Who Will Be Your Doctor?

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

Taurus

Paul Revere of Medicine
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
3,218
Reaction score
663
Being informed is being forewarned.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/27/nurses-doctors-practice-oped-cx_mom_1128nurses.html?partner=alerts

Mary O' Neil Mundinger 11.28.07, 6:00 AM ET

A quietly emerging trend in health care is likely to have a major effect on who will diagnose and treat your illness in the coming years. Rather than a physician, that comprehensive-care provider may very well be a nurse--who also happens to be a doctor.

As more physicians move toward specialties and away from general care, there is a troubling lack of providers in this critical health-care sector. The need is even more urgent in light of the growing number of Americans who are suffering from chronic illnesses such as asthma, diabetes and hypertension and require long-term disease treatment and coordination of care. Many others who survive extraordinary medical interventions or trauma need sustaining care for the rest of their lives.

The doctor of nursing practice (DNP) is a new level of clinical practice that is attracting a rapidly growing number of nursing professionals. This doctoral degree enables advanced-practice nurses to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to practice independently in every clinical setting.

DNPs are the ideal candidates to fill the primary-care void and deliver a new, more comprehensive brand of care that starts with but goes well beyond conventional medical practice. In addition to expert diagnosis and treatment, DNP training places an emphasis on preventive care, risk reduction and promoting good health practices. These clinicians are peerless prevention specialists and coordinators of complex care. In other words, as a patient, you get the medical knowledge of a physician, with the added skills of a nursing professional.

Truly comprehensive care requires both medical and nursing skills, and nurses with a clinical doctorate have that complement of abilities. Skilled at identifying nuanced changes of condition, and intervening early in a patient's illness, these clinicians are also expert at utilizing community and family resources, and incorporating patient values into a family-centered model of care.

Once patients move beyond the common bias that only doctors of medicine can provide top-flight care, they typically come to appreciate these added benefits. Most important, research has demonstrated that DNPs, with their eight years of education and extensive clinical experience, can achieve clinical outcomes comparable to those of primary-care physicians.

As more advanced-practice nurses pursue this new level of clinical training, we are working to create a board certification to establish a consistent standard of competence. To that end, we are working to enable DNPs to take standardized exams similar in content and format to the test that physicians must pass to earn their M.D. degrees. By allowing DNPs to take this test, the medical establishment will give patients definitive evidence that these skilled clinicians have the ability to provide comprehensive care indistinguishable from physicians.

Along with a doctorate and the title of "doctor," the fact that a nurse practitioner has fulfilled this certification requirement will instill confidence in patients that DNPs have the expertise to serve as their health-care provider of choice.

Nurse practitioners are reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid in every state, but only variably by commercial insurance carriers. That is certain to change soon, as these DNP graduates prove they are the logical choice to become the new comprehensive-care clinicians.

As this valuable new resource grows and becomes fully established, the health-care system's ability to meet the nation's desire for accessible, high-quality care will be greatly improved, yielding better health for all. Medical specialists are in short supply; patients increasingly need their care. With the advent of the DNP clinicians, we can have both dedicated, brilliant specialists and effective health management. It is the future we all need and want.

Mary O' Neil Mundinger, Dr.P.H., is the Dean of the Columbia University School of Nursing, which was the first to pioneer the DNP concept.​

Members don't see this ad.
 
Thats not that much different than it is now, at least for women. Most general gyn appointments for women nowadays are with NPs. And for women the age of most med students and premeds thats the only practitioner you actually see annually.

I went through all of college with never seeing a doctor. NPs took care of my gyn stuff, nurses in the urgent care took care of UTIs minor infections, etc.

So its not shocking that they would push it further - there aren't enough primary care doctors nowadays - its a necessary movement.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
come on. a nurse doctor is just what we don't need. What we do need is highly skilled nurses and advanced-practice nurses and mid level providers working together with physicians to provide high level care. Physicians do four plus years of undergrad/four years of medical school and then a residency. It would be possible under this framework to get an undergraduate nursing degree without the same basic science prereqs no MCAT, no min. GPA, an advanced practice degree in two years and then continue on for two years until you have your "DNP" and are unleashed with the same amount of time as a new graduate from medical school without a residency. Are we then going to have "noctor residency"??After having talked with nurses and nurses in school about what they are learning in terms of pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of disease it IS NOT the same as what we are teaching in to our future MD/DOs. Similarly I have no clue as to how to create a "care plan," set up drips, perform an accurate CIWA, etc. I respect what nurses/advanced practice nurses and mid-level providers do but there are things that I can do that they can't and the opposite as well. And while the old battle axe nurses in the ICUs and the ED often think they know everything the truth is that experience is important but so is nuanced understanding which is often lacking even when people seem to "know everything there is to know" about x which often is simply based on pattern recogntion. It just seems to me that we need to remember that we don't train for the 95% of time when things are easy and straightforward we train for the 5% when things are difficult, dangerous or obscure.
 
My only concerns are that DNPs may not have the same extensive knowledge base as a traditionally trained medical student, and that other health professions use this example to try to do what we do without having to go through medical school. As far as the issue of long-term chronic medical care, this was something that was coming. There's really not much incentive these days for physicians to go into this type of primary care (rising costs, diminising reimbursements, sue-happy patients looking to make a quick buck, etc.)
 
