Michigan Med Spa Laser Safety Rules: Who Can Operate 2026

Ask five Michigan med spa owners who may fire the laser and you will get five answers, most built on a certificate — a two-day course in Novi, a card from the device manufacturer, a laminated "certified laser technician" credential from an out-of-state academy. None of those documents does what its holder thinks, because Michigan has never issued, recognised or required any of them.

That is the structural fact worth grasping first. Michigan did not build a laser regime. It built a medicine regime, decided energy devices belong inside it, and left the operator question to the general law of delegation. Miss that and you will keep hunting for a rule that does not exist while overlooking the two statutes that decide every case. Our complete skin and laser compliance guide sets the national picture; this one is Michigan only.

The Structural Answer: Michigan Regulates the Operator, Not the Laser

States that regulate cosmetic lasers usually do it visibly: a technician registration, a training-hours minimum, a device registry, a supervision distance. Michigan did none of that, and the vacuum misleads people in both directions.

No laser operator licence, no certification, no registration

Verdict: Michigan issues no laser credential of any kind. There is no cosmetic laser operator licence in the Occupational Code and none in the Public Health Code. The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) and its Bureau of Professional Licensing administer dozens of credentials; a laser technician is not among them. No statute or administrative rule sets minimum laser training hours, an examination, a competency test or a continuing education cycle tied to device use.

Nor does Michigan register the machines. The state registers radiation-producing machines through a separate programme aimed at ionising radiation — X-ray equipment — a different regulator and a different hazard from a non-ionising aesthetic laser. If someone tells you a Class 4 device must be registered with the State of Michigan before you may switch it on, ask them to name the statute; neither LARA nor the boards publish such a requirement. Read the absence correctly, though. It is not permission. Michigan declined to build a side door into laser work, so the only door is the main one.

The one laser-specific provision, and what it actually does

Michigan does have a single provision naming lasers. MCL 333.16276, added by 2004 PA 144 and effective June 15, 2004, provides that a licensee, registrant or other individual shall not perform a procedure using a laser for dermatological purposes unless it is performed under the supervision of a licensed physician, and unless the patient has knowledge of and consents to that individual performing it. It defines the practice of dermatology to include cosmetic conditions of the skin, hair and nails, which pulls hair removal, pigment and resurfacing inside it, and it carries its own exceptions plus rulemaking authority to restrict dermatological laser use further.

Notice what the provision is not. It creates no credential, names no qualifying licence, sets no training standard and defines no class of authorised operators. It attaches two conditions to a procedure — and everything about who may satisfy them comes from elsewhere.

Why delegation law decides the question

That somewhere else is MCL 333.16215. Because Michigan treats laser use as a medical act, a non-physician operator is performing a physician's act, and the only lawful mechanism for that in the Public Health Code is delegation. The practical question in a Michigan treatment room is therefore never "is this person laser certified?" It is "is this person a valid delegatee of a physician qualified in this procedure, working from a protocol that predates the treatment, under supervision as the Code defines it?" Several familiar arguments collapse against that framing at once — the vendor certificate, the "it is only hair removal" claim, and the belief that an out-of-state laser school credential transfers. None of them addresses delegation, so none is an answer.

Is Firing a Laser the Practice of Medicine in Michigan?

Verdict: yes, for the cosmetic devices a med spa runs. This is the load-bearing conclusion of the analysis, and it rests on a statutory definition plus a long-standing state position statement.

The definition at MCL 333.17001 does the work

The Public Health Code defines the practice of medicine as diagnosing, treating, preventing, curing or relieving a human disease, ailment, defect, complaint or other physical or mental condition, by attendance, advice, device, diagnostic test or other means. Two words decide aesthetic cases. Device forecloses the argument that operating a machine is mechanical rather than medical. Relieving means you need not claim a cure — offering to improve a condition is enough.

A laser targeting melanin in a follicle, haemoglobin in a vessel or water in the dermis is a device applied to a physical condition, and your own marketing usually supplies the rest. A treatment page promising to treat melasma, rosacea, sun damage or unwanted hair has described treatment of a physical condition in your words.

The state position statement on laser equipment

Michigan has said this directly. A position statement on the use of laser equipment by health professionals, issued in December 2005 by what was then the Department of Community Health and still published through the state, concludes that laser use by health professionals falls within the definition of the practice of medicine, noting that the FDA recognises lasers as medical devices. It is also the source most often cited for the proposition that a Michigan entity delivering laser services must be a physician-owned professional corporation or PLLC.

