPs, these regulations determine not only the scope of care they are able to provide, but also the administrative burdens they must shoulder. For patients, these varying requirements influence access, timeliness, prescription pick-up, paperwork completion, and continuity of care. Across the United States, a patchwork of regulations governs NP practice, ranging from complete autonomy to indefinite physician supervision. If you are an NP thinking about expanding to other states, understanding these state differences is essential.

The most favorable states for NPs are those that grant full practice authority. In these states, NPs can evaluate, diagnose, prescribe, and manage treatment independently. These laws recognize the extensive training and clinical experience NPs bring to the healthcare system, and they allow them to practice at the top of their license. Many of these states are in the western U.S., including Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. They represent a model for how empowering NPs directly translates into improved patient access. Most recently, Wisconsin joined the list of autonomous states, signaling growing east coast momentum toward broader acceptance of NP autonomy.

A second category includes states that have adopted what might be considered a “transition-to-autonomy” model. In these states, NPs begin their careers under physician collaboration requirements, but may later apply for independent practice through their state board of nursing after accumulating a set number of hours or years in direct clinical care. California and Virginia are two notable examples. While this hybrid approach emphasizes more support structures for less experienced NPs, it ultimately recognizes the capacity of NPs to manage care autonomously once they have demonstrated sustained clinical practice. For many mid-career and experienced NPs, this model presents a realistic and navigable pathway to independence.

At the other end of the spectrum are states that require indefinite physician supervision. These stricter states are disproportionately concentrated in the South and Southeast, and they present some of the most challenging practice environments for NPs. Georgia and Texas, for instance, not only require ongoing physician collaboration, but also mandate that a physician must sign off on all Schedule II prescriptions. This creates refill delays, prior authorization challenges, administrative bottlenecks, and less potential collaborating doctors who want to take on these increased responsibilities. North Carolina adds a different burden by requiring both the NP and MD to complete state-specific documentation every month during the first six months of collaboration. Louisiana requires annual renewal of a state-specific collaboration form, which adds recurring administrative obligations. Georgia and South Carolina require that the collaborating physician physically live and practice in the state. Tennessee may be the most onerous of all, as it mandates quarterly in-person site visits by the supervising physician, despite more than half of psychiatric care now being delivered virtually. These restrictions reinforce outdated supervision models that are increasingly out of step with modern healthcare delivery and telemedicine.

Despite these ongoing challenges, there is good reason for optimism. More states are moving toward NP autonomy every year as legislatures across the country are recognizing the urgent need to expand the healthcare workforce. For example, in January of this year South Carolina introduced a legislative bill that would provide a pathway for full autonomy for NPs in the state. Although it has not passed yet, it has already obtained several prominent congressional “sponsors,” or existing legislative representatives who are in favor of the bill.

For NPs and PAs, this is an exciting moment of opportunity. The national healthcare landscape is changing quickly-and it’s mostly in your favor. But you want to be strategic about where you expand. If you are an NP seeking to establish or expand your practice, be sure to carefully review the specific regulations in your home state, as requirements can vary dramatically even across neighboring jurisdictions. Partnering with an experienced and supportive physician collaborator will make the difference between smooth navigation of these requirements and being weighed down by regulatory red tape. Staying current with legislative updates is equally critical, as the legal landscape is dynamic and continues to evolve rapidly.

Ultimately, the trajectory is positive. NPs and PAs are increasingly recognized as central to meeting Americans’ growing demand for high-quality, accessible healthcare. With careful planning, strategic decision-making, alliance building, and continued advocacy, mid-level providers will continue to expand their scope of practice and improve care delivery nationwide. That’s a win-win for all.

NP Practice Environments in the U.S.

Category Examples of States & Key Features

Full Practice Authority: Colorado, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, Wisconsin, DC. NPs practice autonomously; no formal physician collaboration required.

Transition-to-Autonomy California, Virginia. Initial collaboration required; autonomy granted after set hours/years of practice.

Indefinite Supervision Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee. Ongoing MD oversight required; frequent documentation, prescribing limitations, or in-person site visits.

Wanna learn more? Below are Some Additional Resources for State Specific Collaboration Information: