Prescriptive authority data for recruiters

Ben Argeband, Founder & CEO of Heartbeat.ai — High-risk topic—keep conservative and source-based.

If you recruit NPs and PAs, “can they prescribe for this job in this state?” is a gating requirement that can stall submittals and create avoidable risk. Prescriptive authority varies by state and credential, and employer policies can be stricter than state minimums. Treat this as a verification workflow problem: store what you checked, where you checked it, and when.

Who this is for

Recruiters sourcing NPs/PAs where prescribing is a job requirement—especially when you need to screen quickly without making assumptions from a credential alone.

Quick Answer

Core Answer

Use prescriptive authority as a verified requirement flag: record state, credential, verification source, and date; never assume from title alone; route “unknown” to verification.

Key Insight

Prescriptive authority is state- and credential-dependent; recruiting systems should store it as verified/unknown with a source and date, not as an inferred yes/no.

Best For

Recruiters sourcing NPs/PAs where prescribing is a job requirement.

Compliance & Safety

This method is for legitimate recruiting outreach only. Always respect candidate privacy, opt-out requests, and local data laws. Heartbeat does not provide medical advice or legal counsel.

Framework: The “Don’t Guess” Rule: verify requirements with the state and the employer

In recruiting ops, prescriptive authority is a gating requirement, not a debate. The “Don’t Guess” Rule keeps you fast and defensible:

• Don’t guess from a credential. NP/APRN and PA titles don’t automatically map to meeting a prescribing requirement in a specific state.
• Verify with board (state board / official registry) and confirm the employer’s internal requirement for the role.
• Store what you verified. Capture the source, date, and what exactly was checked (license status vs other registrations).
• Route “unknown” intentionally. Unknown is a valid state; it triggers a verification task instead of a risky assumption.

What this does NOT mean (keep your team out of trouble):

• It does not confirm controlled-substance registration or any specific prescribing category unless you explicitly verified that requirement and recorded the source.
• It does not override employer credentialing rules; it only documents whether the candidate meets the job’s stated requirement based on what you verified.

Note on terminology: some states use APRN as an umbrella category that can include NP; store your internal credential_type consistently and verify against the state board naming.

This is a recruiting verification workflow, not a determination of clinical permissions.

Step-by-step method

Step 1: Define what “prescriptive authority” means in your workflow

Recruiting teams use “prescriptive authority” as shorthand for multiple checks. Separate them so you verify the right thing and store it cleanly:

• Role requirement flag: the employer requires prescribing for this job.
• State context: the state where the clinician would practice for this job.
• Individual verification state: what you have verified about the clinician for that state and role requirement.

The trade-off is… the more you compress these into one yes/no field, the faster your filters look—but the more rework and risk you create downstream.

Step 2: Build a field-level trust dictionary (so everyone stores the same truth)

Uniqueness hook: use a field-level “trust dictionary” for every prescriptive-authority-related field. For each field, document:

• Definition (what it is)
• What it does NOT mean (what you must not infer)
• How recruiters use it (screening, routing, outreach)
• Common mistakes (assumptions that cause rejects or compliance issues)
• Where it comes from (Identity vs Contact vs Derived)

Mini example trust dictionary entry (copy/paste into your ops doc):

• Field: prescriptive_authority_status
• Definition: Recruiting verification state for whether the clinician meets the job’s prescribing requirement in the target state.
• Does NOT mean: A blanket “can prescribe anywhere,” or that all employer credentialing steps are complete.
• Recruiter use: Prioritize submittals; route Unknown to verification queue.
• Common mistakes: Setting Verified without a source/date; treating Unknown as No.
• Source type: Derived (from documented verification steps).

Step 3: Store “verified/unknown” with source and date (not assumed)

From an ops standpoint, you want a small set of fields that are easy to maintain and audit:

• prescriptive_authority_status: Verified / Unknown / Not verified
• prescriptive_authority_verified_state: the state the verification applies to
• credential_type: NP/APRN/PA (your internal category)
• prescriptive_authority_verification_source: state board/official registry link or employer policy reference
• prescriptive_authority_verification_date: when it was checked

Operational rule: if you can’t cite the source, treat it as Unknown.

