| Course | NR 506NP Healthcare Policy and Leadership |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Scope legislation review |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 506NP Week 2
Scope Legislation Review of California AB 890, Wood, Chapter 265 of 2020: Standardized Procedures Clause by Clause, the Transition Hours and Peer Review Reporting Written In as the Price, and What the Law Still Does Not Reach
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 506NP: Healthcare Policy and Leadership
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Scope Legislation Review of California AB 890, Wood, Chapter 265 of 2020: Standardized Procedures Clause by Clause, the Transition Hours and Peer Review Reporting Written In as the Price, and What the Law Still Does Not Reach
The Current Position, Cited to Its Text
Before AB 890, the California nurse practitioner's scope rested on two provisions. The Nursing Practice Act allowed registered nurses, including NPs, to perform functions beyond basic nursing under "standardized procedures," written policies developed with physicians and administrators. And section 2836.1 of the Business and Professions Code allowed an NP to furnish or order drugs only within protocols written jointly with a physician who remained reachable by phone during each visit; it required a patient-specific protocol for Schedule II and III drugs, and it capped each physician at four NPs supervised at once for furnishing (California Business and Professions Code, 2025). Those provisions remain in force for every NP who does not qualify under AB 890.
One Measure, Identified Properly
The measure is Assembly Bill 890, introduced in the 2019 to 2020 session by Assemblymember Jim Wood, who chaired the Assembly Health Committee. California does not use companion bills in the way many states do, and none was filed in the Senate; the bill moved as a single measure through both houses. The Legislative Counsel's Digest summarizes it as establishing a Nurse Practitioner Advisory Committee, requiring the Board of Registered Nursing to set minimum standards for a transition to practice, authorizing qualifying NPs to perform specified functions without standardized procedures in certain settings, and, from January 1, 2023, outside those settings with an additional board certificate (Assembly Bill 890, 2020). It was signed on September 29, 2020, as Chapter 265 of the Statutes of 2020.
Clause Now Against Clause Proposed
The table sets the earlier text beside what AB 890 enacted for a qualifying "103" NP practicing in a group with a physician.
Table 1
Selected Clauses Before and After AB 890
| Function | Before AB 890 (section 2836.1 and standardized procedures) | Under AB 890 for a 103 NP (section 2837.103) |
|---|---|---|
| Drugs and devices | Only through a written standardized procedure agreed with the supervising physician | Prescribe, administer, dispense and furnish, including controlled substances, without standardized procedures |
| Schedule II and III drugs | Only under a patient-specific protocol approved by the physician | No patient-specific protocol required |
| Physician's role | Supervision, including availability by telephone at the time of the visit; four NPs per physician | One or more physicians practice in the same setting; no supervision ratio |
| Diagnostic procedures | Under standardized procedures | Order, perform and interpret; radiologic procedures ordered and used, not performed |
| Employer control | Set through the standardized procedures | The setting may not interfere with or direct the NP's professional judgment |
Note. Compiled from Business and Professions Code sections 2836.1 and 2837.103 as currently in force.
A Week of Practice the Day After
For an FNP in a community health center, the day after qualifying as a 103 NP looks different in specific ways. A patient with chronic pain who needs a controlled substance no longer waits for a patient-specific protocol. The NP's name no longer needs to appear on a standardized procedure that the medical director must review each year. The health center no longer has to count how many NPs each physician supervises. And the physician in the building is a colleague to consult, not a supervisor whose telephone availability is a legal condition of the NP's prescribing.
What does not change is equally concrete. The NP still works in a group with at least one physician. And for the 104 NP, practicing alone, the law adds obligations the 103 NP does not have: a written referral plan with specific criteria, mandatory consultation in listed circumstances, a notice posted for patients, a statement to every new patient that the NP is not a physician, and professional liability insurance (California Business and Professions Code, 2025).
The Price Written Into the Bill
AB 890 did not expand scope for free, and its costs are written into the text. The largest is time: 4,600 hours, or three years at full time, of transition to practice before 103 status, attested on a board form by a physician or qualifying NP, and at least three more years before 104 status (Board of Registered Nursing, n.d.). The second is accountability borrowed from medicine: NPs practicing under the new provisions become licentiates for purposes of "805 reports," the reports peer review bodies must file on adverse actions, and they become subject to the same self-referral prohibitions as physicians (Assembly Bill 890, 2020). The third is examination: the board had to commission an occupational analysis and develop a supplemental examination if the analysis showed one was needed.
These provisions answer the opposition's objections in the bill's own terms. The Medical Board of California, which opposed the bill, and the California Medical Association, listed as opposed unless amended, argued that NP training is shorter and less supervised than physicians' (Medical Board of California, 2020). The transition years are the legislature's answer to that argument: supervised experience added after the degree rather than inside it.
Where the Measure Actually Stands
AB 890 is law. The 103 pathway could begin once the board adopted its regulations, and the 104 pathway began on January 1, 2023, by the statute's own terms. The provisions were later amended by SB 1451, authored by Senator Ashby and chaptered as Chapter 481 of 2024, and the current text of sections 2837.103 and 2837.104 reflects those amendments (Board of Registered Nursing, n.d.). A reviewer quoting the 2020 text alone would be quoting a version that is no longer fully in force.
What It Does Not Reach
The law authorizes; it does not compel. It does not require any employer to let a qualifying NP practice without standardized procedures, and a medical staff's bylaws can still require them. It does not require any health plan to credential an NP as an independent provider or to pay a claim in the NP's name. It does not change federal registration for controlled substances, which is a separate step with the Drug Enforcement Administration. And it does nothing for the NP in the first three years of practice, who works under the same standardized procedures as before. For the new graduate, AB 890 is a promise with a date on it, not a change in the first job.
