What do we do now?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

novastorm

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
430
Reaction score
3
No reason to move this thread mods, it belongs here.

With the impending medicare differential and the billion dollar study into the government deciding what is the best medical decision for you to make. Potentially, the fate of medicare in the balance as well (remember medicare pays for your residency), are you comfortable going as deep into debt as you are? This is really the first time in a long time that medical students have no clue what is in store in their future.

Is anyone else worried?

Members don't see this ad.
 
The most disturbing thing is the differential payment medicare system and the potential for the government to meddle in medical decision making more then it already does. For some specialties this will certainly effect how many procedures residents can do, medical students can see. How do we compensate for that? Longer residencies, more clinicals? I mean these are all very possible situations, it scares the crap out of me.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The most disturbing thing is the differential payment medicare system and the potential for the government to meddle in medical decision making more then it already does. For some specialties this will certainly effect how many procedures residents can do, medical students can see. How do we compensate for that? Longer residencies, more clinicals? I mean these are all very possible situations, it scares the crap out of me.

Why would this be true, unless residents are currently performing more procedures than are necessary for the sake of training?
 
That's why finances are playing a bigger part in my decision (of which medical school to attend) than I initially wanted. That, and I'm interested in OB/GYN (though everyone tells me that will change) and OB malpractice insurance is sure to kick me in the face. I'm not comfortable putting all of my financial hope in the prestige and reputation that medicine holds - all that can change, and medicine might be a totally different (financial) ballgame 15 or 20 years down the line.
 
That's why finances are playing a bigger part in my decision (of which medical school to attend) than I initially wanted. That, and I'm interested in OB/GYN (though everyone tells me that will change) and OB malpractice insurance is sure to kick me in the face. I'm not comfortable putting all of my financial hope in the prestige and reputation that medicine holds - all that can change, and medicine might be a totally different (financial) ballgame 15 or 20 years down the line.

Yes.
 
With the impending medicare differential and the billion dollar study into the government deciding what is the best medical decision for you to make. Potentially, the fate of medicare in the balance as well (remember medicare pays for your residency), are you comfortable going as deep into debt as you are?
This is one giant non-sequitur here. First of all, the phantom study your referencing is simply a goal to reduce unnecessary procedures and other waste in our healthcare system based on outcomes, not driven to reduce costs. Why is this a bad thing? Why do you seemingly want to perform useless procedures that have not been proven to be beneficial for patients? Secondly, there is absolutely no way in hell that anyone is going to cut the number of ACGME residency spots, I don't know why you imply that here. Care to link to something backing up what you're stating?

It might behoove you to know the AMA's positions on the changes coming.

Rhetoric and reality in the economic stimulus package: The AMA's approach to health system reform.

As physicians, it is important that we make decisions based on evidence and fact. Unfortunately, that became a challenge recently as conflicting information swirled in regard to the important health information technology (HIT) and comparative effectiveness research provisions included in the recent economic stimulus bill. To help AMA members make sense of these provisions, here are some facts to consider.

Experts from the most respected medical institutions in the country have all urged accelerating the adoption of HIT to facilitate quality improvement and, over time, lower costs. For years, the AMA and other physician groups have urged policymakers to help fund physician HIT acquisition costs.

The economic stimulus package provides approximately $19 billion in Medicare and Medicaid incentives over five years to assist physicians in purchasing HIT systems. This is the first substantial federal funding provided to help physicians implement HIT systems-systems that will generate benefits across the health care spectrum. While the bill does include Medicare payment reductions (starting at 1 percent) for physicians who do not implement HIT systems, these do not take effect until 2015 and there are exceptions for significant hardship cases.

Throughout the legislative process, the AMA has urged flexibility in implementing these provisions given the uncertainties surrounding this issue. Also, we have made it clear that these incentives are doomed if Congress fails to address the long-term viability of the Medicare physician payment system (including replacing the sustainable growth rate formula). The final HIT provisions are not exactly what we would have drafted, but they do represent real progress and a major improvement upon the status quo.

Suggestions that a Department of Health and Human Services Office of Health Information Technology (which currently exists and was established by former President George W. Bush) "will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective" are unfounded. There is no such authority in the legislation.

Another provision that has been widely attacked is the increase in government support for comparative effectiveness research (CER) and the coordination of this research through a new advisory council of federal agency representatives.

The AMA and many other health groups have endorsed the concept of research to provide physicians with information on the comparative effectiveness of different medical treatment options. Physicians and their patients both can benefit from research that demonstrates whether a particular treatment option results in better outcomes.

The AMA has stressed that research findings should be driven by clinical evidence and not be used solely to identify and promote the cheapest treatment option. The AMA has also successfully advocated that entities conducting this research not make coverage and payment decisions.

The CER Advisory Council has been erroneously compared to the Federal Health Board envisioned by former Sen. Tom Daschle. The two bodies have little in common, however. The CER Advisory Council would be responsible for setting research priorities and avoiding duplication across various government agencies. It has no authority to restrict payments or make coverage decisions, or establish national practice guidelines, and it does not grant Medicare officials new authority to impose a cost-effectiveness standard. The health care provisions contained in the recent economic stimulus bill, however, mark just the first step of a longer journey toward health system reform.


The AMA is fully engaged in this debate and shares the concerns of individual physicians regarding some of the ideas being floated. We oppose a single-payer system and other proposals that move our health care system in the wrong direction. Likewise, we must remain vigilant that the positive health care provisions in the stimulus package or subsequent legislative proposals are not twisted or corrupted toward an end that compromises physician practice and patient care. Standing pat, however, is not an option. The current state of our health care system is not sustainable. Over the years, our AMA House of Delegates has adopted sensible policies that outlined reasonable reforms that will benefit all stakeholders. We are using these reform objectives to guide us in the current debate. They include:

* Expanding affordable health insurance coverage for all;
* Reducing costs and increasing value in health care services;
* Eliminating excessive administrative burdens;
* Increasing investments in wellness and prevention services;
* Empowering physicians to improve quality through evidence-based medicine;
* Reforming government insurance programs by providing adequate physician payments to assure timely access for patients;
* Implementing essential payment and delivery reforms to optimize health care expenditures, including medical liability and antitrust reforms.

The pressure for health system reform is not just coming from President Obama or the Democrats in Congress. Many Republicans in Congress and every major stakeholder group-patients, businesses, physicians, health provider organizations and insurers-are all calling for a transformation of our health care system. To succeed, reforms must be adopted as part of a comprehensive strategy that balances issues of coverage, access, quality and cost.

