Indiana Med Spa Medical Director Rules 2026

For as long as anyone has been opening aesthetics clinics in Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, and Carmel, the phrase "med spa medical director" has described something that did not legally exist. Indiana had no medical spa statute. It had a medical practice act, a nursing practice act, a physician assistant article, and a set of licensing boards administered by the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency (PLA) — and out of those the industry assembled a role, gave it a title nobody in Title 25 had written, and sold it as a service. Ask an Indiana attorney in 2024 whether a med spa needed a medical director and the honest answer was: the state has never said so, but you cannot lawfully run the clinic without the delegation relationship that the title stands in for.

That gap closed in 2026, and it closed in a way most coverage has smoothed over. Indiana now has a statute naming an accountable clinician for a medical spa — and it does not call that clinician a medical director. This guide works out what the statute created, what it left to rulemaking, and what the supervision law underneath it has required all along, because that second half is where most Indiana practices are actually non-compliant.

What SB 282 Actually Created — and What It Refused to Call It

Start with the thing the headlines get wrong, because every downstream decision depends on it. Senate Bill 282 was carried in the second regular session of the 124th General Assembly under the title "Compounding drugs; registration of medical spas," signed by Governor Mike Braun on March 5, 2026, and codified as a new chapter of the medical practice article at IC 25-22.5-12.5, administered by the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana. Most of its provisions took effect July 1, 2026. Registration opens January 1, 2027.

"Responsible practitioner," not "medical director"

The role the statute creates is called a responsible practitioner. Not a medical director, not a supervising physician, not a clinical director. Indiana had the industry vocabulary available and did not use it, and that choice does real work. A medical director, as the term is used in aesthetics, is a bundle of contractual promises: sign the protocols, be reachable, review some charts, lend a name. A responsible practitioner is a statutory designation attached to a registered facility, with duties the state assigns and can enforce against, and a name that will appear in a public database.

The practical consequence is widely missed. A document headed "Medical Director Agreement" does not, on its own, discharge IC 25-22.5-12.5. If your spa has a medical director on retainer but has designated no responsible practitioner meeting the statutory qualifications, you have a contract and not a compliance position. The reverse holds too: you can satisfy Indiana's statute with an agreement that never uses the words "medical director" once. The title is not the requirement — the designation, the qualifications, and the duties are.

What the statute makes the role responsible for

Reading the enrolled act's medical spa provisions alongside the analyses published by the American Med Spa Association and Indiana health care counsel who have worked through the text, the responsible practitioner must:

• Hold prescriptive authority in Indiana. This is the eligibility gate, and it is a functional test rather than a credential list. It reaches physicians and osteopathic physicians, nurse practitioners with prescriptive authority, and physician assistants with delegated prescriptive authority.
• Know what services the medical spa provides and who is performing them. This is the duty that ends the most common Indiana arrangement, in which a physician on a monthly retainer could not name the spa's treatment menu or its injectors if asked.
• Spend a sufficient amount of time on site. Undefined in the statute. See the presence section below — this is the single largest open question in Indiana med spa compliance.
• Be publicly identified. Once registration opens, the board must establish and maintain a publicly accessible database of registered medical spas, and the responsible practitioner is named as the person responsible for treatments.
• Answer to the board. The Medical Licensing Board may investigate responsible practitioners and refer substantiated violations to the practitioner's own governing licensing board.

Add the facility-level obligations around the role — the prescriber-only good faith examination, 15-day reporting of serious adverse events, the restriction limiting services to the registered office, and the board's authority over deceptive advertising — and you have a genuine oversight scheme rather than a signage rule. Our guide to medical director versus supervising and collaborating physician works out the distinction in general terms; Indiana is now a live example of why it is not academic.

What SB 282 deliberately left out

Just as important, and this is where careful reading pays. SB 282 does not publish a procedure-by-procedure list of who may perform what. It does not amend the Nursing Practice Act or the physician assistant article. It does not grant nurse practitioners independent prescriptive authority. It does not create a chart-review percentage, a protocol standard, a training curriculum for the responsible practitioner, or a cap on how many medical spas one clinician may cover. And it does not create an unannounced inspection regime on the Florida model.

Where the statute is silent, the older law governs — and it is more specific than the new chapter on almost every operational question. That is the counterintuitive shape of Indiana in 2026: the new statute answers who is accountable, and the older supervision statutes answer what accountability requires you to do on a Tuesday afternoon.