References
Assembly Bill 890, Nurse practitioners: Scope of practice: Practice without standardized procedures, Chapter 265, Statutes of 2020, California Legislature (2020). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB890
Board of Registered Nursing. (n.d.). Assembly Bill 890 (Wood, Chapter 265, Statutes of 2020). California Department of Consumer Affairs. https://www.rn.ca.gov/practice/ab890.shtml
California Business and Professions Code, ยงยง 2836.1, 2837.103, 2837.104 (2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&division=2.&chapter=6.&article=8.5.
Medical Board of California. (2020). Legislative analysis: AB 890 (Wood), nurse practitioners: scope of practice: practice without standardized procedures (Board meeting materials, Agenda Item 11A, November 12, 2020). https://www.mbc.ca.gov/About/Meetings/Material/30815/brd-AgendaItem11A-20201112.pdf
NR 506NP Week 2 instructions, in plain terms
The Week 2 review has you analyze a scope of practice measure in your state. Points are attached to current law, the measure's identification and status, the changes it makes, its effect on practice, the conditions or concessions it contains, its limits and APA. Cite current law to its text before describing the measure. Identify the measure by number, author, session and chapter. Compare clauses side by side. Describe a concrete day of practice before and after. Name the conditions attached as the price the bill paid, and tie them to the opposition's arguments. Give the measure's current status precisely. Say what it does not reach.
Inside the NR 506NP Week 2 example
The current position section explains the Nursing Practice Act and section 2836.1 standardized procedures. The identification section describes AB 890, introduced in the 2019 to 2020 session by Assemblymember Jim Wood, chair of the Assembly Health Committee. Table 1 compares functions such as furnishing drugs under section 2836.1 and section 2837.103. The practice section describes an FNP in a community health center handling a patient with chronic pain who needs a controlled substance. The price section names 4,600 transition hours, three years full time and other conditions, and connects them to the Medical Board's and California Medical Association's objections. The status section explains the 103 and 104 pathways. The limits section notes the law authorizes but does not compel employers.
NR 506NP Week 2 rubric: what full points look like
Scope legislation review rubrics in NR 506NP generally reward accurate current law, correct identification of the measure, clear analysis of changes, attention to practice effects, understanding of political trade-offs, current status and APA. Clause-level analysis is the row this review earns most, through a side-by-side table drawn from the code sections. Identification is credited for number, author and chapter. Practice effects score through the community health center example. Trade-offs earn points because the conditions are read as the price the opposition extracted. Status is credited for distinguishing the two pathways. Limits are credited because the law does not bind employers. Four references complete APA.
NR 506NP Week 2 help: mistakes that cost points
The costliest failure on this review is describing a subject instead of a text, discussing expansion in general with no measure anyone could look up. Another loss is summarizing a bill from news coverage instead of the chaptered text. Students also skip the conditions attached, assume a bill passed or ignore what the law does not reach. If your state has no active bill, review the most recent enacted change or one from a nearby state. Quote statutory language briefly and only where wording matters. A model bill from a national organization can be reviewed if you say it is a model. Name your state's measure, and an NR 506NP review can compare it clause by clause.
Get a NR 506NP Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 instructions with the outline your section uses and the state you are writing about, and a custom example is built to that structure and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. No bill number appears in anything written here that was not looked up first, and picking the measure to follow stays yours.
More NR 506NP papers and MSN samples
- NR 506NP Week 1: NP Scope of Practice Discussion Post
- NR 506NP Week 3: Opposing Argument Analysis
- NR 506NP Week 4: Outcomes Evidence Review
- NR 506NP Week 5: Reimbursement and Credentialing Write-up
- NR 506NP Week 6: Professional Organization Analysis
- NR 506NP Week 7: Policy Leadership Plan
- NR 506NP Week 8: Advocacy Case Paper
- NR 508 Week 2: Pharmacokinetics Write-up
- NR 506 Week 2: Insulin Cost Policy Issue Brief
- NR 510 Week 2: Role Description Analysis
- NR 505 Week 2: PICOT Question Write-Up Example
NR 506NP Week 2 questions, answered
What if my state has no active bill?
Then write about the most recent one, even a failed one, and say what became of it. A measure that died in committee two sessions ago still shows the current position, the conditions its drafters thought necessary to include, and who filed against it. A review anchored to a real dead bill is worth considerably more than one written about a hypothetical.
How much statutory language should I quote?
Enough that the change is visible, which is usually a phrase rather than a paragraph. The useful move is to place the operative words against the proposed words and let the difference show, then explain that difference in ordinary terms. Long block quotations of legislative text fill space without demonstrating that the writer understood any of it.
Is a model bill from a national organization acceptable?
Check the instructions, because some sections want a measure filed in a real chamber and others accept model language. A model bill usefully shows what a profession asks for when nothing has yet been negotiated away. It is weaker here for precisely that reason, since the conditions that make a bill passable are the ones missing from it.
Where can I find a free NR 506NP Week 2 sample paper?
This page has the complete Week 2 review of California AB 890, with current law, the clause table, a day of practice, the price in the bill, the current status, the limits and four references.
What price did AB 890 pay in the NR 506NP Week 2 review?
Conditions written into the bill, chief among them 4,600 hours or three years of transition to practice, which answer the opposition's concerns about experience on the bill's own terms.