One caution on weight. A position statement is agency guidance, not a promulgated rule, so it carries no independent force of law — but it is the clearest published expression of how the state reads its own statute, and no operator should expect an investigator to depart from it. Ownership deserves its own reading; see our guide on who can own a med spa in Michigan.

Why the hair removal exception people rely on does not exist

The most common Michigan misconception is that laser hair removal is cosmetic rather than medical and therefore sits outside all of this. MCL 333.16276 closes that argument on its own terms, defining the practice of dermatology to include cosmetic conditions of the skin and hair. Nothing in Michigan law separates hair removal from resurfacing, vascular or pigment work. IPL fares no better: the analysis does not turn on whether the emission is coherent.

Who May Legally Operate a Cosmetic Laser or IPL Device in a Michigan Med Spa

Here are the verdicts, role by role. Each assumes a treatment for dermatological purposes, which on a med spa menu it almost always is.

Physicians — MD and DO

Verdict: yes, directly. A physician licensed under part 170 (allopathic) or part 175 (osteopathic medicine and surgery) may operate a cosmetic laser as an ordinary exercise of the practice of medicine — the only Michigan role for which that is true with no delegation behind it. The Michigan Board of Medicine and the Michigan Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery regulate that practice through LARA.

Michigan imposes no specialty limitation — no dermatology or plastic surgery requirement to operate or supervise. It imposes competence through the back door instead: MCL 333.16221 makes negligence and failure to exercise due care disciplinable, so a physician supervising a technology they have never trained on is exposed whatever their specialty.

Physician assistants

Verdict: yes, within a practice agreement. A PA practises under a participating practice agreement with a physician and may perform medical acts within the scope of that agreement and their own training. Put laser work in the agreement expressly rather than by implication — an agreement silent on energy devices leaves the PA operating on inference, which is the kind of gap an investigator finds interesting after an injury.

MCL 333.16276 remains in play. It requires the supervision of a licensed physician, so a PA-only staffing model with no physician relationship is not a route around it.

Nurse practitioners and other APRNs

Verdict: yes as an operator; the supervising-physician question is unsettled. An APRN practises under the Public Health Code with prescribing authority for non-controlled prescription drugs under MCL 333.17211a, and nothing about firing a laser is beyond a trained NP. The complication is upstream: MCL 333.16276 names a licensed physician as supervisor, and an APRN is not one. An NP-led practice offering lasers therefore still needs a physician relationship for that statute, even where the NP prescribes everything else on the menu.

Whether an APRN may be the delegating licensee under MCL 333.16215 for a non-prescriber operator is genuinely open. The delegation section speaks permissively of a licensee delegating within their own scope; MCL 333.16276 names a physician for laser work specifically. Do not resolve that tension with optimism.

Registered nurses and LPNs

Verdict: RNs yes, as delegatees; LPNs are a harder case. The RN delegatee is the most common Michigan laser staffing model and works cleanly when the file is built. The nurse is licensed under the Public Health Code and regulated by the Michigan Board of Nursing, but the authority to fire the device comes from the physician's delegation, not the nursing licence. An RN who selects patients, sets parameters and treats with no delegating physician is not practising nursing broadly; they are practising medicine.

An LPN practises under direction and carries a narrower scope. Delegation to an LPN for laser work is not impossible under MCL 333.16215, but the qualification burden is heavier and the non-delegable ceiling bites sooner. If you are considering it, buy a Michigan opinion rather than write a policy.

Estheticians, cosmetologists and medical assistants

Verdict: not on the occupational licence; the delegated route is unsettled and currently unwise. Two things are clear. An esthetics or cosmetology licence under the Occupational Code (MCL 339.1201 et seq.), administered by the Board of Cosmetology, does not authorise laser work: MCL 339.1210 permits light only where it is FDA approved and intended not to penetrate the layers of living skin, the opposite of how an aesthetic laser functions. And a medical assistant holds no Michigan licence at all, so the occupational-scope question never arises.