Does an Indiana Med Spa Need a Medical Director? The Verdict

Verdict: Indiana requires a designated responsible practitioner, which is the medical director role under a different and legally meaningful name. If you are asking whether you can run an Indiana med spa without a named, prescriptively authorised clinician accountable for clinical care, the answer since July 1, 2026 is no.

The honest answer before July 1, 2026

Indiana never required a medical director by statute, and anyone who said otherwise before 2026 was selling something. What Indiana required was that the practice of medicine be performed by people licensed to perform it, and that anything delegated be delegated by someone with authority to delegate it. In a nurse-staffed aesthetics clinic that meant a prescriber had to stand behind the evaluation, the prescribing, and the delegation — functionally a medical director, arrived at by inference. Because no statute named the role, none defined it, and the market filled that vacuum with the cheapest available arrangement.

The honest answer now

The vacuum is filled. Indiana has told you who must be accountable, what they must hold, and part of what they must do. What it has not set is the standard for how well — that comes from Medical Licensing Board rulemaking and, meanwhile, from the general professional standard of care. So the posture today is: designate a qualified responsible practitioner now, document the oversight thoroughly, and expect the published rules to formalise practices you should already follow. Wait for the rules and you will be designating under deadline pressure from a shallow candidate pool.

Why the January date misleads people

Two dates, and Indiana operators conflate them constantly. July 1, 2026 is when the conduct obligations began — responsible practitioner duties, the prescriber-only good faith examination, the location restriction, adverse event reporting. January 1, 2027 is only when registration opens. Registration is an afternoon's paperwork; restructuring who evaluates your patients and building a documented oversight record takes months, and that obligation has been running since July.

Who Is Legally Accountable for a Delegated Aesthetic Procedure

This is the question that decides how much the role is worth and how much it costs the person who takes it. Indiana's answer has three layers, and only the top one is new.

Delegation transfers the task, never the judgment

Indiana's delegation framework is general rather than aesthetics-specific. Under IC 25-22.5-1-1.1, the practice of medicine includes prescribing and administering drugs, which places botulinum toxin and dermal filler injection inside the medical practice act regardless of the cosmetic purpose. A licensed prescriber may delegate performance of a task to someone whose own licence permits them to receive it. What cannot be delegated is the medical judgment the delegator's training exists to supply: determining that this patient is an appropriate candidate, selecting the product, and setting the dose. SB 282 hardened the first of those by reserving the good faith examination to prescribers, which is worked through licence by licence in our companion guide to who can inject Botox in Indiana.

So accountability never sits with the person holding the syringe alone. It runs upward to whoever made the judgment call and to whoever was responsible for confirming the delegate was competent at all — and under SB 282 that second person now has a statutory designation.

The registration puts a name on the accountability

Before 2026 an Indiana board investigating a bad outcome had to reconstruct the oversight relationship from contracts, chart signatures, and testimony. After January 1, 2027 the state holds a public record of the accountable clinician at every registered medical spa. That changes the discovery posture of every complaint in the state — and the negotiating posture of the clinician being asked to take the role, because the exposure is now searchable rather than buried in a filing cabinet.

The entity is not a shield for the licence

The most persistent misunderstanding we encounter is that a professional corporation, an MSO structure, or an indemnity clause protects the clinician personally. It does not, because the exposure that matters most is not a money judgment. A board disciplines a licensee for the licensee's own conduct — inadequate supervision, delegation to an unqualified person, failure to maintain records — and no corporate form stands between a board and a licence. The financial layer is a separate analysis, in our guide to med spa medical director liability.

Nurse Practitioners: Eligible for the Role, Conditional on the Agreement

Verdict: yes, a nurse practitioner may hold Indiana's responsible practitioner role — and the authority that makes them eligible is itself conditional, which most coverage omits. Eligibility turns on holding prescriptive authority in Indiana, and an NP with prescriptive authority holds it. That is meaningfully permissive: many states reserve the equivalent role to physicians, and Indiana did not.

Indiana is still a restricted practice state, and 2026 confirmed it

This is where out-of-state operators go wrong when they open an Indiana location. An advanced practice registered nurse's authority to prescribe legend drugs in Indiana is conditioned on a written collaborative practice agreement with a licensed practitioner, administered by the Indiana State Board of Nursing under IC 25-23-1 with prescriptive authority rules at 848 IAC 5. Indiana is not a full practice authority jurisdiction.

