Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill adds a new section (sec. 3513) to the Internal Revenue Code treating qualified locum tenens physicians and specified advanced care practitioners as independent contractors for federal tax purposes. It defines qualified individuals (licensed clinicians providing temporary services for no more than one continuous year at a site) and requires a written contract stating non-employee status.
Progressives emphasize worker protections and misclassification risks
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive change to the Internal Revenue Code to treat certain locum tenens providers as non‑employees and supplies concrete eligibility criteria and an effective date, but it omits fiscal analysis, administrative instruction, anti‑abuse protections, and oversight provisions that would commonly accompany a tax‑classification rule of this scope.
This bill adds a new section (sec. 3513) to the Internal Revenue Code treating qualified locum tenens physicians and specified advanced care practitioners as independent contractors for federal tax purposes.
It defines qualified individuals (licensed clinicians providing temporary services for no more than one continuous year at a site) and requires a written contract stating non-employee status.
The bill specifies that the individual, contracting agency, payor, and hiring entity are not treated as employees or employers and that remuneration is not treated as wages.
Narrow, administratively clear change with identifiable supporters, but probable revenue loss and labor opposition reduce chances without offsets or compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive change to the Internal Revenue Code to treat certain locum tenens providers as non‑employees and supplies concrete eligibility criteria and an effective date, but it omits fiscal analysis, administrative instruction, anti‑abuse protections, and oversight provisions that would commonly accompany a tax‑classification rule of this scope.
Progressives emphasize worker protections and misclassification risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize worker protections and misclassification risks
Overall skeptical.
Supports addressing provider shortages but worries this tax-only reclassification will erode worker protections and benefits.
Concerned it may enable widespread misclassification and shift costs to clinicians.
Cautious support with reservations.
Sees practical benefit for short-term staffing shortages but wants clear guardrails, reporting, and a sunset or review to prevent abuse.
Would weigh fiscal and labor impacts.
Generally favorable.
Views the bill as a deregulatory fix that reduces employer tax burdens and increases workforce flexibility to alleviate shortages.
Prefers market-driven staffing solutions over expanded regulation.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administratively clear change with identifiable supporters, but probable revenue loss and labor opposition reduce chances without offsets or compromise.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize worker protections and misclassification risks
Narrow, administratively clear change with identifiable supporters, but probable revenue loss and labor opposition reduce chances without o…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive change to the Internal Revenue Code to treat certain locum tenens providers as non‑employees and supplies concrete eligibility crite…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.