The political and legislative process presents real challenges. Fierce partisanship impedes constructive dialogue and has triggered decisions to short-circuit the deliberative process. Frequently, final legislative language is available too late to allow for thoughtful review and consultation before committee or floor action. Legislative language is also subject to interpretations and can be as indecipherable as an insurance contract. Congress needs to apply the same level of transparency to its work that it is calling for in the health sector.

The AMA's commitment to you is to serve as the strongest possible advocate for meaningful health system reforms that will empower physicians to help patients lead healthy and productive lives. Our success depends on your support and engagement.

Sign up for the AMA physician grassroots network to receive regular legislative alerts by going to www.ama-assn.org/go/grassroots.

Finally, please continue to provide us with your feedback and input on how we can do a better job of serving the physicians of America.
Besides the fact that the AMA opposes single-payer (which I disagree with strongly but I'm sure you agree with), everything here sounds fine to me. What do you find so disagreeable? And remember, provide facts now, not just your words.
 
Sigh, although I wasn't even talking about the medical record money which I think is far more valuable to the genetics people, I hope you are right. The biggest thing that bothers me is S. 438. While this looks good on the surface, I really don't think that this is the best way to go about it. Make sure to read 4(b) very carefully, it contains fun stuff.
 
Last edited:
Sigh, although I wasn't even talking about the medical record money which I think is far more valuable to the genetics people, I hope you are right. The biggest thing that bothers me is S. 438. While this looks good on the surface, I really don't think that this is the best way to go about it. Make sure to read 4(b) very carefully, it contains fun stuff.

Are you really reading all this stuff?How much time do you have?
I appreciate it though. This thread is very informative.
 
I thought the Big O was supposed to be paying for all our loans, buying my gas, and paying my child support to my 7 illegitimate children. I feel shammed.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
S. 438 is a new piece of legislature. H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, of what meister speaks does contain some good stuff in relation to providing money to unwilling hospitals (and some poor ones) to pay for their EMR. EMR's allow for some easy auditing and in theory really allow for better patient care. The theory is once everyone goes electronic we can dump all the data into a central database and get all kinds of fun data out of it. (See Iceland).

The bill also set aside 700 million for "the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality". They are basically supposed to go over the entirety of medicine and decide what is worth doing and what is not (as it says now). But basically they have until November 1st to say what they are actually going to do, so we dont know yet.

With that aside S. 438 is a new piece of legislature that has entered committee in the Senate, it was proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

At first glance the bill looks great, it gives incentives to states to eliminate wasteful procedures by just not paying for them but reducing their payment, sort of like softening the blow, but the state medical board has to be on board for that. Take that as you will. Now if you proceed to section 4 paragraph B you get to see the fun part that says the the Secretary of Health and Human Services can basically force what seems like a rather well regulated state process at a whim, unless the state has something better already in place.

Now I admit the bill entered committee (Finance) on the 13th, we'll have to see if it ever makes it out.
 
Can we ask President Obama to forgive our student loans now?
Not going to happen until we actually move toward single-payer, i.e. never since everyone in DC is pretty spineless and won't take on big pharma or insurance lobbyists. Pretty sad since 60% are in favor of national health insurance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf

Americans are more likely today to embrace the idea of the government providing health insurance than they were 30 years ago. 59% say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems. In January 1979, four in 10 thought the federal government should provide national insurance. Back then, more Americans thought health insurance should be left to private enterprise.

Want to know what's a bigger problem? NP autonomy.

http://www.webnp.net/downloads/pearson_report09/ajnp_pearson09.pdf

If you want to get a real good laugh go ahead and read that "report." It quotes malpractice cases per provider (MD, DO, NP) then divides by the total number of that provider to arrive at a figure of "events per provider." It then uses the higher physician event figure to argue that NPs are essentially safer providers and therefore need absolute autonomy. This was prepared by a national NP organization and is hitting legislatures as we speak. If we don't cut this off we are going to go from having 150 medical schools keeping supply about right to the dissolution of the profession with 250+ schools providing autonomous medical providers. I hope we can all see why this line of logic is utterly without merit and laughably stupid (not surprising considering both the preparers and the audience!).

If you're going into surgery and think this won't affect you, you're dreaming.
 
Want to know what's a bigger problem? NP autonomy.

http://www.webnp.net/downloads/pearson_report09/ajnp_pearson09.pdf

If you want to get a real good laugh go ahead and read that "report." It quotes malpractice cases per provider (MD, DO, NP) then divides by the total number of that provider to arrive at a figure of "events per provider." It then uses the higher physician event figure to argue that NPs are essentially safer providers and therefore need absolute autonomy. This was prepared by a national NP organization and is hitting legislatures as we speak. If we don't cut this off we are going to go from having 150 medical schools keeping supply about right to the dissolution of the profession with 250+ schools providing autonomous medical providers. I hope we can all see why this line of logic is utterly without merit and laughably stupid (not surprising considering both the preparers and the audience!).

If you're going into surgery and think this won't affect you, you're dreaming.

Holy crap, I read over it and WOW it is scary what they're asserting and how hard they're pushing. I usually think, "well, I'm sure they're good people and have good intentions, maybe there's something I'm missing here" when something this blatantly wrong comes out, but man, I'm really starting to wonder if the NP higher-ups are just dishonest, aggressive, insecure, selfish people.

Someone should really email the author of the report (who seems very pleased with herself, proudly claiming "I did this" and "I did that" and listing no less than 17 letters behind her name) Linda Pearson at [email protected] to clarify:

1) Is she really comparing ALL MD's to ALL NP's, or she actually matching them up by specialty? Because if you're comparing all MD's (including dermatologists, neurosurgeons, trauma physicians, transplant surgeons, primary care, heart surgeons, OB's, etc. etc. etc.) to all NP's (mostly primary care...much lower percentage in specialties), that's flat-out bad research and a huge huge huge sampling bias.

2) Even if she is, isn't it possible/likely that MD's are seeing sicker and more complicated patients than NP's?

3) Even if she is, isn't her data skewed by the fact that many NP's are under the supervision of physicians (i.e. even when it's really the NP's fault, the doctor's the one who gets sued).

This seems like a pretty cut & dry case of borderline criminal bad research, bad science, and manipulative propaganda.
 
Last edited:
I feel exactly the same way you do. What is going on here? This is ridiculous.

And now I find out that the watered down step 3 exam was failed by 50% of Mudinger's creme de la creme Columbia DNPs. 50%!

Every year 16,000 graduate MDs/DOs pass the actual exam with a 96% pass rate.

http://www.abcc.dnpcert.org/exam_performance.shtml


And they want complete autonomy?! What a ****ing joke.
 
Bending over and bringing your own lube is about all we're going to be able to do . . . .

Maybe some of you will bend over and take it, but not me.

If the time comes and I have to draw a line in the sand, I will.