My only concerns are that DNPs may not have the same extensive knowledge base as a traditionally trained medical student, and that other health professions use this example to try to do what we do without having to go through medical school. As far as the issue of long-term chronic medical care, this was something that was coming. There's really not much incentive these days for physicians to go into this type of primary care (rising costs, diminising reimbursements, sue-happy patients looking to make a quick buck, etc.)

I'm wondering...

There seems to be a lot of hue and cry on the forums lately for government (or someone high and mighty) to step in and tell midlevel providers "ok, that's enough. you can't do any more than this." But I have to think physicians would be really up in arms if the government told them something similar, or otherwise limited/modified their scope of practice.

And what if... the DNP/DrPA/whoevers really did get what we imagine it is that they want--equivalence in scope of practice to MD's. Would people go see them? Sure--but many of them would be people not seeing any caregivers presently, or at least doing it without paying, or at Medicaid rates. But if NP/PA's really don't have the same base of knowledge/skills, as most MD-types on SDN seem to assume (clearly this must be true in some respects, although I don't know to what extent), I have to think that most people who have a choice would still see MD's, especially after the first couple of incidents in a community of malpractice by midlevels resulting in injury/death (I'm not suggesting this WOULD happen... it would just be the logical conclusion if the doom-and-gloomsayers are right about the supposedly inferior background for equivalent practice). Then the clamor would still be on for MD attention.

A sidenote about the medicaid thing: what if NP/PA's in independent practice were brought into the system in such a way as to stem the tide of medicaid/no-pay care? An aside: my dad is a subspecialty doc in a town without a large academic medical center (i.e., not much in the way of no-pay complex medical care to go around). For quite a long while, he was the only one in his specialty (in a town of ~200,000) who would accept ANY medicaid! All the other docs (about 8 of them) refused to see them, and would even tell them: "oh, Dr. W sees medicaid patients, go see him". The end result being, my dad would have 6mo+ queues of medicaid patients waiting to see him, because he could only take so many in a day and still be in the black.

So... what if midlevels were the PCPs in a regional/national healthcare system in which they were salaried to be responsible for as much of the un/underinsured/medicaid population as their training allowed? Obviously MD's are not stepping up to the plate on this, and up-and-coming midlevels are looking for something to do... Presumably there would still be MD's involved in some kind of district/regional medical director capacity for the NP/PA PCP clinics run and financed by the government. As I said above, I imagine there would still be quite a market for FP/IM/Peds PCP's, because most of the people who could afford to see them probably would do so (basically the same people seeing them already, although I'm sure a few would jump ship). Obviously this wouldn't really solve MD/midlevel turf battles, and wouldn't do much to solve the shortage of access to specialists on medicaid, but at least a few more poor people would get to see a PCP...

Sheesh... These are the things I come up with at 1:45AM on SDN? :confused:

Must go to sleep... before I say something else... insane... :sleep:
 
There seems to be a lot of hue and cry on the forums lately for government (or someone high and mighty) to step in and tell midlevel providers "ok, that's enough. you can't do any more than this." But I have to think physicians would be really up in arms if the government told them something similar, or otherwise limited/modified their scope of practice.

but to be fair to the docs... its not like the midlevels' scope of practice is growing to cover new areas of medicine.

expanding roles of midlevels are crossing over into the area that has been under a physicians scope for hundreds of years. that's what many are complaining about as they see it as a threat.

Can physicians and mid-level providers co-exist in harmony? At the moment, sure. I've heard from FPs who love their NPs and consider them to be a vital part of the team... We'll just have to wait and see what happens 10-20 years from now when the projected physician shortage hits... Will a large number of mid-levels step up to fill in the gaps thus driving more medical students into subspecialties?
 
CHECK OUT THESE 3 PROGRAMS:

ONLINE DNP:
http://www.umass.edu/nursing/programs/pro_grad_DNP/DNP%20flyer 6-25-2007.pdf

BSN TO DNP 4 YRS PART TIME WITH 1000 TOTAL HRS CLINICAL TIME:
http://nursing.up.edu/default.aspx?cid=7047&pid=207

online women's health np program:
http://nursingonline.uc.edu/advanced-practice-nurse/


these are the programs I worry about, not the medically supervised intensive pa residency program which grants a DSc. or the traditional on campus msn/np programs
there are lots of great np's and np programs out there but 100% online education and watered down part time programs aren't helping their cause any, although they will be helping their numbers...
 
How much would the education of a DNP change compared to now? Aside from the title change, what new responsibilities would a DNP have compared to MD/DO? Right now I believe there are three classes of doctors that can be called physicians- MDs, DOs, and dentists. Would DNPs fit under the physician category?
 
