You all are combining and confusing separate bills. All of the bills were in the 129th General Assembly, which ended at the end of 2012.
HB 303 was intended to change some terminology in BON regulations, including changing the term "Advanced Practice Nurse" (APN) to "Advanced Practice Registered Nurse" (APRN) to be compliant with the APRN Consensus Model put forward by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. Individual specialties such as CRNAs will retain their respective titles, protected by law, as would be the APRN title which applies to all APRNs. Other aspects of the bill had to do with disciplinary authority of the BON, something about LPN IV therapy, and mostly just semantic changes. There were no provisions about prescriptive authority in this bill.
Ohio HB 141 and its companion bill SB 83 were written to allow APNs with CTP to prescribe Schedule II medications. SB 83 passed and was signed into law by Governor Kasich. CRNAs do not hold CTPs and therefore this is not applicable to them.
Ohio HB 485 and its companion bill SB 228 was intended to authorize CRNAs to order medications and treatments for administration by other authorized professionals, namely RNs and RTs. These bills died in session on December 31st awaiting the opinion from the Ohio Attorney General. The opinion is not expected to be rendered until spring. It has always been the assertion of CRNAs that the activities described in the bill are already within the CRNA scope of practice and that further legislation is not necessary. The Ohio BON disagrees and finds that CRNAs may only order medications which they will administer personally. The bill added phase of care restrictions that are not necessarily good for practice, and the BON feels that if CRNAs need to prescribe medications they should be required to obtain the CTP -- which would NOT be a good thing. A lot of effort and money was spent in two separate legislative sessions to address this issue, the BON is highly confrontational (to say the least), and although OSANA members say that they want it to be addressed, they have not really been forthcoming in the support that would be necessary to pass the legislation. As of right now there is no real plan to reintroduce it, if the AG opinion is unfavorable then the situation will be re-evaluated.