Interprofessional Healthcare Policy Council (IHPC)

UPDATED 5.21.25 – New Stakeholders Update (AB282, AB290, AB315). Click here to download.

The Interprofessional Healthcare Policy Council (IHPC) is a visionary alliance of leaders representing Nevada’s most influential voices in medicine, public health, law, policy, and healthcare innovation. With more than 300 years of collective experience, the Council brings together a powerful and diverse network of experts working at the intersection of healthcare delivery, system reform, and public policy.

Our members include:

  • Board-certified physicians and medical executives who have led hospitals, health systems, and state-level clinical programs.
  • Legal and regulatory specialists with deep expertise in healthcare law, compliance, licensing, and governance.
  • Public and behavioral health leaders advancing integrated models of care, workforce expansion, and community-based services.
  • Executives in health IT and data interoperability building scalable, technology-enabled care infrastructure.
  • Strategists and consultants who shape health plan operations, benefit design, and population health initiatives.

IHPC is dedicated to fostering a process of inclusive deliberation, ensuring that all unique expertise and perspectives are considered fairly and equitably. At the heart of its mission is a commitment to producing nonpartisan, unbiased recommendations that maximize positive community impact—free from organizational or political influence.

From improving access to behavioral health services and strengthening emergency response systems, to shaping legislation and optimizing care coordination, IHPC members are united by a bold mission:

To create actionable, sustainable policy solutions that elevate care delivery and health outcomes across Nevada.

As an interprofessional body, IHPC is uniquely positioned to bridge silos, align stakeholders, and deliver insights

Here are the IHPC’s latest summations on bills critical to healthcare in our state:

SB 34: Policy Analysis: Support for SB 34 with Modifications

SB 34 proposes for Nevada to join multiple healthcare licensure compacts, allowing an alternative pathway to expedited licensure in Nevada and other states. Compact licensure has the potential to make it easier for professionals in other states to provide care in Nevada. However, the opposite is also true—compact licensure may make it easier for professionals in Nevada to be licensed and practice in other states. Compact licensure is not a panacea and will have various impacts on Nevada’s healthcare workforce and economic landscape.

Strengths of SB 34

SB 34 introduces several key advantages that align with Nevada’s healthcare needs and broader policy goals:

  1. Expanded Access to Healthcare Providers – By allowing healthcare professionals to practice across state lines, SB 34 may increase the availability of qualified providers, especially in rural and underserved areas where shortages persist.
  2. Enhanced Telehealth Capabilities – Interstate licensure compacts facilitate telehealth expansion, ensuring patients receive timely care from specialists who may not reside within state borders but are available via telehealth from outside the state.
  3. Reduction in Administrative Burdens – The bill will streamline licensing procedures for compact licensees, reducing delays to provider entry into the workforce.
  4. Improved Emergency Preparedness – During public health emergencies or natural disasters, Nevada will have greater flexibility to deploy out-of-state providers rapidly to address critical healthcare needs.

Concerns and Considerations

While the bill offers notable advantages, there are concerns that warrant attention:

  1. Potential for Confusion Regarding Workforce – Increasing the total number of licensed professionals in the state does not necessarily mean that more professionals are physically present or available to work. The increase in licenses resulting from compact licensure can distort or misinform policymakers, employers, and other stakeholders regarding the actual number of professionals available. Such distortions can cause imbalances and problems of their own. Policymakers should consider strategies to study the impacts of compact licensure, particularly its effect on wages and working conditions. Research on occupational licensing suggests that while reducing barriers can improve access, careful oversight is necessary.
  2. Migration of Healthcare Professionals – There is a possibility that Nevada-based providers may seek better opportunities in states with higher wages or more favorable working conditions, leading to workforce attrition. Addressing provider retention through competitive compensation and support mechanisms is essential.
  3. Regulatory and Quality Assurance Challenges – Ensuring that out-of-state professionals adhere to Nevada’s medical and ethical standards remains a concern. Without proper oversight, there may be inconsistencies in patient care quality.

While some organizations view the compact as a tool for workforce expansion, we see it for what it is—an alternative pathway for expedited licensure that can have both positive and negative impacts on workforce dynamics and quality of care, many of which are difficult to anticipate.

Suggested Modifications

To mitigate these concerns while maintaining the core benefits of SB 34, the following modifications are recommended:

  • Oversight and Workforce Impact Assessment – Establish a review mechanism to track the effects of interstate licensing on local employment and healthcare quality. Regular reporting and policy adjustments can help address unintended consequences in a timely manner.
  • Strengthened Regulatory Framework – Develop clear guidelines to ensure out-of-state professionals practicing in Nevada meet the same standards as in-state licensed providers.

Conclusion and Recommendation

SB 34 represents a positive step toward modernizing Nevada’s healthcare system and improving access to medical professionals. The bill’s potential to enhance telehealth, reduce administrative barriers, and support emergency preparedness makes it a valuable policy initiative. However, economic and regulatory concerns, particularly regarding workforce and quality of care, should not be ignored.

We support SB 34 with the recommended modifications to safeguard Nevada’s healthcare workforce while leveraging the benefits of expanded licensure compacts. By implementing oversight measures and proactive workforce policies, Nevada can ensure that SB 34 achieves its intended outcomes without unintended economic drawbacks.

SB 40: Policy Analysis: SB40 Medicaid Health Care Workforce Account: Qualified Approval with Modifications

Overview

SB40 establishes the Medicaid Health Care Workforce Account to support initiatives aimed at expanding and strengthening Nevada’s healthcare workforce. This legislation represents a strategic effort to address provider shortages, particularly in underserved and rural areas, by leveraging Medicaid funding to support recruitment, education, and retention efforts.

Strengths of SB40

  • Proactive Workforce Development: The bill funds initiatives such as student loan repayment, medical education, and workforce training, directly supporting efforts to build and sustain a robust healthcare workforce.
  • Strategic Use of Medicaid Funds: Leveraging federal Medicaid dollars enhances the state’s ability to invest in healthcare infrastructure while maximizing available resources.
  • Support for Underserved Areas: Prioritizing recruitment and retention in underserved regions aligns with Nevada’s broader healthcare equity goals and addresses critical access gaps.

Key Concerns

  • Unclear Funding Priorities and Eligibility Criteria: The bill lacks specificity regarding how funds will be allocated and who qualifies for assistance, raising concerns about equitable access and program effectiveness.
  • Uncertainty in Long-Term Funding Sustainability: The legislation does not clearly outline mechanisms for ensuring consistent and adequate funding, which may impact the program’s long-term viability.
  • Oversight and Accountability Measures: Without clear oversight mechanisms, there is a risk that funds could be misallocated or fail to effectively support Nevada-based healthcare programs and providers.

Recommended Modifications

  • Define Funding Priorities and Eligibility Criteria: Establishing clear guidelines will enhance transparency, promote equitable distribution of resources, and improve program efficiency.
  • Strengthen Oversight Mechanisms: Implementing regular audits, reporting requirements, and performance reviews will ensure accountability and prevent potential misuse of funds.
  • Establish Measurable Success Indicators: Defining tangible benchmarks will enable policymakers to track progress, assess impact, and make data-driven adjustments as needed.

Conclusion

SB40 represents a crucial step toward strengthening Nevada’s healthcare workforce. However, to maximize its effectiveness and sustainability, the bill should incorporate greater clarity on funding distribution, long-term financial planning, and oversight mechanisms. With these modifications, SB40 can serve as a well-structured and impactful initiative to improve healthcare access across the state.