I'm not going to work for peanuts.
 
Now my next ranting target would be CER and Evidence based medicine.

While I do think they are valuable tools in the hands of doctors, I really don't think they are valuable in the realm of cost effectiveness, which is what people want to use them for. So chemotherapy statistically pretty crappy in quite a few applications, its expensive, but we still use it, because there is a chance.

What good does saying that procedure x is only 25% effective, 10% effective. 10% is a lot in my opinion. We are trying to quantify peoples livelihoods, look at medical malpractice and see how well that works.

I mean sure this will reduce the cost of care by eliminating LESS effective procedures but why bother if your just providing substandard care to everyone who cant pay if the people with money can pay for all the options. I just cant see it ever working.

I guess what I'm trying to say is we need to tread very carefully, we are the future and we need to be mindful of our actions and their repercussions.

As for the DNP's. Its the NBME's fault, they are bunch of crooks anyway. We can only hope that the states hold out and the fed doesnt interfere at this point.http://forums.studentdoctor.net/member.php?u=51187
 
Last edited:
:eek: wow. just wow. :thumbdown:. Here are some highlights:
Overall national occurrence
ratios, obtained by dividing the
total number of each group of
providers by the total number of
accumulated malpractice and
adverse actions in the NPDB
against that group of providers,
were 1 in 173 for NPs, 1 in 4 for
DOs, and 1 in 4 for MDs.
Overall
national occurrence ratios, obtained
by dividing the total number
of each group of providers by
the total number of accumulated
adverse action reports, civil judgments,
and criminal conviction
reports in the HIPDB against that
group of providers, were 1 in 226
for NPs, 1 in 13 for DOs, and 1 in
23 for MDs.

States with the "worst ratios,"
meaning the highest rate of occurrences
for each professional group,
are listed here:
• Worst ratio for NPs in the
NPDB reports: 1:32 (Oregon)
• Worst ratio for DOs in the
NPDB reports: 1:2, (Louisiana,
Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,
and Wyoming)
• Worst ratio for MDs in the
NPDB reports: 1:2 (West Virginia)
• Worst ratio for NPs in the
HIPDB reports, 1:11 (Alabama)
• Worst ratio for DOs in the
HIPDB reports: 1:4 (North Dakota
and Oklahoma)
• Worst ratio for MDs in the
HIPDB reports: 1:6 (Ohio)
A closer look at two states,
Florida and Georgia—both of
which have limited NPs' autonomy
more than many other states—is
elucidating. Florida's DOs and
MDs, compared with NPs, are 25
times more likely to err professionally
and 7-14 times more likely
to commit an adverse action or
receive a civil judgment or criminal
conviction. Georgia physicians are
61 times more likely to commit a
malpractice error than NPs.

Comparing the number of adverse
actions, civil judgments, or criminal
convictions between physicians
and NPs is mathematically impossible
because 0 NPs have been
reported over the past 18 years.
Recommended Actions for NPs
1. NPs must use these malpractice
and malfeasance ratios and figures
to show legislators that the
rationale for physician supervision
over NPs is unfounded.

2. NPs have been providing safe, top-notch primary care for
decades. As FactCheck.org has
explained, humans tend to cling to
previously held beliefs and reject or
ignore new ideas offered by a new
person. This propensity undoubtedly
explains, at least in part, why
healthcare policy analysts sometimes
exclude NPs from serious discussions
about healthcare reform
and problems related to the lack of
primary care providers. NPs must
remind all policymakers of their
value in helping solve the nation's
healthcare crisis. As President
Obama persuasively articulated,
"Yes We Can!"
3. NPs must continue to strive
to remove statutory restrictions that
prohibit NPs with earned doctorates
from being addressed as "doctor."

Many states have no requirement
that doctorally-prepared NPs declare
or clarify that they are NPs, and I
also commend those states that have
legislatively allowed qualified NPs
to be addressed as "doctor" in the
clinical setting as long as these doctorally-
prepared NPs clarify that
they are NPs. My concern centers
on the eight states—Arkansas,
Connecticut, Georgia, Maine,
Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and
Oregon—that have statutory restrictions
against doctorally-educated
NPs being addressed appropriately
as "Doctor NP."
Kudos to Iowa's NPs
and legislature, who removed this
legislative restraint in 2008.

This is f'ing ridiculous. Let them take over. Let them get sued. I don't give a damn anymore. Freakin idiots.
 
Don't you think the DNP's are trying to take over in a last ditch effort? They are afraid it seems because the PA profession is growing and MDs will choose PAs in the long run to work with them. The only way for the NP/DNP thing to survive is to secure full independent practice, whether they are prepared for it or not.
 
There's no point in arguing over the pie. The pie is too big.

The over 65 population will double while we are practicing. Older patients need more of everything. More MDs, more NPs, more tests, more specialist services, more meds, more office visits, more more more.

As far as I know, the number of health care providers, no matter the quality of their education, will NOT double in the next few decades, no matter how hard internet schools selling DNP degrees try.

Most NPs are cash cows for their MDs. You try doubling your office visits on your own and see how you like it. And you try setting up your own practice as an NP in podunk, USA, and see how many of Doc X's patients (who are mostly on medicare) leave him/her to see you.

I think there needs to be national reform to ensure that NPs have better, more uniform education. If you want to run the rodeo, you better be able to ride any bronco that shows up.

FYI, on that report regarding malpractice: state by state, those ratios are directly based on the local legislature and board of medicine, as well as by the poverty (and therefore money-grubbing) of those states. FL and WV have some of the highest malpractice premiums in the country, and it's precisely b/c their states make it easy to sue and juries give away piles of cash. And I agree that it's a stupid argument -NPs are crappy targets if you want to make money, and they aren't the ultimate resp. party, their supervising MD is.
 
There's no point in arguing over the pie. The pie is too big.

The over 65 population will double while we are practicing. Older patients need more of everything. More MDs, more NPs, more tests, more specialist services, more meds, more office visits, more more more.

As far as I know, the number of health care providers, no matter the quality of their education, will NOT double in the next few decades, no matter how hard internet schools selling DNP degrees try.

Most NPs are cash cows for their MDs. You try doubling your office visits on your own and see how you like it. And you try setting up your own practice as an NP in podunk, USA, and see how many of Doc X's patients (who are mostly on medicare) leave him/her to see you.

I think there needs to be national reform to ensure that NPs have better, more uniform education. If you want to run the rodeo, you better be able to ride any bronco that shows up.

FYI, on that report regarding malpractice: state by state, those ratios are directly based on the local legislature and board of medicine, as well as by the poverty (and therefore money-grubbing) of those states. FL and WV have some of the highest malpractice premiums in the country, and it's precisely b/c their states make it easy to sue and juries give away piles of cash. And I agree that it's a stupid argument -NPs are crappy targets if you want to make money, and they aren't the ultimate resp. party, their supervising MD is.