Step 4: Where to verify (safe sources and what to capture)

Keep verification source-based and neutral. Typical sources recruiters can use without making clinical determinations:

• State board license lookup: confirm identity match and license status for the credential (NP/APRN/PA).
• Official registries referenced by the state board: if the board points to a registry for authorizations, use that and save the link/reference.
• Employer requirement documentation: the facility’s credentialing checklist or job requirement notes for prescribing in that role.

What to capture from the board page (so your “Verified” is auditable):

• Name match (and any identifier shown, such as license number, if displayed)
• License status (as shown)
• State and credential type you checked
• URL or reference name for the lookup page
• Date checked (your verification date)

If the employer requires additional items beyond license status, record that as an employer requirement note rather than implying a clinician can or cannot prescribe.

Step 5: Build a verification task path (so “unknown” doesn’t stall submittals)

When a candidate looks strong but prescriptive authority is unknown, route them through a standard task:

1. Confirm target state for the role (where they will practice).
2. Confirm credential (NP/APRN/PA) and license status via the state board.
3. Confirm employer requirement (what the facility requires for prescribing in that role).
4. Log outcome as Verified/Unknown/Not verified with source + date.

Step 6: Use prescriptive authority data as a filter—carefully

Use it to prioritize and route, not to “diagnose” eligibility. Examples:

• Routing: send Verified candidates to hiring manager review first; send Unknown to verification queue.
• Outreach personalization: ask a neutral verification question instead of asserting they can/can’t prescribe.
• Job matching: only apply the filter when the job truly requires prescribing.

Diagnostic Table:

Visual note: Directory-style field table visual: Field name → Definition → Example value → Source type (Identity/Contact/Derived) → Recruiter use → Common mistakes.

Visual note: Data dictionary navigation (jump links grouped by Identity/Contact/Quality/Compliance) so teams can find the right field fast.

Entity alignment: this table is designed for Heartbeat.ai workflows and common NP/APRN/PA recruiting operations, with verification anchored to the state board and employer requirements.

Weighted Checklist:

Use this to decide whether to move a candidate forward today while verification is pending. Score each item 0–2 and total it.

• (2) Role explicitly requires prescribing and the target state is confirmed.
• (2) Candidate’s license status is confirmed active via the state board.
• (2) Candidate confirms they currently meet the prescribing requirement in the target state (yes/no/unknown) and will share verification details if needed.
• (2) Employer requirement is documented (what they require for prescribing in this role).
• (1) Verification source reference is saved and the verification date is recorded.
• (1) ATS field uses Verified/Unknown/Not verified (not assumed yes/no).
• (0) If anything is unclear, you route to a verification task instead of rejecting.

Interpretation:

• 10–12: Submit-ready from a recruiting standpoint (still follow your credentialing process).
• 7–9: Move forward, but create a verification task before final interviews.
• <7: Verify first or re-scope the req.

Outreach Templates:

These templates keep you neutral and source-based. They reduce drop-off by making the ask specific and easy to answer.

Template 1: First-touch (verification-forward)

Subject: Quick question on prescribing requirement (NP/PA role)

Hi [Name] — I’m recruiting for a [NP/PA] role in [State]. Prescribing is a requirement for this position.

Can you confirm whether you currently meet that prescribing requirement in [State], and what you prefer we use to verify (state board listing link, registry reference, or employer credentialing contact)?

If it’s unknown, that’s fine—we can route a quick verification step so we don’t waste your time.

If you’d prefer no further outreach, tell me and I’ll update our records.

Template 2: Follow-up (reduce friction)

Hi [Name] — following up. To keep this moving, all I need is:

• Target state: [State]
• Your credential: [NP/APRN/PA]
• Whether you currently meet the prescribing requirement in that state (yes/no/unknown)

If you prefer, you can point me to the state board listing you use so we can verify with board and document it correctly.

If you’d prefer no further outreach, tell me and I’ll update our records.

Template 3: Hiring manager handoff note (neutral, source-based)

Candidate: [Name] (NP/APRN/PA). Prescribing requirement for req: Yes. Status: [Verified/Unknown/Not verified].

• Target state: [State]
• Verification source: [link or reference]
• Verification date: [date]
• Notes: [what was checked / what remains pending]

Common pitfalls

• Assuming from title. “NP/APRN” or “PA” alone is not a safe proxy for meeting a prescribing requirement in a specific state.
• Mixing employer requirement with state context. Store the role requirement separately from the verification state.
• Storing a permanent yes/no. If you don’t store source + date, you can’t defend the decision later.
• Rejecting “unknown.” Unknown should trigger a verification task, not an auto-disqualify.
• Overstating what you verified. Keep notes factual: what you checked, where, and when.