What is genuinely unsettled is whether either may fire a device as a delegatee. MCL 333.16215 expressly permits delegation to a licensed or unlicensed individual otherwise qualified by education, training or experience, and MCL 333.16276 reaches a "licensee, registrant, or other individual" rather than a closed list of professions, so on text alone the route is arguable. Against it: the state position statement frames laser use as the practice of medicine by health professionals, LARA has published no interpretation blessing an unlicensed delegatee at a laser, and this is the fact pattern most likely to be examined after a burn. Our Michigan esthetician scope of practice guide works the same tension from the cosmetology side.

What Delegation Under MCL 333.16215 Actually Requires

Michigan is a permissive delegation state and a demanding documentation state, usually learned in that order and applied in the reverse.

The four conditions in the statute

Strip MCL 333.16215 to its operative parts and a valid delegation needs all of the following. The delegating licensee holds a licence other than a health profession subfield licence. The delegatee is a licensed or unlicensed individual otherwise qualified by education, training or experience for the specific act. The act falls within the delegating licensee's own scope of practice — you cannot delegate what you could not lawfully do. And it is performed under that licensee's supervision as the Code defines the word.

The qualification limb is the one practices treat casually. "Otherwise qualified by education, training or experience" is a finding the delegating physician makes about a named individual for a named act, recorded before the first patient. A vendor certificate is evidence toward that finding. It is not the finding.

The non-delegable ceiling

The same section imposes the limit that stops delegation swallowing licensure: a licensee shall not delegate an act which, under standards of acceptable and prevailing practice, requires the level of education, skill and judgment required of the licensee. That ceiling has a recognisable shape in laser work. Selecting a patient, screening contraindications, diagnosing the pigmented lesion someone wants removed, choosing device and wavelength, and setting fluence, pulse duration and spot size are judgment acts. Executing a defined protocol at defined settings on an evaluated patient is what delegation contemplates.

The seductive failure is the technician who has run the device for eight years and now makes every parameter decision alone. Skill is not authority — that habit invalidates the delegation, and it usually surfaces only after an injury, when a chart shows settings nobody prescribed.

What a Michigan laser delegation file contains

Michigan has no med spa facility licence and no routine inspection, so nobody reads your file until something has gone wrong — at which point the file is the whole case. Build one per delegatee per act, dated before the first treatment: the delegating physician's name and licence number; the acts delegated, described narrowly enough that a reader can tell what was authorised; qualification evidence including training records, case logs and a signed competency assessment naming the device; the predetermined protocol; the emergency protocol; the supervision arrangement; and dated practice-review records.

Must the Delegating Physician Be On Site?

The most-asked Michigan laser question, and the answer is more permissive than operators expect and more demanding than they hope.

The three-part supervision test at MCL 333.16109

Verdict: no, physical presence is not required. Michigan defines supervision rather than leaving it to argument. MCL 333.16109 requires all of the following: continuous availability of direct communication between the supervised individual and a licensed health professional, in person or by telephone or telecommunication; availability of a licensed health professional on a regularly scheduled basis to review that individual's practice, consult, review records and further educate them; and the provision of predetermined procedures and drug protocol.

Nothing in that definition mentions the building — which is why an off-site Michigan medical director model functions where the same arrangement fails in a proximity-rule state.

What Michigan does not require

Be precise about the gaps; filling them with imagined rules is its own risk. Michigan sets no on-site presence requirement, no maximum distance or travel-time rule, no cap on delegatees per physician for laser work, no mandated chart-review percentage or interval, and no minimum site-visit frequency. A consultant quoting you a Michigan number for any of those is quoting another state.

What supervision therefore has to look like in practice

The test is conjunctive, which is where most arrangements fail. A physician reachable by phone has satisfied one limb of three. Without a regularly scheduled review of the delegatee's practice and protocols that demonstrably predate the first treatment, there is no supervision within the meaning of the Code — and without valid supervision there is no valid delegation, which means the operator was practising medicine without a licence.

Make the two missing limbs auditable: put the review on a calendar at a fixed cadence, produce a dated note each time recording what was reviewed and what changed, and version-control protocols so effective dates are visible. Michigan will not set the cadence. It will ask you to show the one you set and kept.

The Federal Layer: FDA Device Classification and 21 CFR 1040.10

Michigan regulates the operator; the federal government regulates the machine. Confusing the two produces most of the bad advice in this field.