How much would the education of a DNP change compared to now? Aside from the title change, what new responsibilities would a DNP have compared to MD/DO? Right now I believe there are three classes of doctors that can be called physicians- MDs, DOs, and dentists. Would DNPs fit under the physician category?

nope....legally no change in scope between msn and dnp.states that require md collaboration will still require it. the 12 states that allow fully independent np practice with independent rx rights will still allow that. 95% of np's currently work in physician owned practices. this is also unlikely to change anytime soon regardless of degree.
dnp= an extra 500-1000 hrs of clinicals beyond a typical np and a bunch of research/theory classes.
I am all in favor of the extra clinical time as it brings np clinicals closer to pa clinicals(avg 2200 hrs/full yr) and any more time is a good thing( for pa or np...a few pa programs now go beyond 1 yr of clinicals, not a bad idea...I'm actually one of the few pa's that thinks we should all do a 1 yr internship/pa postgrad residency-see www.appap.org).pa residencies are expanding in # but at present only about 5% of pa's ever do a residency...there just aren't enough spots. some specialties have multiple residencies(surgery>10), some have a few( em=4, trauma/critical care=3)) and many have 1 or 2( psych, neuro, urology, derm, etc)
 
People need to wise up and see this for what it's REALLY all about. These nursing "leaders" always claim that it's about better patient care, and improving access. Filling the void if you will..... Do you really think so? Because, once priviledges (like Rx) are doled out, it's almost impossible to take them away. It's not even hard for me to envision some radicalized, disgruntled "DNP" with an inferiority complex filing suit for access to the "doctors lounge". That may sound rather silly, but just wait and see.

Physicians (MD/DO) are getting it from all directions. There are the CAM providers continually misinforming their "patients" about the evil MD/Big Pharma alliance. Then, there are the advanced practice nurses suggesting (in no uncertain terms) equivalency to MD/DO training. It's getting ridiculous.

As far as primary care is concerned, no, many MD/DO's aren't running in that direction. But, guess what? That's exactly what many future grads will be doing as the impact of 15% class size increases fails to align with comparable specialty residency slot increases. So, the public need not worry, I think. Whether we like it or not, many future docs will be practicing in primary care regardless of initial intent.

Follow the money people. Because that's exactly what all this is about.
 
I think it's unethical to claim or introduce themselves as "Doctor x". Sure, PhDs are referred to as Dr but in the medical setting it has different connotations. It's about the context. The article explicitly refers to the credibility they will have with the "title of doctor". That's mesed up and misleading.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Is a nurse doctor a doctor that only has nurses as patients?
 
My favorite is "Noctor" ! I love that.

If they introduce themselves as Noctor so-and-so, that's fine - because then they will HAVE to explain (to the patient with a confused look on their face) that they are a doctor of NURSING, essentially a nurse with a PhD degree... NOT a Doctor of Medicine/physician. If a DNP can walk in and say to the patient, hi I'm Doctor so-and-so, not only would it be misleading, but it would also suck. I'm not busting my a$$ in med school to be circumvented by noctors. If noctors wanna be doctors, take the MCAT and fill out AMCAS.
 
That's a good one. "Noctor". :laugh:

Mundinger isn't just saying that DNP's will be equivalent to physicians but that DNP's will be superior because they'll know both nursing and medicine. Uh, she needs to lay down the pipe.

The nurses want to create a similar certification exam process like the USMLE's. Well, if the DNP's know medicine, why don't they just take Steps 1, 2, and 3? There's no need to create another process, right? Maybe it's because nearly all DNP's probably would fail the Steps. I guarantee you whatever exams the nurses create it will be a walk in a park. Case in point, the CRNA certification exam is a 80 question, 2 hour exam. Btw, CRNA's like to claim they're equivalent to board-certified anesthesiologists.

This whole DNP thing is another example of the dumbing down of American medicine. If DNP's are successful in reaching their goals, they won't be the last group.

Pharmacists want to get into the primary care action too. They want to manage DM, HTN, asthma. There is a "doctorate" in the works for PA's as well.

Physicians need to stand up to this bull**** and fight back. We're at the top of the foodchain and everyone wants a piece of our action. Regardless of what these groups claim, at best they can handle only the simple, routine cases. Add a little complication and they're clueless as to what to do. That's why 95% of non-physicians work with physicians.

I believe we can control our future in large part by whom we choose to hire. Political activism will go only so far in a broken healthcare system that is desperate for cost-cutting. That's why the midlevels have done as well as they have. It's all about the money. We need to use economic forces to shape the future of medicine.
 
Wow. People get really defensive about this stuff.

If it wasn't for the fact that not enough doctors want to do primary care - this wouldn't be happening. These midlevel providers are filling a void, and in that respect they're doing a good thing.

Its like people bitching about immigrants working in low level, non-skilled jobs like agriculture, McDonald's, etc. If it wasn't for the fact that Americans won't take these jobs because they don't pay enough and they think they're "too good" for the jobs then it would have never happened. The void wouldn't have existed to fill.

If you guys want to stop the midlevel providers then go into primary care and make their positions obsolete. Until you do that - nothing is going to stop the transfer over to midlevel providers just like pretty much nothing is going to stop in the influx of immigrants into low-level jobs in the US.
 
OK those are frightening. Online degrees?! :eek:

I completely agree. As someone who may someday be an NP, I think these online degrees are bull****. There are NP programs where there are requirements for hours spent in nursing, and I think the DNP will increase clinical hours to create a solid midlevel. I personally would want and need physician oversight, as long as its a civil and kind relationship.
 
Wow. People get really defensive about this stuff.

