Stay Connected


Posted over 1 year ago by Melissa J Hinton

This announcement has 2 attachments:

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

We need a sweeping grassroots effort to secure votes in the House by 4 pm today for SB 36 (substitute/version 5). This bill removes language that restricts full practice authority (58-31b-803) and supports that same requirements that are already enumerated in the Nurse Practice Act. You are also invited to attend the House Health and Human Services Committee meeting either in person or virtually. Please contact the committee members (this link will also take you to the committee meeting virtually) of the committee right away and ask them to support this redaction (clarify that it is version 5) WITHOUT additional language from UMA that further restricts practice (Ray Ward, Stewart Barlow, and Rosemary Lesser are physicians. Dr/Rep Lesser is the sponsor of a bill to reinstate authority for the state Board of Nursing).

NOTE***Most of the House Representatives voted yes for the exact-same language in 2021 in the house (before the language was added for new NPs). This is the exact same language that was proposed at that time. Please mention this in your communications.

We need 8 votes to allow the bill to advance, and this committee has several physicians which is concerning, given that physicians have historically been antagonistic toward bills to further nurse practitioners’ ability to receive full-practice authority. 

Utah Nurse Practitioners (UNP) needs you to take a moment to contact your state representative to ask for their support in Senate Bill 36 Professional Licensing Amendments (SB0036 S2 or S5, DO NOT ACCEPT VERSION 6).

  • Step 1: Identify your state representative using this link or send it specifically to the committee
  • Step 2: Send an email to that state representative (see attached template). You must identify yourself as their constituent and it’s helpful to list an address.
  • Step 3: Contact [UNP rep] with your representative’s response, so we know who is supportive of this bill or if you need further support in contacting your representative

For the bill to be successful we need support from as many state representatives as possible but it’s especially important to have the support of at least eight of the following representatives:

  • Rep. Ken Ivory (R), Chair, attorney, district 39
  • Rep. Cheryl K. Acton (R), Vice Chair, writer, district 38
  • Rep. Stewart E. Barlow (R), physician, district 17
  • Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost (D), nonprofit executive, district 22
  • Rep. Steve Eliason (R), financial manager, district 43
  • Rep. Stephanie Gricius (R), entrepreneur, district 50
  • Rep. Sandra Hollins (D), LCSW, district 21
  • Rep. Tim Jimenez (R), environmental engineer, district 28
  • Rep. Marsha Judkins (R), adjunct professor, district 61
  • Rep. Quinn Kotter (R), chemical engineer, district 26
  • Rep. Rosemary T. Lesser (D), physician, district 10
  • Rep. Anthony E. Loubet (R), chief legal officer, district 27
  • Rep. Robert M. Spendlove (R), economist, district 42
  • Rep. Raymond P. Ward (R), physician, district 19

We will eventually need support from a broad range of representatives, but If you are a constituent of any of the above state representatives, then we implore you to please ask for their support of Senate Bill 36 Professional Licensing Amendments.


If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at or

Talking points are attached and  Sample Letter Templates are included below. Please do not disparage but present the truth professionally. Legislators like to hear why this is important and what your experience has been with the issues. 

We are down to the wire in order to move to the floor for final vote based on this committee's decision.  Thank you so much for your action today and your support!


Sample Letter 1

Subject: District [number] constituent seeking support for SB0036

Hello Representative [name],

I am a [nurse practitioner (NP)/student nurse practitioner (NP)] in district [number] and I am seeking

your support for Senate Bill 36 Professional Licensing Amendments (SB0036S2). [Nurse practitioners

(NPs)/Student nurse practitioners (NPs)] are passionate about giving excellent healthcare to our patients

and have both high satisfaction scores and health outcomes.

What this bill would do: The amended bill includes updates and modernization changes for multiple

professions and currently has broad support. For nurse practitioners (NPs), the legislation would retire

the additional and redundant regulatory requirements placed on select NP business owners. It would

make Utah more business friendly to NPs, open more care options, and bring Utah regulation of NPs

into alignment with the APRN Consensus Model.

If enacted, this legislation would bring Utah in alignment with more than half of U.S. states and the VA

that have enacted legislation allowing NPs to practice to their full practice authority. This evidence-

based model is associated with better health care access (especially in rural communities) and health

outcomes for patients, reduced costs, and improved workforce development.

Thank you for your time and work in the house. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns

about this bill.

Thank you,




Sample Letter 2

Hello Representative _________,

My name is ______,__. I have a personal interest in bill SB0036 S5 because _____________. This is a good bill that improves licensing clarity for many professions. It also addresses and supports NP practice in 1st year by allowing NPs to identify their own mentor relationships instead of being mandated within law/code.

SB 36 is a language CLEAN-UP for 58-31b-803. Section 803 is redundant to requirements already embedded in the Nurse PracticeAct and which restricts a select group of nurse practitioners in Utah. There are ZERO persons that are currently affected because it is too laborious to establish a clinic under current language. The Utah Medical Association is trying to alter the language instead of removing it but their arguments are not based on the content of 803. Instead, they are focusing on the character and clinical preparation of NPs who complete training, supervised hours, andboard licensure. NPs have been among the top 5 most trusted professions in America for the past 20 years and NPs have the safest prescribing numbers in Utah (NPs have 0.2% prescribing disciplinary actions since 2018 while our colleagues are double that per DOPL 2023 data).

I ask for your vote in support of SB36(S5) knowing that NPs are proven and safe providers while UMAs arguments continue to be punitive and unjustified year after year, study after study. Health outcomes and patient satisfaction rates are consistently the same as physicians or higher). New NPs and solo-practice NPs are prepared for full independent practice at graduation and go through 5 more layers of vetting before they can license in the state of Utah. 

Please seriously consider the implications of what UMA is doing. Removing the redundant language is best for business, for patient access, choice of provider, proven safety, and similar outcomes. For decades, NPs in Utah have filled the gaps and done it well. We have always had more restrictions than our peers despite 6-8 years of nursing accompanied by continued licensing disparity. Adding language of supervision would limit healthcare in less populated regions where NPs are often the ONLY healthcare provider available and are doing it well. 

Thank you for your consideration and support of these essential changes. Thank you for serving Utah so well. And thank you for your time.