I think you're being obtuse. This isn't just a matter of desperation (i.e. "we need every person we can get no matter what degree they have this is a crisis!"), we need to maintain the integrity of the profession and the quality of the care provided. I refuse to compromise care or the profession I love so just so that people don't have to wait an extra day or two to get a non-emergent condition assessed, or so they don't have to drive an extra 15 minutes to see a doctor. I want people to see doctors or someone working directly with a doctor, keeping the doctor apprised of the patient's status and visits, and I see NO reason for us to deviate from that WHATSOEVER.

We set a harmful precedent by opening up the practice of medicine to people whose education and training falls below the gold standard that we have established. I wouldn't accept an ophtho exam for papilledema in place of a CT for a patient coming in with head trauma, and I won't trust a nurse's read of a chest x-ray regardless of how many cases of pneumonia she's seen - I want a radiologist to read it, and I won't accept that a DNP's training, no matter how closely they may try to mimic an MD's, is the same as ours.

If the problem is that we don't have enough doctors, guess what kids, the answer is to TRAIN MORE DOCTORS and ENABLE THEM TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, not to open the profession to less qualified individuals.

The real problem is people (including med students and doctors) who think "eh, whatever what's the big deal just let them do it they seem good enough". Who bears the burden of this attitude? Think long and hard about compromising the public's care for the sake of an "experiment" to see if care is just as good with less qualified individuals, when the lives at stake are our friends, family, and would-be patients who trusted us to assert ourselves and police the practice of medicine - as the only people who know what good medicine is. Don't kid yourselves - who do you think knows what good medicine is? We're trained to know. We're trained to have a discriminating eye on whether a patient was treated appropriately, whether treatment is meeting the standard of care, and whether clinical aptitude is up to snuff. We're trained to be up-to-date on research within our field that dictates the standard of care, and we're trained to become academics to broaden that standard of care.

You think our treatment options are going to broaden and improve if our profession is invaded by everyone and their mother? You think we're going to see the best and brightest entering MD/PhD programs to fuel academic medicine and clinical research if entire fields are made obsolete by bargain, albeit grossly functional members of a cheaper profession?

Think long and hard about what your responsibility is to the public you swore to serve when you entered medical school before you so flippantly take the position of "what's the worst that could happen?" Don't make our patients answer that question.
 
lol @ comparing every specialty.. Will NP's be the face of primary care? Yup, and that's why I'll always bypass them and head for a specialist (MD).
 
I think you're being obtuse. This isn't just a matter of desperation (i.e. "we need every person we can get no matter what degree they have this is a crisis!"), we need to maintain the integrity of the profession and the quality of the care provided. I refuse to compromise care or the profession I love so just so that people don't have to wait an extra day or two to get a non-emergent condition assessed, or so they don't have to drive an extra 15 minutes to see a doctor. I want people to see doctors or someone working directly with a doctor, keeping the doctor apprised of the patient's status and visits, and I see NO reason for us to deviate from that WHATSOEVER.

We set a harmful precedent by opening up the practice of medicine to people whose education and training falls below the gold standard that we have established. I wouldn't accept an ophtho exam for papilledema in place of a CT for a patient coming in with head trauma, and I won't trust a nurse's read of a chest x-ray regardless of how many cases of pneumonia she's seen - I want a radiologist to read it, and I won't accept that a DNP's training, no matter how closely they may try to mimic an MD's, is the same as ours.

If the problem is that we don't have enough doctors, guess what kids, the answer is to TRAIN MORE DOCTORS and ENABLE THEM TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, not to open the profession to less qualified individuals.

The real problem is people (including med students and doctors) who think "eh, whatever what's the big deal just let them do it they seem good enough". Who bears the burden of this attitude? Think long and hard about compromising the public's care for the sake of an "experiment" to see if care is just as good with less qualified individuals, when the lives at stake are our friends, family, and would-be patients who trusted us to assert ourselves and police the practice of medicine - as the only people who know what good medicine is. Don't kid yourselves - who do you think knows what good medicine is? We're trained to know. We're trained to have a discriminating eye on whether a patient was treated appropriately, whether treatment is meeting the standard of care, and whether clinical aptitude is up to snuff. We're trained to be up-to-date on research within our field that dictates the standard of care, and we're trained to become academics to broaden that standard of care.

You think our treatment options are going to broaden and improve if our profession is invaded by everyone and their mother? You think we're going to see the best and brightest entering MD/PhD programs to fuel academic medicine and clinical research if entire fields are made obsolete by bargain, albeit grossly functional members of a cheaper profession?

Think long and hard about what your responsibility is to the public you swore to serve when you entered medical school before you so flippantly take the position of "what's the worst that could happen?" Don't make our patients answer that question.


Shut the **** up donny, this doesnt concern you.


Hey I like the way you think. Your post is spot on. IF there arent enough doctors... train more doctors. Double class sizes . BUt they are afraid if they double the class size medicine wont be competitive anymore because there will be more spots than applicants. BUt guess what, thats going to happen in the long run anyway if you continue and continue to make medicine more disgusting to practice. I mean you cant ask someone to work their asses off, treat them like slaves for 8 years and when they finish you pay them peanuts further insult them by allowing legislation to the effect that a glorified nurse has the same practice rights. This is the ultimate insult. This will lead to less and less bright people going into medicine, and it cheapens the efforts of all well intentioned and hard working medical students.
 
posted by schutzhund in the resident forum:

I have a unique perspective on this. I am a physician (i.e. I actually went to medical school). I was also a nurse and took NP classes.

There is absolutely NO comparison between the two. ZERO. Most NP programs contain less actual "medical" classes than you get in one semester of real medical school. Mine was 15 credit hours. The rest is nursing theory, research, nurse political activism and such. It is so unbelievably different, you can't compare the two. The truly scary thing is that they don't how much they don't know.

NPs, DNPs have absolutely NO right to independent practice. I think there is a role for them such as running coumadin clinics, helping with post-op evals, vaccinations and other such limited practice.

They simply do not have a fraction of the knowledge that the worst FM physician has. Not even close.

Imagine this. Would you let a fourth year medical student open up a clinic and do primary care? H@(( no! And the fourth year medical student already has VAST more medical education than an NP or DNP.

If this does not bother you, it should. I've seen the inside politics of this debate. These people want your job. They hate, resent and envy you. They are cunning and very political active. If we don't stop them, it will negatively affect us all. And their pathway to "independence" will be littered with the dead bodies from their blissful ignorance and pride.
 
