Protecting the EP Workforce: HRS and HRA Respond to Proposed Federal Student Loan Changes
February 2, 2026 -- Heart Rhythm Advocates (HRA), working in coordination with the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), recently submitted formal comments to the U.S. Department of Education addressing a proposed rule that could have far-reaching implications for the electrophysiology (EP) workforce and patient access to arrhythmia care.
The Department’s proposal, issued under the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBBA), would significantly narrow the definition of “professional degree” for purposes of federal student loan eligibility. Under the proposed framework, only a limited set of degree programs, such as medicine, dentistry, and law, would qualify for higher federal loan limits. Many graduate programs central to cardiovascular care, including advanced practice nursing, Physician Associate (PA), and genetic counseling programs, would instead be subject to substantially lower borrowing caps.
Why This Matters for EP
Modern EP care depends on multidisciplinary teams. Advanced practice nurses, PAs, and genetic counselors are integral to catheter ablations, device clinics, remote monitoring programs, peri-procedural care, and inherited arrhythmia evaluation. These clinicians complete rigorous post-baccalaureate training, obtain professional licensure, and assume direct responsibility for high-acuity patient care.
However, tuition and training costs for these graduate programs frequently exceed current federal loan limits. By tying eligibility to narrow degree classifications and rigid criteria, such as doctoral-only requirements and specific program codes, the proposed rule fails to reflect how today’s clinical workforce is educated and deployed.
HRS and HRA emphasized in their comments that this approach represents a departure from longstanding federal policy, which recognized that professional degrees are not defined by an exhaustive list, but by the substance of education, licensure, and patient-care responsibility.
Workforce and Patient Access Implications
Restricting access to federal student loan support would create new financial barriers for individuals pursuing EP-related allied health careers. Over time, this would worsen workforce shortages, delay procedures, reduce clinic capacity, and strain EP teams already facing rising demand for arrhythmia services.
In electrophysiology, these impacts are not theoretical. Staffing constraints directly affect procedural throughput, continuity of care, and access for high-risk patients - particularly in outpatient and ambulatory settings where EP services continue to expand.
HRS and HRA’s Position
In their formal submission, HRS and HRA urged the Department to revise the proposed definition of “professional degree” to better reflect modern clinical education pathways. Options include restoring the longstanding non-exhaustive regulatory framework or explicitly recognizing graduate nursing, PA, and genetic counseling programs that meet advanced clinical and licensure standards.
HRS, representing more than 9,000 clinicians, scientists, and allied professionals worldwide, and HRA, its advocacy partner, stressed the importance of aligning education policy with workforce and patient-care realities. Federal student loan policy should support - not undermine - the training pipelines that sustain high-quality arrhythmia care.
Looking Ahead
HRA and HRS will continue to monitor this rulemaking and engage with policymakers to ensure the EP community’s voice is heard. As federal agencies consider changes that affect education and workforce development, coordinated advocacy remains essential to protecting patient access and the future of electrophysiology care.
What HRA and HRS Members Can Do
The Department of Education has opened this proposal for public comment, and individual clinician perspectives matter in the rule-making process.
HRA and HRS members - particularly advanced practice nurses, Physician Associates, genetic counselors, and physicians who work closely with them - are encouraged to submit brief comments describing how this proposed change could affect training pathways, workforce capacity, and patient access to arrhythmia care. Comments do not need to be technical or lengthy; firsthand experience from the EP care team is especially valuable.