SB1805 amends section 1861(s)(12) of the Social Security Act to permit nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) to satisfy the Medicare documentation requirement that currently must be completed by a physician for coverage of certain shoes and inserts for beneficiaries with diabetes. The statutory change inserts ‘‘nurse practitioner, or physician assistant’’ after each occurrence of ‘‘physician’’ in the relevant subparagraphs, leaving the underlying coverage criteria intact.
This is a narrow, targeted change with practical consequences: it removes a paperwork barrier that can require beneficiaries to obtain a physician visit solely to certify need, and it shifts responsibility for initial certification to a larger pool of licensed clinicians. Implementation will require CMS and Medicare Administrative Contractors to update manuals, claims-editing logic, and provider guidance, and it raises practical questions about state scope‑of‑practice limits and program integrity controls for appropriate certification and audits.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(12) to allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to satisfy the Medicare documentation/certification requirement for coverage of certain shoes and inserts for individuals with diabetes. It changes two specific subparagraphs (A and C) by inserting ‘‘, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant’’ after each mention of ‘‘physician.’'
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include Medicare Part B beneficiaries with diabetes seeking therapeutic shoes, NPs and PAs who may now certify medical necessity, DME/supplier billing operations, and CMS contractors responsible for claims adjudication and audits. State scope‑of‑practice regimes and clinician supervision rules will influence local implementation.
Why It Matters
By expanding the set of authorized certifiers, the bill can reduce beneficiary friction, especially where primary‑care physicians are scarce, and may increase appropriate utilization. But it also forces CMS to define operational rules (acceptable signatures, documentation templates, audit standards) and exposes the program to new compliance and training challenges.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB1805 makes a single, precise change to Medicare law: it amends the statutory provision that governs coverage of certain shoes and inserts for people with diabetes so that nurse practitioners and physician assistants may perform the certification or documentation that Medicare requires. The bill does not alter the medical criteria that justify coverage — it only broadens who can attest that those criteria are met.
Practically, this means an NP or PA who examines a beneficiary and documents the clinical finding that meets Medicare’s diabetic‑shoe criteria may complete the certification form or narrative that the supplier relies on to bill Medicare. Medicare suppliers will still have to meet existing supplier enrollment, documentation, and billing rules; the difference is the authorized signer on the clinical record and certification statement.The statutory edit targets two specific subparagraphs in 42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(12).
Because Medicare is a federal benefit, the change applies nationwide, but the day‑to‑day effect will depend on how CMS updates its manuals and how state laws define NP/PA authority. For example, in states that restrict independent practice, a PA or NP may be able to complete the certification only if acting under the supervising physician’s authorization.
CMS will need to clarify whether certifications must explicitly state that the NP/PA acted within state law and whether telehealth encounters can support the certification. Those implementation choices will determine how quickly beneficiaries and suppliers feel the change.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(12) by inserting ‘‘, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant’’ after each instance of ‘‘physician’’ in subparagraphs (A) and (C).
SB1805 changes only who may sign or document medical necessity for therapeutic shoes and inserts for diabetes; it does not change the substantive coverage criteria or payment rules.
Because it broadens permitted certifiers to NPs and PAs, the bill is likely to reduce the need for beneficiaries to obtain a separate physician visit solely for certification.
CMS will need to update program guidance, beneficiary/supplier policy manuals, and claims‑edits to accept NP/PA attestations and to set documentation and audit standards.
Implementation will intersect with state scope‑of‑practice and supervision rules, creating potential uncertainty about when an NP/PA may certify independently versus under physician delegation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s name, the "Promoting Access to Diabetic Shoes Act." This is purely stylistic but signals congressional intent: the statute’s purpose is access, not payment reform or benefits expansion. The short title frames how stakeholders will discuss and prioritize implementation changes.
Adds NPs and PAs as authorized certifiers
This is the operative change. The bill inserts ‘‘, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant’’ after ‘‘physician’’ in both subparagraph (A) — which governs the initial certification requirement — and subparagraph (C) — which addresses subsequent documentation or periodic recertification. Mechanically, suppliers and claims systems that today require a physician’s signature will need to accept NP/PA signatures as valid. Medicare Administrative Contractors will have to update local coverage determinations, edit tables, and post guidance on acceptable evidence and attestation language.
What implementation will demand from CMS and providers
Although the bill is short, operational work is not. CMS must decide whether to require additional attestations — for example, a statement the NP/PA was acting within state scope of practice — and whether telehealth or remote documentation suffices. Suppliers will want a clear list of acceptable documentation formats (electronic signature, typed attestation, progress note text) to avoid denials. Auditors will need updated criteria for judging clinical appropriateness when signatures come from NPs or PAs rather than physicians.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes who need therapeutic shoes: They may avoid extra physician visits solely for certification, reducing travel, wait time, and out‑of‑pocket costs.
- Nurse practitioners and physician assistants: The bill expands their documented clinical responsibilities and may streamline care coordination in primary‑care and rural settings.
- Community health centers and rural clinics: These providers often rely on NPs/PAs and can certify patients locally, improving access where physicians are scarce.
- DME suppliers serving diabetic populations: Reduced certification friction can speed claims processing and reduce lost sales from denied or delayed orders.
Who Bears the Cost
- CMS and Medicare Administrative Contractors: They must revise manuals, claims‑editing systems, and audit protocols; that requires program resources and technical updates.
- Clinician employers and health systems: Training and compliance programs will be necessary to ensure NPs/PAs document to Medicare standards and understand audit exposure.
- DME suppliers' compliance teams: Suppliers will need to adjust intake procedures to accept NP/PA attestations, update software, and manage potential initial denials or unclear signatures.
- State licensing boards and supervising physicians in restrictive jurisdictions: They may face increased requests to clarify delegation rules or modify supervision arrangements, adding administrative burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: broaden certifier authority to increase beneficiary access and convenience, or preserve narrow certification channels to protect program integrity and clinical appropriateness — the bill pushes toward access but leaves program integrity controls and state practice constraints to downstream rulemaking and guidance.
The bill’s simplicity is both its strength and its source of ambiguity. It authorizes NPs and PAs to satisfy Medicare’s documentation requirement, but it does not define the scope or form of acceptable documentation, nor does it address whether certifications must explicitly confirm that the NP/PA acted within state law.
That silence hands significant discretion to CMS and its contractors to set operational rules — guidance that will determine whether the change meaningfully improves access or merely shifts denials from one line of review to another.
A second tension arises between access and program integrity. Expanding certifiers can lower access barriers, particularly in underserved areas, but it can also increase the number of certifiers whose training and practice patterns differ from physicians.
CMS will need to calibrate audit thresholds, education, and perhaps sampled reviews to avoid a spike in inappropriate claims. Finally, state scope‑of‑practice variation means the federal change might produce uneven effects: in some states NPs can independently certify; in others they may still need physician oversight, which limits the access gains the bill intends.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.