IF there arent enough doctors... train more doctors. Double class sizes . BUt they are afraid if they double the class size medicine wont be competitive anymore because there will be more spots than applicants. BUt guess what, thats going to happen in the long run anyway if you continue and continue to make medicine more disgusting to practice. I mean you cant ask someone to work their asses off, treat them like slaves for 8 years and when they finish you pay them peanuts further insult them by allowing legislation to the effect that a glorified nurse has the same practice rights. This is the ultimate insult. This will lead to less and less bright people going into medicine, and it cheapens the efforts of all well intentioned and hard working medical students.

I see the problem with this line of thinking every day of 3rd year. My school decided to increase class spots my incoming year. Now that I'm in my clinical years, I see the effect - there are TOO MANY STUDENTS and not enough qualified teachers. I'm finding myself on teams with 4-6 other medical students, a fair amount of housestaff, NPs/PharmDs and their students, and only 1 attending. It's very difficult to learn to be a doctor in this setting, with everyone so stressed out about their own work and patient load that they don't have time to round with you in the morning, critique your physical exam skills, read your H&Ps and notes and give feedback, or go over the Ddx/A&P with you. I have complained about this to every one of my clerkship directors since my very first rotation, but nothing changes, despite how outspoken and almost pushy I have become about getting my money's worth out of my education. You shouldn't have to fight this hard to learn. The answer isn't just opening up more MD traning spots - that will dilute the quality of the product even more. What we need is more physicians who are willing to take on students, and a better student/housestaff-to-attending ratio. Unfortunately, these mega-academic centers, where the raio is greater than to 10-1, comprise the bulk of American medical education. As an MS3, I realize that I'm last in line for anything that comes up - but the fact that the line is 15-people deep in the first place blows my mind. Furthermore, the attendings that I have been working with recently love to "eat their young" - they treat the NPs and PAs better than us. For instance, they get to assist in surgeries while we watch on the sidelines. I understand that the PA may have been first-assist on this procedure 100 times before, and thus things flow very quickly and smoothly, but how am I supposed to learn if I don't get to do it myself? How on earth does this benefit the future of their own profession?

We really need a new training model that limits the number of students per instructor, and we need better standards for those instructors as well (must observe and critique at least 10 PEs, must give formal feedback for at least 10 H&Ps, must meet with students at least X hours a week to discuss A&Ps for their pts, etc). Students should also participate in the direct care of patients earlier on in medical school. Start simlabs during first year, where we learn basic skills (suturing, starting IVs, putting in central lines, assisting in the OR, participating in/running codes, etc., as well as how to use EMRs, how to write an H&P, how to put in orders, how to find stuff in a chart, how to write a progress note, etc.) And I don't mean just an evening or procedure night or an ICM course once in a while - we need to learn this stuff early and often, or else we're not going to get much out of 3rd year. There's no reason why a medical student shouldn't be first-or-second assisting in every surgical case they are on during third year. The only reason why we don't is because there are either too few cases, or too many residents/other students, or there is a PA/NP that somehow trumps your tuition money.

It really frightens me that we leave medical school with so little feedback and fine-tuning of skills. We are then tossed into internship/residency, where we have to scramble frantically for the first 6 months + to pick up those skills and abilities. I don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, the attendings that I have been working with recently love to "eat their young" - they treat the NPs and PAs better than us. For instance, they get to assist in surgeries while we watch on the sidelines. I understand that the PA may have been first-assist on this procedure 100 times before, and thus things flow very quickly and smoothly, but how am I supposed to learn if I don't get to do it myself? How on earth does this benefit the future of their own profession?

Seriously? That is lame. :thumbdown:
 
I see the problem with this line of thinking every day of 3rd year. My school decided to increase class spots my incoming year. Now that I'm in my clinical years, I see the effect - there are TOO MANY STUDENTS and not enough qualified teachers. I'm finding myself on teams with 4-6 other medical students, a fair amount of housestaff, NPs/PharmDs and their students, and only 1 attending. It's very difficult to learn to be a doctor in this setting, with everyone so stressed out about their own work and patient load that they don't have time to round with you in the morning, critique your physical exam skills, read your H&Ps and notes and give feedback, or go over the Ddx/A&P with you. I have complained about this to every one of my clerkship directors since my very first rotation, but nothing changes, despite how outspoken and almost pushy I have become about getting my money's worth out of my education. You shouldn't have to fight this hard to learn. The answer isn't just opening up more MD traning spots - that will dilute the quality of the product even more. What we need is more physicians who are willing to take on students, and a better student/housestaff-to-attending ratio. Unfortunately, these mega-academic centers, where the raio is greater than to 10-1, comprise the bulk of American medical education. As an MS3, I realize that I'm last in line for anything that comes up - but the fact that the line is 15-people deep in the first place blows my mind. Furthermore, the attendings that I have been working with recently love to "eat their young" - they treat the NPs and PAs better than us. For instance, they get to assist in surgeries while we watch on the sidelines. I understand that the PA may have been first-assist on this procedure 100 times before, and thus things flow very quickly and smoothly, but how am I supposed to learn if I don't get to do it myself? How on earth does this benefit the future of their own profession?

We really need a new training model that limits the number of students per instructor, and we need better standards for those instructors as well (must observe and critique at least 10 PEs, must give formal feedback for at least 10 H&Ps, must meet with students at least X hours a week to discuss A&Ps for their pts, etc). Students should also participate in the direct care of patients earlier on in medical school. Start simlabs during first year, where we learn basic skills (suturing, starting IVs, putting in central lines, assisting in the OR, participating in/running codes, etc., as well as how to use EMRs, how to write an H&P, how to put in orders, how to find stuff in a chart, how to write a progress note, etc.) And I don't mean just an evening or procedure night or an ICM course once in a while - we need to learn this stuff early and often, or else we're not going to get much out of 3rd year. There's no reason why a medical student shouldn't be first-or-second assisting in every surgical case they are on during third year. The only reason why we don't is because there are either too few cases, or too many residents/other students, or there is a PA/NP that somehow trumps your tuition money.

It really frightens me that we leave medical school with so little feedback and fine-tuning of skills. We are then tossed into internship/residency, where we have to scramble frantically for the first 6 months + to pick up those skills and abilities. I don't get it.

Hey thats the fault of your school. I agree those teams can get big. When i graduated from med school, 00, there were no NPs rounding, howeverthere were pharm Ds. and the teams were kind of big. I agree the teams should be smaller, but that necessarily wont compromise your learning as long as you are reading about your patients, I would have almost preferred a big team that way I could duck out and come back when i want. ANyway, dont be discouraged, yoru education is not over after medical school, you have residency and basically everyone is on the same page when they are interns. The system is far from perfect, and med students get screwed ALL the damn time. Just plug along, dont try to make waves( DONT DO IT), keep your mouth shut and get your MD.
 
