Burgess Owens (R-UT)
To classify qualified locum tenens professionals and advanced care practitioners as independent contractors for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the National Labor Relations Act.
A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill seeks to change how certain medical workers are classified under federal law. It would classify qualified locum tenens professionals and advanced care practitioners as independent contractors rather than employees. This classification would apply to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the National Labor Relations Act. The bill specifically targets those providing temporary services, such as workforce coverage or scheduling flexibility. To qualify, the services must be provided for no more than one continuous year at a single site. Additionally, the worker must have a written contract stating they will not be treated as an employee.
Yes
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill allows healthcare entities to utilize medical professionals as independent contractors rather than employees, potentially reducing administrative and employer obligations.
- Scored +2
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The classification aims to facilitate workforce coverage and scheduling flexibility for temporary medical services.
The opposite
- Scored -6
Does this strengthen the rights of workers to organise?
The bill removes coverage under the National Labor Relations Act for specified medical professionals, which limits their rights to organize and bargain collectively.
- Scored -5
Would union members be better off under this?
The bill excludes specific medical professionals from the protections of the National Labor Relations Act, which impacts labor organizing efforts.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Flexibility for Providers: The bill covers individuals providing services for workforce coverage, scheduling flexibility, or episodic staffing needs (Section 1(b)(1)). This could benefit medical professionals seeking specific types of work arrangements.
-
Clear Classification for Temporary Staff: By establishing a specific definition for qualified locum tenens professionals or advanced care practitioners, the bill provides a framework for those working at a single site for up to one continuous year (Section 1(b)(1)(A)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Loss of Employee Protections: Under this bill, these professionals would not be considered employees of the entity they are serving (Section 1(a)). This means they would not be covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 or the National Labor Relations Act (Section 1(a)(1)-(2)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this strengthen the rights of workers to organise? — The bill removes coverage under the National Labor Relations Act for specified medical professionals, which limits their rights to organize and bargain collectively.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The classification aims to facilitate workforce coverage and scheduling flexibility for temporary medical services.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill allows healthcare entities to utilize medical professionals as independent contractors rather than employees, potentially reducing administrative and employer obligations. Would union members be better off under this? — The bill excludes specific medical professionals from the protections of the National Labor Relations Act, which impacts labor organizing efforts.
- 6/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/14/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Glenn GrothmanRepublican · Wisconsin