Class II clearance and what a 510(k) actually says

The FDA regulates aesthetic laser and IPL systems as medical devices, and the ones a med spa buys are overwhelmingly Class II devices brought to market through the 510(k) pathway — a demonstration of substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate, cleared for stated indications. Two consequences get missed. Clearance is not an efficacy endorsement and says nothing about who may hold the handpiece; the FDA does not license practitioners. But the indications statement is real: promoting a device for an indication it was not cleared for is a federal problem on top of any state one, and it hands a plaintiff the sentence they will read to a jury.

21 CFR 1040.10 is a manufacturer standard

21 CFR 1040.10 is the federal performance standard for laser products — the rule that assigns hazard classes and requires class labelling, protective housings, safety interlocks, key control, emission indicators and beam attenuators. It binds manufacturers, importers and assemblers, not clinics, and its obligations attach at the point the product is made or imported rather than at the point it is used.

A Michigan practice still has two duties inside it. Buy devices that comply and can be shown to comply — a real diligence issue with grey-market, refurbished and imported equipment. And never defeat the engineering controls: a taped-over interlock, a bypassed key switch or a removed housing panel turns a compliant device into a hazard you created, and it will be found.

ANSI Z136.3: The Standard of Care, Not Michigan Law

Say this precisely, because it is where well-meaning guides mislead people. ANSI Z136.3 — currently the 2024 edition — is a voluntary industry consensus standard, not Michigan law. Michigan has adopted it by neither statute nor rule, and no LARA board enforces it. It matters anyway.

Why a non-binding standard still decides cases

Two mechanisms. In civil litigation the standard of care is established by expert testimony, and Z136.3 is what a laser safety expert holds up as recognised practice for health care laser use — including, by its own scope, non-medical locations such as salons and spas. In workplace safety, Michigan runs its own occupational programme under MIOSHA with no laser-specific health care standard, so employee protection runs through the general duty to provide a workplace free of recognised hazards — exactly the gap a consensus standard fills. Adopting Z136.3 is not compulsory. Departing from it undocumented is hard to defend after an injury.

The laser safety officer

Z136.3 contemplates a designated laser safety officer with authority over the programme — hazard evaluation, control measures, training approval, eyewear specification, incident review and audit. Michigan neither requires nor credentials one. Appoint one anyway, name them in writing, give them real authority including the authority to stop treatment, and record what they do. In a small practice the LSO is often the delegating physician or a senior nurse; the failure mode is a role that exists on an org chart and nowhere else.

The nominal hazard zone and controlled access

The nominal hazard zone is the space within which the beam, including reflections and scatter, exceeds the maximum permissible exposure. Everyone inside it needs protection; outside it, ordinary conditions apply. Deriving the NHZ for your device, wavelength and delivery configuration is the LSO's job, starting from the manufacturer's data.

Controlled access makes the NHZ real: door closed and latched during emission, signage naming wavelength and class at every entrance, windows covered with wavelength-appropriate barriers, spare eyewear stored outside for anyone entering mid-treatment, and no mirrors, polished trays or reflective instruments in the beam path. In a converted retail suite with a glass door onto a corridor, none of that is a formality.

Eyewear is the control that fails most often

Laser eyewear is wavelength-specific, marked with an optical density and the wavelengths it protects against. So one drawer of goggles for a room with three devices is a failure waiting for a date, and a Nd:YAG pair worn during an alexandrite treatment is decoration. Patient eye protection is a separate item from staff eyewear, and periorbital work has its own requirements. Keep an eyewear register listing each pair by device, wavelength and OD with inspection dates for pitting, crazing or filter degradation — and record eyewear issuance on the treatment note, because that is where it will be looked for.

What a Michigan Laser Safety Programme Must Document

Michigan publishes no laser documentation checklist, so the standard you are held to is the one a reviewer reconstructs from your records. Build these five sets and most of that reconstruction goes your way.

Operator training and competency records

One file per operator per device, holding the training certificate with dates and hours; a competency assessment signed by the assessor and naming the platform rather than "laser"; a supervised case log; safety training covering eyewear, the NHZ, plume and emergency shutdown; and the delegating physician's dated determination that this individual is qualified for this act. Re-verify on a fixed cycle and whenever a new device arrives — competence on an alexandrite system is not competence on a 1064 nm platform.