The NPs/DNPs and PAs are not the enemies. The enemy operates from within. They are called "Medical schools". You guys are only scarred because they put you deep in debt, and they will continue to steal the financial futures of unsuspecting students until someone calls them out on it.
 
my opinion, does not represent all of nursing:

the posts about NP's are scary. And while I do not have the time to prepare a debate backed with sources, let me add another angle that might explain all the emotion on both sides:

Healthcare has always been, and while forever be, a caste system. Think about it, the lowly RN, despite her years of acute care experience, ACLS, PALS, CMSRN, CPCRN, CCRN, etc, is the lowest caste. Her best shot is to be "a mid-level" practitioner. Furthermore, as I heard all throughout undergrad, as well as in medical school: Medical Schools do not like RN to MDs. You are either one or the other. I find it no wonder that many RNs are training to become NPs.

That said, schools of nursing need to get their acts together, and offer more medically relevant, treatment related curriculum similar to the PA programs. The whole talk about the role of a nurse and nursing theory (think of a medically minding community organizer training program), is down right dangerous if they are not trained properly.

Futhermore, with the nursing shortage, there are many "chicken****" programs where you can take a BS in anything and turn it into a MSN in 2 years. That's great for middle management, but horrible for patient care and working with these BS to MSN primadonas.

Throw into the mix, that when you work in a pink collar job such as nursing, the competitiveness is just as fierce as in the business world. Women like the power that the position gives them, and they love to wield it.


Just thought you might enjoy a more touchy feeling understanding of where nurses are coming from.
 
Last edited:
The NPs/DNPs and PAs are not the enemies. The enemy operates from within. They are called "Medical schools". You guys are only scarred because they put you deep in debt, and they will continue to steal the financial futures of unsuspecting students until someone calls them out on it.

DNP/NPs are the enemy. They want to do what we do, with less training. PA's definitely are not the enemy, I don't think anyone said they are.
 
DNP/NPs are the enemy. They want to do what we do, with less training. PA's definitely are not the enemy, I don't think anyone said they are.

Originally posted by taurus:

Not surprisingly, the nurses are lying about the DNP exam in their propaganda and once again the ASA is taking the charge to respond:
Just as we feared, ABCC’s statement below equates the DNP exam to Step 3 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), which not only jeopardizes patient safety by misleading patients to believe that DNPs are equivalent to physicians, but it also minimizes the physician-patient relationship.
The ABCC exam was comparable in content, similar in format and measured the same set of competencies and applied similar performance standards as Step 3 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination, which is administered to physicians as one component of qualifying for licensure
NBME assured the medical community that it would address any instance of misrepresentation to the public of equivalency and that NBME’s contract to supply such questions to ABCC would terminate due to misrepresentation. Moreover, NBME’s rationale for its involvement in the DNP certification as outlined in the white paper, “NBME Development of a Certifying Examination for Doctors of Nursing Practice” supports this commitment made to the medical community. Specifically,
The DNP certifying examination is not designed to replicate the USMLE assessment for medical licensure. It does not include the in-depth assessments of fundamental science, clinical diagnosis, and clinical skills that are provided through USMLE Step 1, Step 2 CK, and Step 2 CS. Similarly, the training leading to the DNP degree is substantially different from the educational experiences that result in the MD or DO degrees. The context and the scope of a DNP certifying examination is materially different from the context and scope of the USMLE.​
You can sample some of the DNP exam questions here. I installed the software and did the questions. It's not even close in difficulty with the USMLE steps.
 
The Pearson report assumes accurate reporting and integrity of the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) to make its claims

The problem is that NP's are underreporting their adverse events to the NPDB.

The Pearson report uses flawed data to make its case. Yet, that won't stop the nurses from pushing this analysis on lawmakers and the public to advance their agenda. Again, nursing uses propaganda and lies as its tools to get what it wants. When will somebody in medicine stand up to this crap and say enough is enough?!
 
Last edited:
I feel exactly the same way you do. What is going on here? This is ridiculous.

And now I find out that the watered down step 3 exam was failed by 50% of Mudinger's creme de la creme Columbia DNPs. 50%!

Every year 16,000 graduate MDs/DOs pass the actual exam with a 96% pass rate.

http://www.abcc.dnpcert.org/exam_performance.shtml


And they want complete autonomy?! What a ****ing joke.

Somebody please explain to me how do you get 50% passing rate if n=45.

22/45 = 48.9%
23/45 = 51.1%

NP lies never end.
 
So what other threats to medicine do we have to worry about? Anyone else have anything that needs to come out of the woodwork?
 
I'm wondering what would be the malpractice insurance for NPs when they actually got full independence. Keep in mind insurance doesn't give a freaking damn about politics; you kill more folks you bill will go up.
 
I'm wondering what would be the malpractice insurance for NPs when they actually got full independence. Keep in mind insurance doesn't give a freaking damn about politics; you kill more folks you bill will go up.

True. And then if they are fully independent they can't hide behind the doctor that employs them when the law suit comes up... no more fudging numbers to make you look safer.
 
I'm wondering what would be the malpractice insurance for NPs when they actually got full independence. Keep in mind insurance doesn't give a freaking damn about politics; you kill more folks you bill will go up.

tru but their eyes might glaze over by the savings they will get and they might buy into the propaganda. I do know one thing once nurses get independent practice it will be extremely hard to revoke it.

Why do you say that? Is it because she declared CRNA appreciation week for Kansas? Is there more to it?

I was half joking, but yea, thats one thing, plus she was a lawyer and worked for insurance companies. Now if she got a nursing degree she would be a member of every group trying to give physicians the shaft.

Im sure she will get an honorary one soon enough though.
 
Someone should really email the author of the report (who seems very pleased with herself, proudly claiming "I did this" and "I did that" and listing no less than 17 letters behind her name)

I wouldn't even bother arguing with her. The people we need to be engaging in a discussion on this issue are the politicians and our leaders in the medical profession.
 
As everyone knows, in other counties which have nationalized health systems, medical school tuition is a fraction of what it is here in the US. Which makes sense. If we went to single payer or other forms federally provided health care systems, would medical school tuition take the appropriate dive?
 
my opinion, does not represent all of nursing:

the posts about NP's are scary. And while I do not have the time to prepare a debate backed with sources, let me add another angle that might explain all the emotion on both sides:

Healthcare has always been, and while forever be, a caste system. Think about it, the lowly RN, despite her years of acute care experience, ACLS, PALS, CMSRN, CPCRN, CCRN, etc, is the lowest caste. Her best shot is to be "a mid-level" practitioner. Furthermore, as I heard all throughout undergrad, as well as in medical school: Medical Schools do not like RN to MDs. You are either one or the other. I find it no wonder that many RNs are training to become NPs.