Two bills in the 2026 session would have changed that. House Bill 1129 and Senate Bill 60 would each have removed the requirement that an APRN maintain a practice agreement with a collaborating physician and permitted prescribing of a Schedule II controlled substance for weight reduction. Neither advanced out of committee, and HB 1116 in 2025 had failed on the same ground. So Indiana left the 2026 session a restricted practice state in the same year it passed the country's most comprehensive med spa law — meaning it made nurse practitioners eligible for facility-level accountability without making them independent.

What 848 IAC 5-1-1 requires the agreement to contain

Indiana's rule is more prescriptive than most states', which is useful — it tells you what an auditor will look for. The written practice agreement must set out the manner in which the APRN and the licensed practitioner will cooperate, coordinate, and consult with each other in the provision of health care to patients, and it must contain at least: the complete names, home and business addresses, and telephone numbers of both parties; a list of all other offices or locations where the licensed practitioner has authorised the APRN to prescribe; the specialty or board certifications of both; the specific manner of collaboration, including how coverage will be provided during absence, incapacity, infirmity, or emergency; and a description of any limitation the licensed practitioner has placed on the APRN's prescriptive authority.

Read that list against a typical aesthetics agreement and the gaps announce themselves. The multi-location clause is the one Indiana med spas most often fail: if your NP injects at three addresses and the agreement lists one, it does not describe the practice it governs.

Review of prescribing practices is a written duty, not a courtesy

The rule also requires the agreement to provide for reasonable and timely review by the licensed practitioner of the APRN's prescribing practices. Indiana attaches no percentage or deadline to that for APRNs the way it does for physician assistants, so the standard is whatever the agreement sets — the document is doing regulatory work and should be drafted as though a board will read it. An agreement promising review "as needed" has set a standard the practice cannot demonstrate it met.

The lapse failure mode

APRN licences and prescriptive authority renew on a two-year cycle, renewal requires submitting a signed and dated written practice agreement, and an APRN with prescriptive authority must notify the board in writing immediately of any change in or termination of the agreement, including changes in the collaborating practitioner's own prescriptive authority. Each of those is a failure point, and in aesthetics they fail quietly: the collaborating physician retires, moves out of state, or simply stops responding, and nobody updates the document because the clinic is busy and the injections continue.

Under SB 282 that quiet failure is now loud. If the NP is your designated responsible practitioner and the agreement underneath their prescriptive authority has lapsed, they no longer meet the eligibility test — the spa's designation fails at the same moment its prescribing does.

Physician Assistants: Indiana's Most Document-Forward Supervision Framework

Verdict: yes, a physician assistant may hold the responsible practitioner role, and Indiana's PA rules are the most specific supervision law in the state. If you want to know what Indiana actually thinks meaningful oversight looks like — as opposed to what it has left to rulemaking — read the physician assistant article. It is the only place the state has put numbers on the page.

The agreement goes to the board and must name the drug

Indiana physician assistants are licensed under IC 25-27.5 and practise with a collaborating physician. Under IC 25-27.5-5-2 the collaborative agreement must set out the terms of collaboration, including emergency procedures the PA must follow, and for prescribing it must name the drug or drug classification being delegated and the protocol the PA will follow in prescribing it. The physician submits the agreement to the board, and the PA may prescribe under it unless the board denies it; amendments must be resubmitted.

For an aesthetics practice that is a direct instruction. Botulinum toxin and dermal fillers should be named, or clearly captured by classification — not inferred from a general grant written for a primary care setting. If a board pulls the agreement after a complication and the drug that caused it appears nowhere in the document, the prescribing had no filed authority behind it.

Continuous collaboration without physical presence

This is the sentence Indiana med spa operators should commit to memory, because it is the state's clearest statement on the remote-versus-on-site question. Under IC 25-27.5-6-1, collaboration by the collaborating physician or the physician designee must be continuous but does not require the physical presence of the collaborating physician at the time and the place that the services are rendered.

Two words carry the weight. "Continuous" means ongoing rather than episodic — not a signature renewed annually. "Does not require physical presence" means Indiana has already decided competent oversight can be delivered remotely in at least one licensure context. Read that not as a licence for absence but as the state saying availability, not proximity, is the measure.

