Three more
states as of July 1 began allowing nurses to practice within their
borders under licenses issued by certain other states, doing away
with the expense and time of maintaining multiple state licenses.
The Interstate
Nurse Licensure Compact-a mutual recognition of licenses developed
by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing-is a potential
boon to traveling nurses, tele-nurses and RNs who live in one
state and practice in another.
Idaho, Maine
and Mississippi bring to 13 the number of states that have implemented
the compact, accepting the licenses of RNs who live in the other
compact states: Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska,
North Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.
Arizona and
North Dakota will begin honoring licenses from other participating
states in 2002 and 2003, respectively. Lawmakers in Illinois,
Georgia and New Jersey are considering multistate licensure.
"We knew
this was going to be a gradual impact vs. a light-switch type
thing," said Joey Ridenour, MN, RN, president of the national
council. "We were hoping for six states a year," which
is about the rate at which interstate nursing is spreading.
The Virginia
Board of Nursing supports mutual recognition of licenses, so much
so that it asked Gov. Jim Gilmore to include it in his 2001 agenda.
The General Assembly, however, put it on hold last session, citing
cost.
A financial
analysis estimated that by joining the compact, Virginia would
lose $250,000 a year in license fees from out-of-state nurses,
said Nancy Durrett, MSN, RN, the state nursing board's executive
director. Many of those Virginia-licensed RNs live in Maryland
and North Carolina, populous neighboring states that have joined
the compact.
"We have
to resolve where we're going to get $250,000 a year before it's
going to move forward," Durrett said.
The financial
picture is but one hurdle in the decision to join the compact.
In Illinois,
the compact has passed the House and awaits debate in the Senate,
said bill sponsor Rep. Patricia Bellock, R-Westmont. The debate
is expected to center on ensuring that nurses who practice in
Illinois under another state's license meet all the criteria that
Illinois sets for its resident RNs, Bellock said.
Interstate
licensing offers convenience and savings for nurses who maintain
more than one license. Some do because they practice in two or
more states; others have moved from a state but keep that state's
license current because they already have gone through the bureaucracy
of obtaining it.
The philosophy
behind multistate licensing, though, has less to do with convenience
and savings, and more to do with monitoring RNs.
"Our
board really views this as a way to enhance our discipline information,"
said Kristin Hellquist, the national council's associate director
of policy and external relations. "As a member of the compact,
[states] can share discipline information more comprehensively
and more freely within this accord. That's certainly a benefit
for public protection."
When it adopted
the interstate compact in 1999, the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners
sent a primer to its RNs explaining key provisions. Among them
is that "the compact creates a coordinated licensure information
system
which will include information on the licensing
and disciplinary history of each nurse."
Notably, the
interstate compact changes disciplinary action from state of practice
to state of residence, an acknowledgement that a nurse may not
have a license issued by the state in which she is practicing.
The compact does, however, allow states to restrict or revoke
a nurse's privilege within its borders, regardless of the licensing
state. Home states may take disciplinary action against a license
based on a violation in another state, the primer said.
|
Compact
enacted
|
pending
implementation
|
in
legislature
|
|
|
|
|
It also said
that when a nurse changes residence-from a compact state to one
that does not participate-her former state's license remains valid,
but without the interstate privilege.
The handling
of information and complaints is a sticking point for some professional
organizations.
The Association
of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses and the American
Nurses Association do not endorse the concept of multistate licensing
because of information and discipline issues.
"It's
not clear that a nurse's home state board would follow up as energetically
on a complaint from a remote state because of the difficulty and
expense associated with doing that," said Gail Kincaide,
executive director of the women's health group.
Furthermore,
because nurses are not required to register when they begin practicing
across state lines, "it's conceivable that it's going to
be difficult for consumers to identify or file complaints about
a nurse's practice with the appropriate board of nursing,"
Kincaide said. "Also, recognize that there are differences
in state law regarding confidentiality and privacy requirements,
and concern that perhaps then there would be inconsistent treatment
of licensure records across state lines."
An independent
branch of the National Council of State Boards of Nursing manages
the database of nurses from participating states.
Linda Carson,
JD, the ANA's nurse practice counsel, called multistate licensure
"premature," pointing to the logistics and varying standards
of legal defense inherent in multistate practice. An RN facing
discipline may have to appear far from her home state for a hearing
and satisfy different standards for defense: clear and convincing
evidence in one state and a preponderance of evidence in another,
Carson said.
Utah, the
first state to adopt the Interstate Nurse Licensure Compact in
1998, had little interaction under its provisions until July 1
when Idaho came online, said Laura Poe, MS, RN, executive administrator
of Utah's nursing board. It's unknown how many Utah RNs have been
using their license to practice in other compact states, Poe said,
but more than 200 nurses living in Idaho are practicing in Utah
under their Idaho licenses.
In July 2002,
the burden of separate state licenses will disappear between Utah
and Arizona.
Ridenour,
president of the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and
executive director of Arizona's board of nursing, said, "I
anticipate the large labor states will be the last to sign on"
because the ability of nurses to move between states without the
time and paperwork to license themselves there can affect the
negotiation of labor contracts. "In states where there is
a large union contingent, obviously there's a disadvantage for
those states to get excited about this."
Patient care
tends to transcend license requirements in emergencies, however,
Ridenour said. "I think if any state were truly to have potential
harm to the public because there was an earthquake or some natural
disaster or union activity, we would figure out how to get people
licensed."
Ridenour said
that a few years ago when North Dakota suffered heavy flooding,
"They brought nurses over from Minnesota and did what was
right for the public. They said, "We need you to come over
and take care of these patients who are acutely ill, and we'll
figure out the licensing when you get here.'"
Aside from
developing the Interstate Nurse Licensure Compact model and an
initial public education campaign, the council's role is informational,
not promotional, Hellquist said. "We would never actually
seek to introduce something that's outside the boards of nursing,"
she said.
"There
obviously are 15 states that feel wholeheartedly that this is
the way to go. Some states do feel passionately that this is not
a concept they wish to pursue at this time. It's not mandated.
It's not like they've all been given 10 years to complete this.
"I think,
quite honestly, some states are just waiting to see how it works,"
Hellquist said.