Device maintenance, calibration and service logs

Per device, permanently: purchase and installation records establishing provenance; the manufacturer's maintenance schedule and every service visit against it; calibration and output verification; handpiece and fibre replacement history; firmware updates; and any fault, error code or downtime with its resolution. Be strict for two reasons. Grey-market and refurbished purchases are common here, and provenance questions arrive with them. And after an injury the first alternative explanation anyone reaches for is that the device delivered more energy than the display claimed — a calibration record answers that; its absence answers it the other way.

Eyewear, room controls and the safety audit

The eyewear register above, plus signage and placement, window covering specifications, the NHZ determination per device, and a periodic room safety audit with a date and a signature. Keep the audits even when nothing changes — an unbroken run of them is the cheapest evidence the programme was operating rather than framed.

Fitzpatrick screening and the intake record

Fitzpatrick skin type drives the risk of post-inflammatory hyper- and hypopigmentation and burns, and it is the screening element most often reduced to a tick box. Record the assessed type with the reasoning, not just the number, and capture alongside it recent sun exposure and self-tanner use; photosensitising medications including tetracyclines, isotretinoin history and St John's wort; melasma and pigmentary history; keloid tendency; herpes labialis history for perioral work; pregnancy; and recent treatment in the area. Michigan mandates none of it. A reviewer expects it anyway, because the standard of care does.

Test spots, patch testing and the settings record

A test spot on a discreet area with a documented observation interval is standard practice for higher-risk skin types, new devices, and any patient whose screening leaves a question. Record site, settings, interval and outcome — a test spot nobody wrote down is one nobody performed. Then record settings on every treatment note: device, wavelength, fluence, pulse duration, spot size, cooling, passes and endpoint observed. Michigan requires no parameter record, but a note reading "IPL face, tolerated well" cannot show the operator followed a protocol, and showing that is the point of the file.

Consent, Photography and the Prescriber Evaluation

Michigan adds one consent requirement operators miss, and leaves another implicit where other states spell it out.

The consent element MCL 333.16276 adds

Ordinary informed consent covers the procedure: risks, benefits, alternatives, expected course, aftercare. MCL 333.16276 requires more — that the patient has knowledge of, and consents to, that licensee, registrant or individual performing it. Michigan requires consent to the operator, not only the treatment.

That is easy to satisfy and easy to fail. Name the individual who will operate the device, state their role and the supervision arrangement on the form the patient signs, and re-paper it when the operator changes. A pre-printed form naming a physician who was not in the building, signed by a patient treated by a technician they had never met, is not the consent the statute describes.

The evaluation Michigan never named

Michigan has no statute using the phrase "good faith examination." The obligation exists structurally anyway: delegation works only for acts within the delegating licensee's scope, and selecting this patient for this treatment is a judgment act at the non-delegable ceiling. Somebody with diagnostic authority must therefore have evaluated the patient before treatment, and that evaluation must be in the chart. Michigan permits it by telehealth where the prescriber acts within scope and arranges follow-up. The same reasoning drives the injectable side of a Michigan menu — see who can inject Botox in Michigan.

After a Burn: Adverse Event Response and Who Is Exposed

Laser injuries cluster predictably: burns and blistering from excess fluence or inadequate cooling, post-inflammatory hyper- and hypopigmentation, scarring, and ocular injury from missing or wrong eyewear. What follows one is more predictable still.

The first hour and the treatment record

Have a written adverse event protocol the operator can follow without calling anyone: stop, cool, assess and grade the injury, photograph it, contact the supervising physician, arrange evaluation, provide written wound care, and schedule documented follow-up rather than waiting for the patient to call. Record it in clinical language, contemporaneously. The most damaging thing a practice does after a laser injury is edit the chart afterwards — that turns a defensible complication into an indefensible one, and it is discoverable.

Who is exposed

Usually everyone in the chain. The operator is exposed for the act, and if the delegation was invalid the exposure is not merely negligence but unlicensed practice of a health profession, a felony under MCL 333.16294. The delegating physician is exposed under MCL 333.16221, which lists negligent delegation to or supervision of employees or other individuals as grounds for discipline whether or not injury results. The owning entity is exposed civilly, and if it is not a physician-owned professional entity under MCL 450.1284, on corporate practice grounds too. Other Article 15 violations carry misdemeanour penalties under MCL 333.16299. Our guide to laser and peel complications covers the clinical response.

