Comment by FireBeyond

If you want to be pedantic, then everyone has oversight through medical licensing boards, including physicians.

But if you mean "supervising physician"? Then let's see:

* Alaska - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician.

* Arizona - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician.

* Colorado - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician.

We're six states in, and half have no requirement for an NP to have any supervision from a physician.

Let's keep going though:

Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho... zero supervision required. At this point I couldn't be bothered going through the list. This list, from the AAFP telling physicians about their responsibilities in supervising NPs state by state: https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/practice-and-career/ma...

So to put that back on you, explain my fundamental incorrectness.

And again, if you're talking about DOH oversight, then that seems a little disingenuous, as even the Chief of Medicine at a Level 1 Trauma Center practices under that insight.

I'm very well aware of the limitations of my scope of practice. That's why I operate under online and offline protocols. But hey, maybe I should have done another year or two of school so I could have a "full scope of practice without any need for a supervising physician". Not sure the ad hominem has any relevance.