The ten-business-day chart review rule

Here is where Indiana puts a number down, and it is the single most useful benchmark in the state for designing a med spa oversight programme. Under IC 25-27.5-6-1 a collaborating physician or physician designee must review patient encounters not later than ten business days after the PA has seen the patient, within a reasonable time established in the collaborative agreement that is appropriate for the maintenance of quality medical care. And the statute sets a floor on volume: for the first year in which a physician assistant obtains authority to prescribe, at least ten percent of the patient records for any prescription prescribed or administered by the PA. For each subsequent year, the percentage the collaborating physician determines to be reasonable for the particular practice setting and the PA's level of experience, as stated in the agreement.

Note what that implies. Indiana expects the review percentage to be written down, justified by setting and experience, and reviewable — a med spa that reviews nothing and documents no percentage has not exercised discretion, it has failed to exercise it. The rule binds PA collaboration specifically, but it is the most defensible available model for any Indiana oversight cadence, because it is the standard the state chose when it decided to be specific.

The four-PA ceiling

Under IC 25-27.5-6-2, a physician may supervise not more than four physician assistants at one time. Multi-site groups hit this quietly and discover it publicly: one collaborating physician signed across five PA-staffed locations is a statutory violation, not a documentation gap — and once each registered spa's responsible practitioner is listed in a public database, the arrangement is visible to anyone who looks.

On Site or Remote? What "A Sufficient Amount of Time" Does and Does Not Settle

Verdict: Indiana requires on-site presence but has not quantified it. Remote oversight is contemplated by Indiana law in the analogous PA context; total absence is not defensible under either framework. This section is deliberately shorter on assertion than the ones above, because the state has not given us more to work with and inventing a number would be worse than useless.

Where the phrase comes from, and what it is aimed at

SB 282 requires the responsible practitioner to spend a sufficient amount of time on site at the medical spa. The statute does not define "sufficient," and the reporting on the bill is consistent that the drafters left it to be settled through Medical Licensing Board rulemaking, alongside registration fees, forms, and renewal mechanics. That rulemaking had not been published when this was written.

Intent is safe to state because the target is obvious: the phrase exists to end the arrangement in which the accountable clinician has never been in the building. A responsible practitioner who has not physically visited the spa they are responsible for sits outside the provision's purpose wherever the number lands. Beyond that, anyone quoting hours per week today is offering an assumption dressed as a rule.

The one Indiana rule that does answer a presence question

Because IC 25-27.5-6-1 already says collaboration must be continuous but does not require physical presence at the time and place of service, Indiana has an established position that remote oversight can be adequate in at least one context. That does not transfer automatically to IC 25-22.5-12.5 — SB 282 wrote an on-site requirement the PA statute does not contain, which suggests the drafters wanted more than the PA standard. But it tells you the state is not hostile to distance oversight in principle, and it gives you vocabulary the board already accepts: continuous availability, defined coverage during absence, documented review.

How to document availability while the number is unwritten

Build the record you would want to hand a board and let the eventual rule confirm it: logged site visits with dates and what was reviewed; a written coverage arrangement naming who responds when the responsible practitioner is unavailable; a documented review cadence with a stated percentage; and evidence that the practitioner can answer the statutory question — what services are provided here, and who performs them. Most Indiana spas will structure this as a part-time arrangement, and our guide to a fractional or part-time med spa medical director covers how to make limited hours defensible rather than nominal.

Protocols, Standing Orders, and Chart Review

Indiana's new chapter is silent on all three. That is not a loophole; it means the requirements come from the professional standard of care and from the supervision statutes, which are more demanding than most operators expect.

SB 282 does not publish a protocol standard

There is no statutory protocol template, no required content list, and no filing requirement for med spa protocols in IC 25-22.5-12.5. What the statute creates instead is a person who must be able to describe the clinical operation — which functionally requires written protocols, because nobody attests to services and personnel across a multi-injector practice from memory. Treat the protocol library as the evidence layer for the designation.