Reporting: what Michigan requires and what it does not

Be careful here, because invented requirements circulate. Michigan has no cosmetic-laser adverse event reporting mandate — no LARA form for a med spa burn, and no board notification duty triggered by injury alone. Federal device reporting is genuinely uncertain: manufacturers must report, and "device user facilities" carry their own duty, but whether a med spa sits inside that definition is unsettled and worth a direct question to counsel. Voluntary reporting to the FDA and the manufacturer is always available and usually right where a device may have malfunctioned. What is not optional is notifying your liability carrier on the timeline your policy specifies.

The insurance gap that lands at the worst moment

Professional liability policies commonly exclude acts performed outside the insured's scope. In a delegation state, scope for a non-physician operator is set by the delegation file rather than the licence on the wall — so a defective file can be both the reason a claim exists and the reason it is not covered. That is what turns a survivable complication into a closed business.

What Is Genuinely Unsettled in Michigan

An honest 2026 picture names what nobody can tell you with confidence. Three questions here Michigan has not answered.

Whether an unlicensed delegatee may fire a laser

Set out above and unresolved. MCL 333.16215 permits delegation to unlicensed individuals in terms, and MCL 333.16276 reaches "other individuals" rather than a list of professions. Against that, the state's published position frames laser use as the practice of medicine by health professionals, and no board interpretation has approved an unlicensed operator at a device. If your staffing model depends on this reading, buy a Michigan opinion first.

Whether an APRN can satisfy the supervision requirement

MCL 333.16276 names a licensed physician. Michigan's scope debate has moved for years toward greater APRN independence, and expansion bills have repeatedly been introduced without passing. Until a statute changes, the conservative reading is the only defensible one: a practice offering lasers needs a physician in the supervision role, whatever the rest of the clinical model looks like. Our summary of Michigan med spa regulatory changes for 2026 tracks where those bills stand.

The rulemaking authority nobody has used

MCL 333.16276 has authorised the department to promulgate rules further restricting dermatological laser use since 2004, and that authority remains largely unexercised. A separate cosmetology rule set that would have barred lasers in cosmetology establishments outright was proposed and never took effect. Both point the same way: the current permissive structure exists because rules were not written, not because a policy judgment fixed it, and one completed rulemaking could narrow it. Build a programme that would survive one.

A Michigan Laser Compliance Checklist

If you run one audit against this guide, run this one.

1. Confirm the operator is a physician or a documented delegatee. No certificate substitutes for the delegation, and Michigan issues no credential to hold instead.
2. Name a licensed physician in the supervision role. MCL 333.16276 says physician; an APRN or PA does not fill that seat.
3. Date the protocol before the first treatment. Predetermined procedures are a limb of the statutory supervision test, not a formality.
4. Schedule and record practice review. Reachability alone satisfies one limb of three and is not supervision.
5. Keep parameter decisions with the prescriber. Patient selection, device choice and settings sit at the non-delegable ceiling.
6. Name the operator on the consent form. Michigan requires the patient's knowledge of and consent to the individual performing the procedure.
7. Build the five document sets. Operator competency, device service and calibration, eyewear and room controls, intake screening, and settings with test spots.
8. Adopt ANSI Z136.3 deliberately. It is not Michigan law, but it is the standard you will be measured against — appoint an LSO and derive your NHZ.
9. Write the adverse event protocol before you need it, including photography, physician contact, follow-up and carrier notification.
10. Check the entity and the policy. A physician-owned PC or PLLC under MCL 450.1284, and a carrier that has seen your actual delegation model in writing.

If writing those protocols, competency assessments and consent forms from scratch is not how you want to spend the next month, our med spa SOP and protocol kits cover the documentation behind every item above.

For more Michigan-specific guidance as this cluster grows, browse the Michigan med spa compliance hub.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice. Michigan medical scope is administered by LARA and its Bureau of Professional Licensing through the Michigan Board of Medicine, the Michigan Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery and the Michigan Board of Nursing, occupational scope through the Board of Cosmetology, and all of it changes over time — several points here, including the delegated unlicensed operator, the supervising role of an APRN, and unexercised rulemaking authority under MCL 333.16276, are genuinely unsettled. Confirm current requirements with LARA and the relevant board, and consult a Michigan healthcare attorney before building a laser staffing model.

Frequently Asked Questions