If it wasn't for the fact that not enough doctors want to do primary care - this wouldn't be happening. These midlevel providers are filling a void, and in that respect they're doing a good thing.

Its like people bitching about immigrants working in low level, non-skilled jobs like agriculture, McDonald's, etc. If it wasn't for the fact that Americans won't take these jobs because they don't pay enough and they think they're "too good" for the jobs then it would have never happened. The void wouldn't have existed to fill.

If you guys want to stop the midlevel providers then go into primary care and make their positions obsolete. Until you do that - nothing is going to stop the transfer over to midlevel providers just like pretty much nothing is going to stop in the influx of immigrants into low-level jobs in the US.

But are they really going to stop at primary care? Or will they do what U.S. med school graduates have been doing for years - follow the money into more procedural specialties? The real problem is the incentives. Cognitive work, preventive care, and talking to patients are aspects of health care that aren't valued (i.e., reimbursed) nearly as much as high-tech, heroic procedures. The system won't change until the incentives change.
 
But are they really going to stop at primary care? Or will they do what U.S. med school graduates have been doing for years - follow the money into more procedural specialties? The real problem is the incentives. Cognitive work, preventive care, and talking to patients are aspects of health care that aren't valued (i.e., reimbursed) nearly as much as high-tech, heroic procedures. The system won't change until the incentives change.

They won't follow the money into more procedural specialities because there is no room for them. Unless there are some specialties that have massive lack of number of doctors then there will be no room for them to move into the more procedural specialties.

Sure, if incentives changed there might be less room for them in primary care. But that doesn't seem very likely.

Doctors just need to stop being so defensive thinking they're being replaced. If there are enough doctors in a given specialty you won't be replaced with midlevel providers.
 
They won't follow the money into more procedural specialities because there is no room for them. Unless there are some specialties that have massive lack of number of doctors then there will be no room for them to move into the more procedural specialties.

Sure, if incentives changed there might be less room for them in primary care. But that doesn't seem very likely.

Doctors just need to stop being so defensive thinking they're being replaced. If there are enough doctors in a given specialty you won't be replaced with midlevel providers.

Do CRNAs not count as mid-level providers? I thought Anesthesia was a pretty competitive specialty. And yet CRNAs are allowed to practice in every state without the supervision of an Anesthesiologist. Some may require supervision under a physician, but the physician does not have to be an anesthesiologist..

But you're right, Doctors are sometimes too defensive. I think there can be a balance and all levels of providers can work effectively as a team. As I said in a previous posts, I have heard from FPs or are not at all concerned with NPs in their clinics since they are all on the same team -- working for the benefit of the patient.

Source: AANA FAQ
 
Do CRNAs not count as mid-level providers? I thought Anesthesia was a pretty competitive specialty. And yet CRNAs are allowed to practice in every state without the supervision of an Anesthesiologist. Some may require supervision under a physician, but the physician does not have to be an anesthesiologist..

But you're right, Doctors are sometimes too defensive. I think there can be a balance and all levels of providers can work effectively as a team. As I said in a previous posts, I have heard from FPs or are not at all concerned with NPs in their clinics since they are all on the same team -- working for the benefit of the patient.

Source: AANA FAQ

I suppose they do, and yeah the CRNAs occurred to me, but I don't know much about them.

However, anesthesiology is actually not a very competitive specialty. At least not according to the 4th years at my school who are applying. Its not as easy as FM, peds, etc. but pretty much everyone who applies matches and its certainly not competitive in the way that derm, ortho, etc are.
 
I suppose they do, and yeah the CRNAs occurred to me, but I don't know much about them.

However, anesthesiology is actually not a very competitive specialty. At least not according to the 4th years at my school who are applying. Its not as easy as FM, peds, etc. but pretty much everyone who applies matches and its certainly not competitive in the way that derm, ortho, etc are.

I thought about CRNAs too, but are they actually replacing anesthesiologists, or just filling a void due to a shortage of anesthesiologists? I don't know, but I haven't heard of anesthesiologists struggling to find high-paying jobs.
 
Wow. People get really defensive about this stuff.

If it wasn't for the fact that not enough doctors want to do primary care - this wouldn't be happening. These midlevel providers are filling a void, and in that respect they're doing a good thing.

Its like people bitching about immigrants working in low level, non-skilled jobs like agriculture, McDonald's, etc. If it wasn't for the fact that Americans won't take these jobs because they don't pay enough and they think they're "too good" for the jobs then it would have never happened. The void wouldn't have existed to fill.

If you guys want to stop the midlevel providers then go into primary care and make their positions obsolete. Until you do that - nothing is going to stop the transfer over to midlevel providers just like pretty much nothing is going to stop in the influx of immigrants into low-level jobs in the US.
These degrees were created under the guise of providing services for the underserved. However, most of these grads don't go to BFE. The majority don't go to rural America. The argument of "filling a void" is, in most cases, false.
 
These degrees were created under the guise of providing services for the underserved. However, most of these grads don't go to BFE. The majority don't go to rural America. The argument of "filling a void" is, in most cases, false.

No, because the void isn't just in BFE. The void in primary care is everywhere - there are not enough doctors going into primary care fields. Period.