That said, schools of nursing need to get their acts together, and offer more medically relevant, treatment related curriculum similar to the PA programs. The whole talk about the role of a nurse and nursing theory (think of a medically minding community organizer training program), is down right dangerous if they are not trained properly.

Futhermore, with the nursing shortage, there are many "chicken****" programs where you can take a BS in anything and turn it into a MSN in 2 years. That's great for middle management, but horrible for patient care and working with these BS to MSN primadonas.

Throw into the mix, that when you work in a pink collar job such as nursing, the competitiveness is just as fierce as in the business world. Women like the power that the position gives them, and they love to wield it.


Just thought you might enjoy a more touchy feeling understanding of where nurses are coming from.


That is such BS. There are several former nurses in my class, and I saw plenty on the interview trail. Truth is, Med schools love applicants who are nurses.

Now, med schools definitely do not love nursing major applicants. That is, they don't like applicants who majored in nursing and then applied immediately after completing their degree program. There's a good reason for that--it's not a scientifically or intellectually rigorous major and doesn't prepare students for med school. Also, taking up a spot in nursing school when you have no intention of practicing is an ******* thing to do.
 
Someone should really email the author of the report (who seems very pleased with herself, proudly claiming "I did this" and "I did that" and listing no less than 17 letters behind her name) Linda Pearson at [email protected] to clarify:

Ok so I actually emailed our friend Linda yesterday "to clarify" that atrocity. There are two things that bother me in life: bad chinese food and terrible study designs.

Dear Ms. Pearson,

I am writing to you in hopes of a discussion about the most recent publication of the American Journal for Nurse Practitioners, in particular the Pearson Report. This report uses the malpractice rates for MD's, DO's, and NP's and uses them to call for increasing the autonomy of Nurse Practitioners. Statistically, however, these rates show very little about the quality of care delivered by each type of professional. There are several reasons:

1. The rates included all physicians while a great percentage of those physicians are working in specialized medicine, far outside the scope of most nurse practitioners. This is a clear example of a samping bias. The more appropriate comparison would be family practice MD's/DO's to family practice nurse practitioners.

2. Physicians see many more complex (and therefore more malpractice-prone) cases. This is true in primary care, but especially true in specialized medicine.

3. Some number of physicians are held accountable for the actions of their NP's. If a patient visits a NP and a malpractice issue arises, the physician - who signed away on the NP's clinical work and is higher up on the totem pole - makes a better target for a malpractice suit, hence a further skew in the figures.

Using these figures to say "MD's and DO's are _____ times more likely to err than NP's" is statisically unfounded and entirely misleading when concerning quality of care. As the primary author, can you please clarify or comment on the article and the proposed problem areas? Do you believe that NP's deliver the same quality of care compared to MD's and DO's? Why do you feel that NP's should have greater autonomy? Do you believe this will endanger any patients? Do you feel that NP's should replace physicians in the primary care setting? If so, why?

I am truly not trying to antagonize or bicker via this email. I respect your opinion and your profession, therefore I am curious about your stance on this issue and the reasoning behind this article. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerly,

TDitty


Her response:

Thanks for your interest. I won’t have time to respond for a few days due to work commitments - I am interested though: are you a nursing student or other? What state are you from? What is the reason your main interest in this topic?

Something to chew on until I hear from you – there are many NPs who are held responsible for the actions of their MDs - included in malpractice suits where the physician (“lower on the totem pole”) is the main provider and the NP was swept up into the lawsuit because s/he was also a good target (though not the main responsible person). Also, MANY NPs are involved in specialty area care (e.g. surgical assistants, cardiology, oncology, rheumatology, dermatology etc). They oftentimes provide a primary care emphasis to their care, while also focusing with providing specialty care. Additionally, if the rates of problems are so discrepant between NPs and DOs/MDs, perhaps the degree of complexity that is being undertaken by some DOs/MDs is inappropriate and beyond their ability. NPs specialize in keeping in mind “what they cannot afford to miss” and are experts in limiting their care to that which is supported by their education/skills/experience, and referring/consulting where appropriate. Perhaps DOs/MDs need to follow NPs’ lead and do more consultation/referrals when indicated.




wow.
 
"Additionally, if the rates of problems are so discrepant between NPs and DOs/MDs, perhaps the degree of complexity that is being undertaken by some DOs/MDs is inappropriate and beyond their ability."

Wow, I have been following this thread very closely. Although some things I've read and seen (particularly BAD science) have angered me, none have left me speechless until now.

I guess I truly believed deep down that she was just trying to advance her profession (regardless of who it hurt), she couldn't really believe what was coming out of her mouth. I guess I was dead wrong.

I fear for the future of medicine and who will be taking care of meand my children.
 
Ok so I actually emailed our friend Linda yesterday "to clarify" that atrocity. There are two things that bother me in life: bad chinese food and terrible study designs.

Dear Ms. Pearson,

I am writing to you in hopes of a discussion about the most recent publication of the American Journal for Nurse Practitioners, in particular the Pearson Report. This report uses the malpractice rates for MD's, DO's, and NP's and uses them to call for increasing the autonomy of Nurse Practitioners. Statistically, however, these rates show very little about the quality of care delivered by each type of professional. There are several reasons:

1. The rates included all physicians while a great percentage of those physicians are working in specialized medicine, far outside the scope of most nurse practitioners. This is a clear example of a samping bias. The more appropriate comparison would be family practice MD's/DO's to family practice nurse practitioners.

2. Physicians see many more complex (and therefore more malpractice-prone) cases. This is true in primary care, but especially true in specialized medicine.

3. Some number of physicians are held accountable for the actions of their NP's. If a patient visits a NP and a malpractice issue arises, the physician - who signed away on the NP's clinical work and is higher up on the totem pole - makes a better target for a malpractice suit, hence a further skew in the figures.

Using these figures to say "MD's and DO's are _____ times more likely to err than NP's" is statisically unfounded and entirely misleading when concerning quality of care. As the primary author, can you please clarify or comment on the article and the proposed problem areas? Do you believe that NP's deliver the same quality of care compared to MD's and DO's? Why do you feel that NP's should have greater autonomy? Do you believe this will endanger any patients? Do you feel that NP's should replace physicians in the primary care setting? If so, why?

I am truly not trying to antagonize or bicker via this email. I respect your opinion and your profession, therefore I am curious about your stance on this issue and the reasoning behind this article. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerly,

TDitty


Her response:

Thanks for your interest. I won’t have time to respond for a few days due to work commitments - I am interested though: are you a nursing student or other? What state are you from? What is the reason your main interest in this topic?

