SB 3296 (Improving Access to Workers’ Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act of 2025) amends chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to treat nurse practitioners and physician assistants as “other eligible providers” for purposes of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA). The bill inserts the new category into the statute’s definitions and updates several FECA provisions that currently refer only to “physician.”
The practical effect is to expand who may provide and be paid for medical services to injured federal employees, subject to each State’s scope-of-practice rules, and to require the Secretary of Labor to finalize implementing regulations within six months. That raises near-term operational and adjudicative questions for OWCP, agencies that manage federal employee injuries, and clinicians now authorized to participate in FECA care.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 5 U.S.C. chapter 81 to add a new definition — “other eligible provider” — defined as a nurse practitioner or physician assistant acting within the scope of State law. It updates statutory cross-references that previously said “physician” to read “physician or other eligible provider,” and replaces the phrase “a third physician” with “an additional physician.”
Who It Affects
Injured federal employees who seek FECA-covered care, nurse practitioners and physician assistants who treat federal workers, the Department of Labor’s OWCP, federal agency occupational health programs, and third-party claims administrators that process FECA medical billing.
Why It Matters
The change can broaden access to FECA-authorized care, especially in underserved areas, and may alter cost and utilization patterns. It also forces administrative changes—credentialing, fee payment rules, and claims workflows—and creates new adjudicative questions about which providers may make binding medical determinations under FECA.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 3296 changes the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act’s language so that two nonphysician clinician types—nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs)—count as “other eligible providers” when they operate within the scope of the relevant State’s law. The bill accomplishes this by amending the FECA definition section and by inserting “or other eligible provider” wherever the statute now refers to “physician” in the specific places the bill targets.
It also replaces a statutory reference to “a third physician” with the broader phrase “an additional physician.”
Operationally, the bill leaves important mechanics to regulation. It directs the Secretary of Labor to finalize implementing rules within six months, which will be the vehicle to define billing and reimbursement, credentialing, the circumstances in which NPs/PAs can serve as treating providers or perform examinations for OWCP, and how medical opinions from these providers are weighed in adjudication.
The statute ties each provider’s authority to State scope-of-practice rules, so the practical scope of FECA participation will vary by jurisdiction.For claims administrators and agency occupational health units, the law means updating intake and payment systems to accept NP/PA credentials and claims; for OWCP adjudicators, it means adapting to medical records and opinions from a broader set of clinicians. The change may improve access to timely care for injured employees, but it also creates immediate questions about parity — whether nonphysician opinions will be treated the same as physician opinions for entitlement, continuing disability, and return-to-duty determinations — and how to handle mixed-provider disputes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a statutory definition: “other eligible provider” means a nurse practitioner or physician assistant acting within the scope of State law.
SB 3296 amends 5 U.S.C. § 8101 and inserts “or other eligible provider” into 5 U.S.C. § 8103(a), § 8121(6), and § 8123(a).
Section 2(c) requires the Secretary of Labor to finalize rules implementing the amendments within six months of enactment.
The bill replaces the phrase “a third physician” with “an additional physician” in § 8123(a), broadening the language used for tie-breaking or review examinations.
The statute conditions NP/PA authority under FECA on each State’s definition of the clinician’s scope of practice, making FECA participation state-dependent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: Improving Access to Workers’ Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act of 2025. This is a standard short-title clause with no substantive effect on implementation.
Defines “other eligible provider” to include NPs and PAs
This subsection inserts a new definition into FECA: “other eligible provider” means a nurse practitioner or physician assistant within the scope of their practice as defined by State law. That single definitional change is the bill’s linchpin: it creates the statutory category that the rest of the amendments reference. By tying authority explicitly to State scope-of-practice law, Congress delegates an essential part of operational control to the states rather than creating a uniform federal scope for FECA purposes.
Alters existing FECA cross-references to include NPs/PAs
This paragraph updates three separate statutory provisions that previously referenced “physician.” First, it amends § 8103(a) so that references to physicians in the payment and authorization context include “other eligible providers.” Second, it amends § 8121(6) to broaden the witness or evidence-related reference. Third, it modifies § 8123(a), which addresses medical examinations and second-opinion procedures, to allow employees and the government to use “other eligible providers” in the same places physicians are mentioned. These are mechanical changes but with practical effect: they extend existing FECA mechanisms—authorization, examinations, and evidentiary roles—to NPs and PAs.
Replaces “a third physician” with “an additional physician”
Changing the tie-breaker language from “a third physician” to “an additional physician” removes an explicit physician-only label for the additional examiner. In practice this permits that additional examiner to be an eligible provider (NP/PA) where appropriate and consistent with State law. That textual edit is small but consequential: it expands who may be used to resolve conflicting medical opinions without requiring further statutory amendments.
Regulatory implementation timeline
Directs the Secretary of Labor to finalize rules to implement the statutory changes within six months after enactment. That short regulatory deadline places immediate workload on OWCP to update program guidance, fee schedules, credentialing standards, claims-processing systems, and case-handling instructions to accommodate nonphysician providers.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment 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
- Injured federal employees — Broader provider eligibility can improve geographic and timely access to care, especially where physicians are scarce and NPs/PAs are primary local clinicians.
- Nurse practitioners and physician assistants — The statute authorizes their participation in FECA-covered care (subject to State law), opening reimbursement and professional opportunities within federal workers’ compensation.
- Federal agencies and agency occupational health programs — Expanded local provider options can speed care and return-to-work evaluations, potentially reducing lost-time and administrative burdens associated with locating available physicians.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Labor / OWCP — Must finalize regulations within six months and update systems, fee schedules, credentialing and adjudicative policies, creating administrative and implementation cost and resource demands.
- FECA claims administrators and payroll/benefits offices — Need to change intake forms, claims processing rules, and payment systems to accept NP/PA billing and credentials, and to handle mixed-provider documentation.
- Some treating physicians and specialty providers — May face revenue or referral shifts where NP/PA participation substitutes for physician visits, depending on how reimbursement policies are applied.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals—improving injured federal workers’ access to timely care and preserving the quality and consistency of medical determinations under FECA—but solving one creates risks for the other: expanding eligible providers can shorten waits and lower costs, yet it increases variability across States and raises questions about whether nonphysician opinions should carry the same adjudicative weight as physician opinions.
The bill delegates a foundational element—the permissible scope of FECA practice for NPs and PAs—to State scope-of-practice laws. That avoids a federal-state clash but produces uneven nationwide outcomes: an injured federal employee in State A may get full NP/PA access, while an employee in State B with more restrictive rules may see no change.
The statutory text does not itself address reimbursement rates, whether OWCP will apply physician fee schedules to NP/PA services, or how existing FECA payment caps interact with services billed by nonphysician clinicians; those details are left to the six-month rulemaking and OWCP policy.
Another practical uncertainty concerns the legal weight of medical opinions from NPs/PAs under FECA dispute processes. While the bill inserts NPs/PAs into the same statutory slots as physicians, it does not expressly state whether an NP/PA’s opinion is equivalent to a physician’s for purposes of entitlement findings, vocational placement, impairment ratings, or third-party recovery subrogation.
The wording change from “a third physician” to “an additional physician” opens room for administrative interpretation and potential litigation about who may serve as the decisive examiner in contested cases. Implementing rules will need to clarify credentialing standards, supervisory or collaborative requirements where State law imposes them, and how mixed-team opinions are evaluated.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.