I have never heard of a doctor actually complain that they applied for a job somewhere and lost it to a midlevel practitioner. Because that doesn't happen.

Midlevel practitioners are doing a lot of basic primary care that other doctors don't want to do. OB/gyns don't get paid as much for annual gyn services so that has been taken over by NPs. They are not taking the spots of OB/gyns that actually want that service.

The void exists in certain fields and certain areas that have very low payment for doctors. Its not a geographic void (although admittedly that exists too, thats just not what I was referring to). And please show me something that says that those degrees were made for rural areas/underserved?
 
I have never heard of a doctor actually complain that they applied for a job somewhere and lost it to a midlevel practitioner. Because that doesn't happen.

This is a rather naive statement. Ever heard of the laws of supply and demand? If another group encroaches on your turf and provides nearly identical services, what do you think that's going to do to the curve?

1) prices, or salaries in this case, go down
2) fewer job opportunities

You may not know it, but physicians do lose out on job ops if there are midlevels offering the same service. If midlevels offers nearly the same service but is cheaper, a hospital may hire fewer physicians than before. There are several examples of anesthesiology groups losing contracts to CRNA groups.

My issue with midlevels though is not salary. Salary is determined by supply and demand. My issue is with their political ambitions.

Do you think that midlevels like DNP's will be satisfied with primary care? If physicians can barely eek out a living in primary care, how do you think the midlevels who are reimbursed at 80% of physicians' reimbursement rates cope with it? They're not happy either!

Primary care is the first step. They're really eyeing two things:
1) they want to be reimbursed the same as physicians
2) they want to get into the specialties

Once DNP's are firmly established, they will lobby to get into the medical residencies. Internal medicine, derm, psych, FP, etc. This is no rumor. There is chatter among DNP's about this possibility. The nurses are lobbying politicians hard to get access. You see, these groups can't accomplish their goals by creating real rigorous degrees that would be respected by physicians. They would rather just change the laws.
 
I thought about CRNAs too, but are they actually replacing anesthesiologists, or just filling a void due to a shortage of anesthesiologists? I don't know, but I haven't heard of anesthesiologists struggling to find high-paying jobs.

That may be true. I just checked the AAMC Careers In Medicine section and it says we have an Anesthesiologist shortage that "could continue well into the next decade."
 
The void exists in certain fields and certain areas that have very low payment for doctors. Its not a geographic void (although admittedly that exists too, thats just not what I was referring to). And please show me something that says that those degrees were made for rural areas/underserved?
For example:
First line under "History of Profession". Although Wikipedia is not necessarily the ultimate authority, I thought this was common knowledge. Not necessarily specifically "rural" but underserved/underrepresented. Why did you think they created the degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician_assistant
 
This is a rather naive statement. Ever heard of the laws of supply and demand? If another group encroaches on your turf and provides nearly identical services, what do you think that's going to do to the curve?

1) prices, or salaries in this case, go down
2) fewer job opportunities

You may not know it, but physicians do lose out on job ops if there are midlevels offering the same service. If midlevels offers nearly the same service but is cheaper, a hospital may hire fewer physicians than before. There are several examples of anesthesiology groups losing contracts to CRNA groups.

My issue with midlevels though is not salary. Salary is determined by supply and demand. My issue is with their political ambitions.

Do you think that midlevels like DNP's will be satisfied with primary care? If physicians can barely eek out a living in primary care, how do you think the midlevels who are reimbursed at 80% of physicians' reimbursement rates cope with it? They're not happy either!

Primary care is the first step. They're really eyeing two things:
1) they want to be reimbursed the same as physicians
2) they want to get into the specialties

Once DNP's are firmly established, they will lobby to get into the medical residencies. Internal medicine, derm, psych, FP, etc. This is no rumor. There is chatter among DNP's about this possibility. The nurses are lobbying politicians hard to get access. You see, these groups can't accomplish their goals by creating real rigorous degrees that would be respected by physicians. They would rather just change the laws.

I disagree, and think thats a lot of panicked speculation that won't happen.

But its really not worth me arguing about. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.
 
For example:
First line under "History of Profession". Although Wikipedia is not necessarily the ultimate authority, I thought this was common knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician_assistant
The PA profession came into existence in the mid-1960s due to the shortage and uneven geographic distribution of primary care physicians in the United States.

It says SHORTAGE and uneven distribution. So it came about to fill the overall lack of primary care doctors and to hopefully add some primary care providers to underserved areas as well.

Not really contrary to my point. It doesn't say they came about exclusively for underserved/rural areas. Yes it is common knowledge that midlevel practitioners came about to cover the shortage but its a nationwide shortage, thats just worse in some places. Your argument was that they came about to work specifically in rural and urban areas...

If there weren't open positions that hospitals/clinics were having a hard time filling with doctors then they wouldn't be getting jobs. I remember having a conversation with a doctor a few years ago from Kaiser. He was saying how the NPs and PAs in Kaiser were up in arms because Kaiser had basically stopped hiring any more of them. For 10-25k more per year they could get a full doctor, and they didn't want to bother with the hiearchy of having a doctor to supervise. They take the midlevel practitioners when they need to.
 
