Collaborative Practice for Physician Assistants: Addressing the Confusion

April 8, 2024

Newly enacted legislation gives seasoned physician assistants extra flexibility but does not grant independent practice.

Misinformation has created a murky fog of confusion around the extent of physician assistants’ scope of practice in our state. Conflicting information began to swirl in the healthcare community following the passage of HB2043 — a bill to redefine PAs scope of practice — during Arizona’s 2023 Legislative Session.

As confusion continues to intensify, the Arizona Medical Association is here to provide clarity.


Working Together Toward a Shared Goal


In 2021, the Arizona State Association of Physician Assistants reached out to ArMA regarding an update to PAs’ practice act. ArMA firmly believes in the power of collaboration to craft safe, long-standing healthcare legislation. So, a physician taskforce was created and worked alongside ASAPA to define appropriate policy language through a robust stakeholder process.

ASAPA’s goal was to create earned flexibility within the workplace for PAs, helping the profession recruit and retain talent while also addressing access to care challenges in Arizona. Under the original statute, PAs found themselves at a disadvantage with respect to their Advanced Practice Provider peers, nurse practitioners, when it came to employment opportunities. ASAPA hoped to address these concerns by updating Arizona’s statute, which defines the professionals’ scope of practice.

Productive collaboration and negotiations were successful in producing a bill mutually agreed upon by ArMA and ASAPA. The final product, HB2043, has appropriate and thoughtful guardrails that both protect patient safety through physician-led care teams and accomplish ASAPA’s goal.


What HB2043 Does, According to Its Language


The result of a years-long collaboration between stakeholders is a bill that checks all the boxes. HB2043 creates appropriate flexibility for seasoned PAs through collaboration agreements, which will theoretically ease access to care challenges and, most importantly, will maintain patient safety. Here is how HB2043 is implemented into practice:


Clinical Hours Are Key


HB2043’s language clearly distinguishes PAs with more than 8,000 hours of clinical practice in a single specialty under their belt from those falling under this threshold.


It Takes Two to Collaborate


After completing the required 8,000 hours of clinical practice, which must be documented by the Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician Assistants (ARBoPA), PAs are eligible to enter into a collaboration agreement, pending approval from their employer. The collaboration agreement can be established between a PA and a designated physician, licensed healthcare institution, or physician-owned practice.

Notably, the bill defines a “collaborating physician or entity” as one or more physicians who must be designated by name or position and who will be responsible for the oversight of the physician assistant. Practically speaking, this definition allows PAs to work under multiple physicians, granting them additional flexibility in the workplace.


The Proof is in the Rules


The Arizona Medical Board has finalized the rules that implement HB2043, providing the healthcare community with further guidance.

The final rules outline the required information for new collaboration agreements between PAs and physicians or entities. The rules adhere to HB2043’s intent by requiring the agreements to note:


  • the name or position of the physician responsible for providing oversight;
  • a description of the practice setting, specialty, and any limitations if applicable; and
  • a description of the level of collaboration required between the physician and PA.


Trained to Support the Physician-Patient Relationship


PAs are important members of the healthcare team and work in supportive roles with physicians on a daily basis. Their excellent training in the medical model prepares them to serve patients and support the sacred physician-patient relationship.

Since the profession’s establishment in the 1960s, PAs have improved and expanded patients’ access to high-quality healthcare. Now, through HB2043, PAs can earn and apply flexibility in their practice to further their impact on patient care.


Far From an "Untethering"

HB2043 is not “independent practice” legislation, nor is it an “untethering of the relationship between PAs and physicians.”

ArMA is proud to have been a stakeholder in this legislation, and we stand by it as a measure that creates appropriate flexibility while maintaining standards that protect patient care.

ADHS Issues Standing Orders for Flu, COVID-19 Vaccine Access

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
Statewide orders keep pharmacists and physicians authorized to vaccinate Arizonans amid uncertainty over the next ACIP meeting. Statewide Orders Cover the 2026-27 Flu & COVID Season The Arizona Department of Health Services has issued statewide standing orders supporting access to the 2026-27 influenza and COVID-19 vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Arizonans seeking a flu or COVID-19 vaccine should contact their physician or pharmacy to confirm availability. Why the Orders Were Issued Arizona pharmacists may administer vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for international travel, or vaccines authorized under a prescription, including a physician-issued public health standing order. With the timing of the next ACIP meeting uncertain, ADHS worked with the Arizona Board of Pharmacy to issue statewide standing orders for the flu and COVID-19 vaccines, which function as a prescription allowing pharmacists and physicians across Arizona to administer them to anyone who wants one. ADHS Medical Advisor Weighs In "Vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to protect our communities. The Influenza and COVID-19 vaccines have been proven safe and effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death. Vaccines help us limit the spread of disease, reduce pressure on our healthcare system and reduce costs," said Dr. Richard Carmona, ADHS public health medical advisor and the 17th U.S. Surgeon General. "We have issued these standing orders to ensure safe and timely access to the vaccines in alignment with scientific and evidence-based guidance." What Arizonans Should Know The standing orders do not require every pharmacy to offer vaccinations, and they do not guarantee insurance coverage for administration. Coverage and out-of-pocket costs vary by plan, so Arizonans should check with their insurance provider before scheduling an appointment. 

Arizona Asks Supreme Court to Halt Prison Health Care Takeover

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
State attorneys seek an emergency stay after lower courts reject bids to delay receivership of the prison health care system. State Makes a Last-Ditch Appeal Attorneys for the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry asked the U.S. Supreme Court this week to delay a court-ordered receivership of the state's prison health care system. The request comes after both a federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause the takeover. In the recent application, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, a representative of the department, argued that the state deserves more time to make its case before surrendering control of its operations, including oversight of its employees and health care budget. Roots of the Case The dispute began in 2012 when inmates sued the department, alleging the prison system's inadequate medical, mental health, and dental care amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The case went through years of litigation and a failed settlement agreement. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that the health care system was "grossly inadequate." The court ordered the prison healthcare system to comply with more than 150 "quality indicators," but according to court-appointed monitors, the department failed to comply with 131 of the measures. In light of this finding, Silver named Annette Chambers-Smith, former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, to take over as receiver effective Oct. 19. Arguments on Both Sides Clement argues receivership should be the last resort and that Silver moved to it too quickly. He asserts that the department has made measurable progress, including growing its health care staffing by more than 50%, expanding substance-use treatment access, and adopting a new care model. Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, which represents the roughly 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona prisons, called the department's request a "Hail Mary" and said Silver had given the department years of opportunities to comply before ordering receivership. What Happens Next The Supreme Court has not yet set a deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the stay request. Separately, the 9th Circuit is now reviewing the merits of the receivership order itself. The department filed its opening brief on Sept. 15, and the plaintiffs' response is due Oct. 15. Information in this article was sourced from the Arizona Mirror .