Something to chew on until I hear from you – there are many NPs who are held responsible for the actions of their MDs - included in malpractice suits where the physician (“lower on the totem pole”) is the main provider and the NP was swept up into the lawsuit because s/he was also a good target (though not the main responsible person). Also, MANY NPs are involved in specialty area care (e.g. surgical assistants, cardiology, oncology, rheumatology, dermatology etc). They oftentimes provide a primary care emphasis to their care, while also focusing with providing specialty care. Additionally, if the rates of problems are so discrepant between NPs and DOs/MDs, perhaps the degree of complexity that is being undertaken by some DOs/MDs is inappropriate and beyond their ability. NPs specialize in keeping in mind “what they cannot afford to miss” and are experts in limiting their care to that which is supported by their education/skills/experience, and referring/consulting where appropriate. Perhaps DOs/MDs need to follow NPs’ lead and do more consultation/referrals when indicated.




wow.

It's not that surprising that Ms. Pearson would spin the facts.

Good thing that there is a site like SDN that digs deeper into statements and sets the truth straight.

If you support the medical profession, do what I'm doing. If you have to hire midlevels, hire PA's and AA's preferentially. Simple as that.
 
Something to chew on until I hear from you – there are many NPs who are held responsible for the actions of their MDs - included in malpractice suits where the physician (“lower on the totem pole”) is the main provider and the NP was swept up into the lawsuit because s/he was also a good target (though not the main responsible person).

Are you kidding me? She's trying to suggest the numbers she reports actually overrepresent NPs being named in malpractice suits because of evil MD's. She totally ignored the question - which is HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT MOST NP'S ARE IN LESS SUE-HAPPY SPECIALTIES. Which of course, she doesn't. Simultaneously, she is ignoring the simple fact that MD'S ARE NAMED IN MALPRACTICE SUITS WHERE NP'S WERE THE ACTUAL PERPETRATORS TOO. And she totally glosses over the issue of who's MORE LIKELY TO BE NAMED IN A LAWSUIT. Who do you think is more likely to be left off of a suit, an MD, or a nurse practitioner? Whose pockets are deeper? Who clearly had the directing and oversight role in the care of the patient (and thus, ultimately "to blame"). But neither of us has the actual data to flush out who's to blame how much of the time and why that is. Her problem is that she refuses to acknowledge that and is overinterpreting her "data" (you really can't call it that) to further her own selfish agenda.

Also, MANY NPs are involved in specialty area care (e.g. surgical assistants, cardiology, oncology, rheumatology, dermatology etc). They oftentimes provide a primary care emphasis to their care, while also focusing with providing specialty care.

Ridiculous on two counts:
1) We aren't saying NP's are in no way involved in specialty care, genius. We're saying they are FAR FAR MORE HEAVILY IN THE REALM OF FAR FAR LESS SUE-HAPPY FIELDS.

2) I thought the whole NP push for autonomy was to cover the primary care gap? All of a sudden she's all proud that NP's are infiltrating into all the subspecialties? Now they're "providing a primary care emphasis" while simultaneously "focusing with providing specialty care"? Man, these NP's can do it all! Gosh, why do MD's even exist?!

Additionally, if the rates of problems are so discrepant between NPs and DOs/MDs, perhaps the degree of complexity that is being undertaken by some DOs/MDs is inappropriate and beyond their ability.

Are.....you......kidding......me. She's quite deranged.

The rates of problems are "so discrepant" because you geniuses are practicing in primary care and people don't sue primary care. The rates of problems are "so discrepant" because you geniuses are functioning on a team lead by a physician, who ends up taking the fall, whether legitimate or not. The rates of problems are "so discrepant" because we have not allowed you to enter into the specialties to PROVE your "rates of problems" would be higher because there's absolutely no reason to think you'll do better or even as well as we do. We have the better training, we have the higher aptitude, we have the stronger clinical acumen and quality of training and I REFUSE to wager my patients' lives and outcomes on your little ego trip trying to "prove" you're just as good to the world.

If you want to expand your scope because you want to fill the primary care gap, okay fine I can at least appreciate that your intentions seem honorable, at least at face value ignoring any ulterior motives. But you honestly think that MD's are "practicing beyond our ability"? Pray tell, WHO EXACTLY HAS THIS ABILITY, THEN? This ability to treat disease beyond the level of an MD board certified in a field of medicine? Are you saying we're not referring enough to other specialists? Because you know what the answer to that is? I don't want to ruin the surprise, but it doesn't involve including less qualified "professionals" like NP's in the care of our more complex patients. It is a problem within the medical profession that wouldn't be solved with some sort of NP presence to alleviate us from our woefully inadequate ability - it means further involvement of subspecialists with better and better training.

But again - the reason that we see a higher rate of "problems" from MD's is because we are the ones DIRECTING care in neurosurgery, cardiac surgery, ICU care, transplants, trauma care, oncology, and every other field that includes more complex care then what your role as a "primary care gap-filler" can prepare you for. And even when you are involved, you are INVOLVED, not DIRECTING care. And even when you are DIRECTING care, you're not the ones with the deep pockets, and you're not the ones who get sued. But if you get your wish, you will.

NPs specialize in keeping in mind “what they cannot afford to miss” and are experts in limiting their care to that which is supported by their education/skills/experience, and referring/consulting where appropriate. Perhaps DOs/MDs need to follow NPs’ lead and do more consultation/referrals when indicated.

I'd like to know what exactly about NP training makes them so much more expert in detecting when to call for a consult or refer - and how she intends to prove that her allegation is correct. And she had better have something better than this ridiculous "data" she's trying to pass off.

Sadly, I'm starting to believe her type of thinking will destroy our profession. How do you feel about that, Ms. Pearson? All that we work for, all that we believe in, all that we have worked and trained to achieve, you feel comfortable impuging that by saying your silly little overinflated degree and your chutzpah and spunk are enough to denigrate our entire profession by saying you're all better than us? I hate to say it because honestly, all I want to do is just work hard, work well and collegially with my coworkers and colleagues, and become a good physician to help patients in the best way I can, and you make me want to pick up a flag and lead a charge to destroy your little campaign and your entire profession like you're trying to do to us.
 
^ nice post. ^

While understanding medicine and assessing the quality of study designs is inherently difficult and time-consuming, ignoring the limitations of your knowledge and training and dismissing its relevance through the interest of self-preservation is inherently easy. People can, and will, talk all day about things related to advancing their interests without knowing anything at all what they're talking about AND completely disregarding the obvious and disconcerting negative effect of their blissful ignorance; the quality of care provided to the patient.
 
Top