It says SHORTAGE and uneven distribution. So it came about to fill the overall lack of primary care doctors and to hopefully add some primary care providers to underserved areas as well.

Not really contrary to my point. It doesn't say they came about exclusively for underserved/rural areas. Yes it is common knowledge that midlevel practitioners came about to cover the shortage but its a nationwide shortage, thats just worse in some places. Your argument was that they came about to work specifically in rural and urban areas...

If there weren't open positions that hospitals/clinics were having a hard time filling with doctors then they wouldn't be getting jobs. I remember having a conversation with a doctor a few years ago from Kaiser. He was saying how the NPs and PAs in Kaiser were up in arms because Kaiser had basically stopped hiring any more of them. For 10-25k more per year they could get a full doctor, and they didn't want to bother with the hiearchy of having a doctor to supervise. They take the midlevel practitioners when they need to.
Agree, but my point was that MANY take jobs where there is NO shortage. They too want to stay in the big cities. Rural areas almost always have a greater shortage than urban areas.
 
Agree, but my point was that MANY take jobs where there is NO shortage. They too want to stay in the big cities. Rural areas almost always have a greater shortage than urban areas.

Fair enough so basically we agree :)

I still don't believe that they're actually taking the jobs of physicians to the extent that so many other people on this site are panicking about.
 
somewhere on this site I saw a stat in the last yr that as a % of total grads pa>do>md into rural and underserved areas, granted if I am remembering correctly it was something like 12%>10%>8% so most grads in all 3 professions do not go rural.
remember for the most part pa jobs follow physician jobs. only 2% of pa's own their own practice.

data from 2006 national pa survey: 15% of pa's now practice in "non-metro areas":
Table 3.13:
Number and Percent Distribution of Clinically Practicing Respondents by Metropolitan Status and Degree of Rurality of County of Primary Work Site*
Count Percent
Respondents 22554 100.0%
Not metro NonMetro, with urban pop >20K and adjacent to metro area 989 4.4%
NonMetro, with urban pop >20K, not adjacent to metro area 547 2.4%
NonMetro, with urban pop 2.5K-20K, adjacent to metro area 842 3.7%
NonMetro, with urban pop 2.5K-20K, not adjacnt to metro area 659 2.9%
NonMetro, with urban pop < 2,500, adjacent to metro area 137 .6%
NonMetro, with urban pop <2,500, not adjacent to metro area 233 1.0%
Metro Metro, >1M Population 10892 48.3%
Metro, 250K-1M Population 5573 24.7%
Metro, <250K Population 2682 11.9%

for what it's worth here is the location breakdown of my 4 jobs:
inner city/hpsa
rural/critical access/hpsa
community hospital/metro
trauma ctr/metro
 
I completely agree. As someone who may someday be an NP, I think these online degrees are bull****.

You might want to google the benefits of distance education. I personally prefer it over sitting in the traditional classroom...I've done both. I've heard some medical students talk about skipping half their classes and/or viewing the online lectures their professors put up so there isn't much difference.
 
What about clinical hours? Do the online programs offer an opportunity to do "real" (not online) clinical hours.

You might want to google the benefits of distance education. I personally prefer it over sitting in the traditional classroom...I've done both. I've heard some medical students talk about skipping half their classes and/or viewing the online lectures their professors put up so there isn't much difference.
 
This is a rather naive statement. Ever heard of the laws of supply and demand? If another group encroaches on your turf and provides nearly identical services, what do you think that's going to do to the curve?

1) prices, or salaries in this case, go down
2) fewer job opportunities

You may not know it, but physicians do lose out on job ops if there are midlevels offering the same service. If midlevels offers nearly the same service but is cheaper, a hospital may hire fewer physicians than before. There are several examples of anesthesiology groups losing contracts to CRNA groups.

My issue with midlevels though is not salary. Salary is determined by supply and demand. My issue is with their political ambitions.

Do you think that midlevels like DNP's will be satisfied with primary care? If physicians can barely eek out a living in primary care, how do you think the midlevels who are reimbursed at 80% of physicians' reimbursement rates cope with it? They're not happy either!

Primary care is the first step. They're really eyeing two things:
1) they want to be reimbursed the same as physicians
2) they want to get into the specialties

Once DNP's are firmly established, they will lobby to get into the medical residencies. Internal medicine, derm, psych, FP, etc. This is no rumor. There is chatter among DNP's about this possibility. The nurses are lobbying politicians hard to get access. You see, these groups can't accomplish their goals by creating real rigorous degrees that would be respected by physicians. They would rather just change the laws.

all the naive idiots out there need to seriously start listening to this guy. he's right on, and if you want to bury your head in the sand, then too bad for you. what you don't realize is that it's your a..s on the line.
 
What about clinical hours? Do the online programs offer an opportunity to do "real" (not online) clinical hours.

I've never heard of "online clinical hours." Clinical is the same as for brick and mortar classes. I'm looking at University of South Alabama's NP program and they have a 13 page list of their clinical agency sites.
 
Honestly I don't care about Noctors (or Moctors for Doctor Murses). I'll be a doctor myself so I don't se the problem. If they do a bad diagnose I'll know. Or I can just go to a doctor friend if I want to avoid Noctors and then get transferred to a hospital already diagnosed.
Something like that. I'm still asleep, it's 09.00 in the morning here.
 