What a standing order cannot do in Indiana

A standing order can direct how a task is performed once a prescriber has decided it should be performed for a specific patient. It cannot substitute for the deciding. SB 282 reserves the good faith examination to a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant, and a protocol signed months earlier is not an examination of the patient in front of you today. The failure mode this targets is well known in Indiana aesthetics: a registered nurse greets the patient, assesses candidacy, selects product and units, injects, and files the chart under a prescriber's standing protocol. After July 1, 2026 that is not a documentation defect — the injection had no lawful order behind it. Batch-signing orders after treatment fails on the same ground.

Chart review, licence by licence

Indiana gives you three different answers depending on who is being overseen, and a compliant med spa needs all three written into one cadence:

• Physician assistants: encounters reviewed within ten business days; at least ten percent of records involving a prescription in the PA's first year of prescriptive authority; a stated, justified percentage thereafter, per IC 25-27.5-6-1.
• Nurse practitioners: reasonable and timely review of prescribing practices, on terms the written practice agreement itself sets under 848 IAC 5. Set a real number in the agreement rather than a vague standard you cannot demonstrate.
• Registered nurses acting as delegates: no Indiana rule or State Board of Nursing position statement squarely addresses cosmetic injection by an RN, and SB 282 did not create one. Where the state is silent, document conservatively — patient-specific prescriber orders, written protocols, competency records — and get Indiana counsel to bless the model rather than relying on a consultant's slide.

The Personal Licence Exposure the Overseeing Clinician Takes On

Every clinician considering an Indiana responsible practitioner designation should price the exposure honestly before signing, and the exposure changed materially in 2026.

Two boards, two files

A single bad outcome at an Indiana med spa can generate proceedings in two places at once. The Medical Licensing Board of Indiana now has jurisdiction over the registered facility and explicit authority to investigate responsible practitioners. The practitioner's own governing board — the Medical Licensing Board for a physician, the Indiana State Board of Nursing for a nurse practitioner — has jurisdiction over the licence. SB 282 connects them: the board may refer substantiated violations to the practitioner's governing licensing board.

Nurse practitioners weighing the role should sit with that referral mechanism. Accepting the designation places your nursing licence within reach of a facility-level investigation run by the medical board, over conduct at a business you may not own. That is not a reason to decline — it is a reason to insist on the authority to actually run the clinical operation before accepting accountability for it: hiring and credentialing input, veto power over the treatment menu, and access to charts.

Aiding unlicensed practice

The sharpest single exposure is delegation to someone whose licence never permitted the act. An esthetician or unlicensed staff member who injects is practising medicine without a licence under IC 25-22.5-8-1, and the prescriber whose delegation made it possible faces discipline for enabling it. Note how SB 282 worsens the classic defence: "I did not know she was injecting" is no longer available, because knowing what services are provided and who performs them is one of your named duties.

What the board can reach

Sanctions run from public reprimand and civil penalty through probation with practice conditions, suspension, and revocation. SB 282 adds facility-level consequences: the board may suspend a medical spa's registration, including for deceptive or misleading advertising. A suspended registration in a public database is a commercial event as much as a regulatory one — visible to patients, referring clinicians, and anyone doing diligence on the business.

What a Medical Licensing Board Complaint Actually Looks Like

Indiana enforcement in aesthetics is complaint-driven, and the complaints arrive from a narrow set of sources: a patient with a bad outcome, a former employee, a competitor, or a plaintiff's attorney working backwards from an injury. Knowing the mechanics changes how you keep records, so here is the realistic shape of one.

How a complaint reaches the board

Complaints against Indiana licensees are handled under IC 25-1-7, governing investigation and prosecution of complaints concerning regulated occupations. A complaint is filed in writing — anonymous complaints are not accepted — through the Professional Licensing Agency and the licensing enforcement function of the Office of the Attorney General. A threshold review tests jurisdiction, an investigator is assigned, and if the director concludes sanctions are warranted the matter goes to the attorney general, who may prosecute it before the board. Contested matters are heard by the board or an administrative law judge, with the licensee entitled to counsel.

The twenty-day response letter

The process becomes real at the opening letter. A copy of the complaint goes to the licence holder with a letter explaining the investigative process, and the licence holder typically has twenty days to submit a written response with supporting documents. Twenty days is not long enough to construct an oversight file that does not exist. It is comfortably long enough to produce one that does — and that asymmetry is the entire practical argument for keeping documentation current. Investigations commonly run several months, complex matters a year or more.