How to improve results

Improvement here means faster screening with fewer reversals (submittal → credentialing → “doesn’t meet requirement”). Build a measurement loop around verification and outreach quality.

Define the metrics (canonical definitions)

• Connect Rate = connected calls / total dials (e.g., per 100 dials).
• Answer Rate = human answers / connected calls (e.g., per 100 connected calls).
• Deliverability Rate = delivered emails / sent emails (e.g., per 100 sent emails).
• Bounce Rate = bounced emails / sent emails (e.g., per 100 sent emails).
• Reply Rate = replies / delivered emails (e.g., per 100 delivered emails).

Measurement instructions (what to track weekly)

• Verification cycle time: time from prescriptive_authority_status = Unknown to Verified/Not verified (track median and a high-percentile, e.g., 90th).
• Reversal rate: percent of candidates advanced who later fail the prescribing requirement during employer review or credentialing.
• Outreach efficiency: Connect Rate and Answer Rate on calls; Deliverability Rate, Bounce Rate, and Reply Rate on emails for NP/PA segments where prescribing is required.

Measure this by… running a weekly report that segments candidates by prescriptive_authority_status (Verified vs Unknown) at time of first outreach, then comparing reversal rate and cycle time.

Operational improvements that usually move the needle

• Make “source + date” mandatory when setting Verified.
• Use a verification queue owned by Recruiting Ops so it doesn’t get dropped.
• Standardize the handoff note (see template) so hiring managers don’t re-ask the same questions.
• Link your license lookup SOPs so recruiters can verify quickly without improvising.

Helpful internal references for verification workflows: nursing license lookup workflow and NP license lookup workflow.

Legal and ethical use

Use prescriptive authority data only to confirm a legitimate job requirement for a specific role and state, and to document verification steps and sources (state board and employer requirement documentation). Do not represent your internal field as a clinical permission determination.

• Respect opt-out requests and suppression lists.
• Keep notes factual and source-based.
• When in doubt, verify with board and defer to the employer’s credentialing process.

Evidence and trust notes

We treat this as a high-risk data area: prescriptive authority varies by state and credential, and policies change. The safest recruiting posture is to store verification state (Verified/Unknown/Not verified) with a source and date, and to rely on official sources (state board/registries) plus employer requirements.

• How Heartbeat defines and audits data quality metrics: Trust Methodology and accuracy and metrics definitions.
• Structured data reference used for this page’s schema: https://schema.org/.
• Implementation reference for structured data types: https://schema.org/Article and https://schema.org/FAQPage.

Related operational building blocks: ATS field schema for outreach metrics and provider contact data API overview.

FAQs

What should “prescriptive authority” mean in an ATS field?

Make it a recruiting verification flag tied to a specific state and role requirement. Store Verified/Unknown/Not verified plus source and date, rather than assuming a permanent yes/no.

Can I assume an NP or APRN meets a prescribing requirement in any state?

No. Prescriptive authority varies by state and credential, and employer requirements can be stricter than state minimums. Verify with board and document the source and date.

How do I verify prescriptive authority without making legal determinations?

Keep it procedural: confirm the target state, check the state board/official registry for license status, confirm employer requirements, and record what you verified with a source and date.

What do I do when prescriptive authority is unknown?

Route it to a verification task instead of rejecting. Unknown is a valid state that prevents bad assumptions and reduces downstream reversals.

Does Heartbeat.ai provide prescriptive authority determinations?

Heartbeat.ai supports recruiting workflows and data handling, but you should verify with board and employer requirements for any role where prescribing is a condition of hire.

Next steps

• If you need NP/PA outreach workflows that fit verification-first recruiting, review: nurse practitioner contact data and physician assistant contact data.
• Implement the trust dictionary fields in your ATS/CRM and align them with your outreach metrics schema.
• When you’re ready to operationalize this with your team, create a Heartbeat account.

About the Author

Ben Argeband is the Founder and CEO of Swordfish.ai and Heartbeat.ai. With deep expertise in data and SaaS, he has built two successful platforms trusted by over 50,000 sales and recruitment professionals. Ben’s mission is to help teams find direct contact information for hard-to-reach professionals and decision-makers, providing the shortest route to their next win. Connect with Ben on LinkedIn.