No, because the void isn't just in BFE. The void in primary care is everywhere - there are not enough doctors going into primary care fields. Period.

I have never heard of a doctor actually complain that they applied for a job somewhere and lost it to a midlevel practitioner. Because that doesn't happen.

Midlevel practitioners are doing a lot of basic primary care that other doctors don't want to do. OB/gyns don't get paid as much for annual gyn services so that has been taken over by NPs. They are not taking the spots of OB/gyns that actually want that service.

Funny, these noctors essentially sound like the illegal immigrants of medicine, taking jobs "real doctors won't do."
 
What is the problem with midlevels filling in gaps in primary care ? (if this is indeed mainly what is happenening) Are the physicians just concerned that DNPs will invade specialty care? Are you concerned about the level of autonomy? Is it mainly meant just to preserve the title of "doctor", or is it about low reimbursement and the fear that DNPs and even Dr. PAs will provide lower cost service than physicians?
And finally, what is the solution? Hospitals hire midlevels, so its not a case where doctors can just stop hiring them. Is it up to the government to put a "cap" on what midlevels can do? Is it up to consumers to rely on market forces (which actually may not be a good idea). I just don't understand what physicians plan to do in order to put a stop to what they see as a big problem.

ZENMAN: I see that online programs do have clinicals "in real life". I didn't know that. I'm not really sure what the problem is with online learning in that case; just because you don't sit in a traditional classroom doesn't mean you don't learn anything. BUT, the examinations could be a problem- because for the most part, its very easy to cheat on an at home, online exam.
 
Having all these discussions lately has gotten me thinking...

If you want to be called "doctor"...

And you want to do what "doctors" do...

And you want to do "doctor" residencies...

Why are you in nursing school? :confused:

I could speculate as to the reasons, but I'll leave that to you, dear reader.
 
There seems to be a lot of hue and cry on the forums lately for government (or someone high and mighty) to step in and tell midlevel providers "ok, that's enough. you can't do any more than this." But I have to think physicians would be really up in arms if the government told them something similar, or otherwise limited/modified their scope of practice.
That's a little different. Physicians are the most highly trained health care professionals out there, so if they're not allowed to do something, then no one can (obviously excluding the realm of a pharmacist). It's not unreasonable for a physician to assert their territory. A mid-level practitioner is probably less likely to recognize a "zebra" if you will.
 
Having all these discussions lately has gotten me thinking...

If you want to be called "doctor"...

And you want to do what "doctors" do...

And you want to do "doctor" residencies...

Why are you in nursing school? :confused:

I could speculate as to the reasons, but I'll leave that to you, dear reader.

One possibility is that some nurses don't like the way physicians are trained, and/or the way medicine is currently practiced. So instead of trying to fix the system, why not just create a new one? While I'm afraid these new degrees will create more problems than they solve, I've gotta hand it to them for being innovative.
 
Having all these discussions lately has gotten me thinking...

If you want to be called "doctor"...

And you want to do what "doctors" do...

And you want to do "doctor" residencies...

Why are you in nursing school? :confused:

I could speculate as to the reasons, but I'll leave that to you, dear reader.

Nursing graduate education isn't really set up like medical school. Sure we have our share of nontrads, but the majority are the "straight out of college into school" bunch. Nursing doesn't work like that. They usually like to have someone who's been in practice for a few years or so come back and get further education. It's not really done to do a four year BSN in college then immediately go become a practitioner. So I magine a lot of these "doctor nurses" decided they liked nursing better in college/high school. So they went to school and did nursing for a few years, decided they wanted to be a practitioner and did that for a while, then decided they wanted to do even more and go on to even more advanced degrees. So they may enter nursing at 22 and be content, but by the time they're 40 they want more.

Another issue is that of philosophy. Nursing education is waaay different than medical. Nursing is way heavier on philosophy and way lighter on memorization. I've had some future nurse practitioners ask me for help understanding a concept and their class notes are FAR less detailed than what a doctor is expected to know. For example, let's say "stroke" is a HUGE topic in medical school, probably multiple lectures that detail with risk factors, clinical features, localizing lesions, treatments, epidimiology, etc. It was given maybe a few slides in a nursin class. Then again, while we may get a lecture or two about stages of grieving and death notification, nursing education really hits these topics and how patients feel about disease, coping strategies, philosophical models of disease and recovery etc. So if someone was more interested in these philosophical or emotional sides of medicine and falls asleep when learning about hard science stuff, going through nursing is better for them.

(P.S. This lack of focus on pathology and pathophysiology I feel is going to be the biggest problem with midlevels. 99% of patients have simple probems that a monkey could handle, especially in a primary care setting. But I don't think nurses are trained well enough to think about and catch zebras.)
 
One possibility is that some nurses don't like the way physicians are trained, and/or the way medicine is currently practiced. So instead of trying to fix the system, why not just create a new one? While I'm afraid these new degrees will create more problems than they solve, I've gotta hand it to them for being innovative.

Wouldn't this be a plausible argument for why they shouldn't be taking on these responsibilities? As in, couldn't you argue that nursing as a field/philosophy is not based on scientific observation/diagnosis and scientific evidence-based treatment, but rather on holistic, "care-oriented" treatment? These are not the same thing...
 
