People sometimes ask how we decide what makes it onto StateLicensure — why a fee change in one state gets a post while a similar update in another does not, or why we write about a topic like credentialing timelines that is not, strictly speaking, licensure. This post lays out the general principles we try to follow.
We start from primary sources
Our starting point for any piece of coverage is a primary source — a state medical board notice, a statute or regulation, a CMS or DEA publication, or similarly authoritative material. We generally avoid building a post around a secondary summary or a third-party interpretation without tracing it back to where the underlying rule actually lives. When we cannot confirm something against a primary source, we either do not publish it or we describe it clearly as general background rather than a specific claim.
We weigh material compliance impact
Not every regulatory change is equally relevant to the physicians who read this site. We tend to prioritize topics that materially affect prescribing authority, licensure status, or renewal obligations — the kinds of changes that could actually alter what a physician needs to do to stay in compliance — over changes that are procedural or cosmetic. This is a judgment call, and reasonable people could draw the line differently in a given case, but it is the general filter we try to apply.
We would rather publish fewer posts that trace back to a primary source and matter for compliance than a higher volume of posts built on secondary summaries.
We write to inform, not to advise
StateLicensure is a research and tracking tool, not a law firm or a substitute for individualized legal or medical advice. Our editorial content is written to describe how systems and requirements generally work, using language like "typically" and "in most cases" deliberately, because licensure and compliance requirements genuinely vary by state and change over time. When a topic depends heavily on the specifics of an individual physician's situation, we try to say so plainly rather than implying a general answer applies universally.
How coverage decisions actually get made
In practice, our editorial process involves monitoring official sources across the states and federal agencies most relevant to telehealth practice, evaluating whether a given development clears the bar described above, and then writing it up in a way that a busy physician can read quickly and act on appropriately — which usually means pointing back to the original source for anyone who needs the full detail rather than treating our summary as the final word.
Requirements vary by state and change over time — always confirm current requirements directly with the relevant state board or agency before making a compliance decision.