For years, nurse practitioners practicing in collaborative practice states have questioned whether mandatory physician collaboration agreements truly exist to protect patients or whether they have become an expensive barrier to providing care. A recently filed lawsuit in Texas has brought that question into the national spotlight. Supported by the Pacific Legal Foundation, the lawsuit challenges Texas laws that require many nurse practitioners to enter into paid collaborative agreements with physicians before they can fully practice. The plaintiffs argue that these laws force nurse practitioners to pay physicians for permission to perform services they are already educated, nationally certified, and state licensed to provide.
To be clear, collaboration itself is not the issue. Healthcare is at its best when physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, and other healthcare professionals work together as respected members of the healthcare team.
Collaboration based on communication, consultation, and shared expertise benefits everyone, especially patients. The problem arises when collaboration becomes a legal requirement that can only be satisfied by paying a physician, regardless of whether meaningful collaboration actually occurs.
Many nurse practitioners describe these arrangements as less of a professional partnership and more of a financial gatekeeping system. In some cases, physicians charge thousands of dollars each year to serve as collaborating physicians. While many physicians provide valuable mentorship, consultation, and oversight that justifies their compensation, others may have little interaction with the nurse practitioner beyond signing the required paperwork. When payment is required simply to obtain the legal authority to practice, many nurse practitioners understandably question whether they are paying for genuine professional services or simply paying for access to their own profession.
Nurse practitioners are highly educated healthcare professionals. They complete graduate or doctoral-level education, thousands of hours of clinical training, national certification examinations, state licensure requirements, and continuing education throughout their careers. State boards of nursing determine whether they are qualified to practice safely. Yet in many collaborative practice states, that state-issued license alone is not enough. They must also secure a physician willing to enter into a collaborative agreement, often for a substantial fee, before they can fully use the education and training they have worked so hard to obtain.
The Texas lawsuit argues that this system primarily benefits physicians who are permitted to act as gatekeepers, allowing them to collect fees from nurse practitioners who have no realistic alternative if they want to practice. Whether the courts ultimately agree with that legal argument remains to be seen. However, the lawsuit raises an important public policy question: should one licensed healthcare professional have to pay another licensed healthcare professional simply for permission to earn a living?
The impact extends far beyond nurse practitioners. Patients ultimately bear the consequences of unnecessary barriers to practice. Across the country, communities continue to struggle with shortages of primary care providers, mental health professionals, and rural healthcare practitioners. Every nurse practitioner who delays opening a practice because they cannot find or afford a collaborating physician represents fewer healthcare options for patients who may already be waiting weeks or months for care. Removing unnecessary barriers could improve access to healthcare, particularly in medically underserved communities where providers are desperately needed.
This debate should not be viewed as physicians versus nurse practitioners. Many physicians oppose mandatory collaborative agreements and believe that professional relationships should develop voluntarily rather than through government mandates. Thousands of physicians and nurse practitioners collaborate every day because they recognize the value each profession brings to patient care, not because a statute requires them to sign a contract.
Healthcare has changed dramatically over the past several decades. Nurse practitioners now serve millions of patients across the United States in primary care, specialty care, urgent care, hospitals, and countless other settings. More than half of the states have adopted some form of full practice authority, allowing qualified nurse practitioners to practice without mandatory physician contracts while maintaining patient safety and expanding access to care. Their experience demonstrates that collaboration can continue without requiring contractual financial relationships.
The Texas lawsuit will ultimately be decided in court, but it shines a light on an issue that deserves thoughtful discussion nationwide. If collaborative practice agreements genuinely improve patient safety, they should be based on meaningful professional collaboration rather than financial obligation. If they primarily function as a mechanism requiring nurse practitioners to pay for permission to practice, lawmakers should carefully examine whether those requirements continue to serve the public interest.
Every healthcare professional should be accountable for the care they provide. Nurse practitioners already answer to their patients, their licensing boards, their employers, and the law. The question is whether they should also be required to pay another profession simply to exercise the privileges their own license already grants them. That is the question now before the courts, and one that policymakers across the country should be asking as they consider the future of healthcare access.
In Indiana, NPs only have a physician collaborator to review 5% of charts for prescribing practices. What about a nurse that has been in practice 5, 10 or even 20 years? Does oversight make any sense?
I encourage all NPs in collaborative practice states to contact their state legislators and professional organizations to advocate for full practice authority.
Comments are closed