And finally, what is the solution? Hospitals hire midlevels, so its not a case where doctors can just stop hiring them. Is it up to the government to put a "cap" on what midlevels can do? Is it up to consumers to rely on market forces (which actually may not be a good idea). I just don't understand what physicians plan to do in order to put a stop to what they see as a big problem.

Reimbursement is based on the service provided and not the degree level of the midlevel. So an RN with a cert, a master's level NP, and DNP get the same rates. The state laws do not distinguish the scope of practice either; they all have the same scopes. So if you are a hospital adminstrator, it really makes no difference who you hire, except for the DNP who feels they should be paid more. Interestingly, one of most critical groups of the DNP are master's level NP's. They anticipate a group of individuals who think they are "doctors" now but do the same jobs as they do.

That's why if the nurses want to be taken seriously, they need to create a degree that has substance behind it. The DNP is just an NP with fluff added on. The DNP is clearly a political creation whose goals as I outlined before are:

1) They want to convince lawmakers to increase reimbursement rates to match that of physicians'. That's why they keep on insisting that the DNP is equivalent to the MD.
2) They want to get into the specialties. That's where the real money is at.

However, I think that the DNP will fall well short of its goals. If you look at how other groups have coped after moving to a "doctorate", you'll see that things haven't worked out for them as they hoped.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=472042
I used to be an administrator at a rehab clinic, and I can remember fights with new DPTs applying for our open PT positions. I'd say "Great interview - we can start you at 40K." And I would undoubtedly hear "What will the bonus for my DPT be?". Ummm...nothing (well, it was actually like 2K, but I already factored that in). It's simple business - Medicare gave us (at that point in time) around $67 for a PT eval. So if you were old and had a PT certificate, or kinda old and had a BS in PT, or not so old and had a MSPT, or brand new with a fancy DPT, Medicare paid my company the EXACT SAME AMOUNT for an eval. How can I justify, in pure dollars and cents, giving the DPT much more than any other PT for a salary? Can't do it. That's where APTA and CAPTE fu*ked up. There is no identified AND BILLABLE skill that a DPT has that a PT does not have. DPT better at reading journal articles? Yes. Billable? No.

How do you think the PharmD degree has affected pharmacy?

The Pharm.D. system&#8212;A reality check

The biggest beneficiaries of the DNP movement will be the PA's. If it takes 4 years to complete a DNP and only 2 years for a PA and yet they compete for the same jobs, which one do you think people would prefer? Furthermore, if you piss of the physicians, they can hire PA's preferentially over NP's. That's what's great about having more than one group to choose from.
 
Funny, these noctors essentially sound like the illegal immigrants of medicine, taking jobs "real doctors won't do."

This was predicted quite a while ago by a harvard business professor. Here is a link to a book he wrote where he cites his earlier research into the healthcare industry and the rise of NPs to fill the roles that many MDs don't want (chapter 8 about the 800 lb gorilla).

There is actually an entire theory in the business world about "products" like this. Those who start at the bottom of an industry with a "disruptive technology" because a customer group's needs have been overshot by the current suppliers who can't be troubled with these minor products. In this case, it is the average run of the mill patient whose hypertension management has been overshot by medical schools who train all of their graduates exactly the same regardless of what field they will eventually go into (ie the neurosurgeon and the family practice doc both had essentially the same 4 years of med school). Midlevel training is geared specifically for these run of the mill cases. On top of that, most of the NP programs are specifically trained for a certain area of practice (Pediatric NP, Nurse Midwife, CRNA, etc) and cannot move to other areas without further training (with the exception being the family nurse practitioner who can see across the lifespan, minus OB delivery). Why learn all the stuff about adult treatment if you're only going to be seeing kids?

People keep saying that the midlevels will miss the zebras, and they are probably right. But what does a doctor do when you do when you don't know what's wrong with a patient: get a consult or refer. It works the same for physicians as for midlevels. Does everyone who sees a patient honestly need to know all the zebras? No, that's why they are zebras. You don't see them that often (well, unless you are in Africa or on the island with the Swiss Family Robinson) so why waste time and momey in training everyone to be able to recognize them? I think the NP programs actually have hit on something here.

Now the theory of the disruptive technology also shows that those who enter a market eventually try to move upward in the market. This is why we don't have tons of people going into primary care. When I have the skills and preliminary training to be a rockstar specialist who makes tons more money, why would I go family practice? The med students have moved up market, leaving the gap for the midlevels. These midlevels will eventually try to move up market as many have suggested. It is just the nature of competitive business as played out in tons of industries.

As I have stated in similar threads before, it's not the midlevels fault that physicians have vacated the lower end of the market. Once again, the physician training system continues to screw itself due to its insistance on an antiquated training philosophy and the institutionalization of post med school specialization (residency for those of you who can't read between the lines).

Editing to add that in the interest of full disclosure, my wife is an NP. She knows she isn't a doctor, doesn't want to be a doctor, and knows that we are trained differently. But for what she does (currently works in a family practice and previously in an ENT clinic), she is adequately trained and fully competent.
 
Top