The documents that get requested

The request list in an aesthetics matter is predictable, and every item on it is something you either have on the day the letter arrives or you do not:

• The complete patient chart — intake, medical history, the good faith examination note, consent, the treatment record with product, lot, sites and units, photographs, and all follow-up contact.
• The order or prescription authorising the treatment, and evidence that a prescriber performed a patient-specific evaluation before it.
• The responsible practitioner designation and the oversight or medical director agreement.
• The collaborative practice agreement for any NP or PA involved, current and covering the drugs and locations at issue.
• Written protocols and standing orders in force on the treatment date, with version history.
• Training, credentialing, and competency records for the person who performed the procedure — including the overseeing clinician's own training in the delegated procedure.
• Chart review logs showing the cadence actually followed.
• Adverse event records and any report filed with the board under the 15-day requirement.
• Advertising and website copy describing staff credentials, which is now inside the same enforcement perimeter.

What boards typically find is not a bad injection. It is a missing evaluation, a lapsed agreement, a delegate whose training was never documented, and an overseeing clinician who cannot demonstrate any review at all. The national version of this analysis is in our guide to a med spa medical director board complaint.

What Is Still Unwritten — and How to Operate Until It Is

An honest Indiana guide has to end with a list of things nobody knows, because SB 282 is months old and its implementing rules are not published.

Genuinely unsettled

• What "a sufficient amount of time" on site means. No number exists. This is the biggest open question in the state.
• Whether the statute caps how many medical spas one responsible practitioner may cover. No cap appears in the chapter; the PA ceiling at IC 25-27.5-6-2 constrains only PA-based structures.
• What training or qualification standard the board will attach to the role beyond prescriptive authority.
• Registration mechanics — fee, form, renewal period, and what documentation a registered spa must retain and produce.
• Whether the board will inspect registered spas proactively or act only on complaints.
• RN cosmetic injection specifics. Indiana still has no nursing board position statement on it.

Where a source exists, it is named above. Where none does, we have said so. In a year when a brand-new statute is generating a great deal of confident commentary about provisions that have not been written yet, that distinction is the whole value of a state guide.

What is settled enough to act on

Enough is fixed to build a defensible programme today: the designation requirement, the prescriptive authority gate, the duty to know your services and personnel, the prescriber-only examination, the 15-day reporting trigger, the location restriction, and the NP and PA agreement and chart-review requirements — none of which depend on rulemaking. Indiana's profile, with primary sources, is on our Indiana med spa regulations page.

A Ninety-Day Plan for the January 1, 2027 Registration

Concrete work, in the order that de-risks the most quickly.

The oversight file

Name your responsible practitioner and confirm in writing that they hold current Indiana prescriptive authority. If they are an NP or PA, pull the underlying agreement and check four things: that it is current, that it names the practitioner actually in the relationship, that it lists every location where they practise, and that it covers neurotoxin and filler by name or clear classification. Count PAs per collaborating physician against the four-PA ceiling. Then move every good faith examination into prescriber hands as a separately documented encounter, set a written chart-review percentage with a rationale, and start a site-visit log. Most of this is documentation you either have or you do not — if you are starting from a folder of vendor handouts, our med spa SOP and protocol templates cover injectables, laser, weight loss, hormones, emergencies, and operations, and are written to be adapted to a state's delegation rules rather than to replace them.

The registration file and the agreement itself

Inventory every prescription drug you use, including compounded products and their 503A or 503B sourcing, because the application is reported to ask. Write the 15-day adverse event trigger into your incident procedure with a named decision-maker. Audit off-site activity against the location restriction, and your advertising against who actually holds which licence. Finally, renegotiate the oversight agreement itself — scope of authority, time commitment, indemnity, and fee all changed in economic character when the role became statutory and public. We keep contract terms and cost benchmarks consolidated rather than repeated state by state: see our med spa medical director cost and agreement guide for clause-level drafting and current market rates, and the complete medical director guide for national context.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice. Indiana medical spa, delegation, and scope-of-practice requirements are administered by several bodies — the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency, the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, and the Indiana State Board of Nursing among them — and Senate Bill 282 is new law whose implementing rules had not been published when this was written. Where Indiana's position is genuinely unsettled, we have said so rather than guessed. Confirm current requirements with the relevant board and consult an Indiana healthcare attorney before making designation, staffing, or registration decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions