$180,000 NP Salary starting?!?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
In full practice states I bet it would make it through IRB. All parties on the author line would need to be fully COI compliant and without an obvious axe to grind though. Good luck with that.

But yeah, I just really don't think it would happen. I'd love to see the results, but do you seriously think an IRB would see nothing wrong with subjecting patients to treatment from providers with a tenth of the training as the ones in the control arm and then preventing those providers from consulting the more highly-trained group?

Edit: forgot a couple words
 
But yeah, I just really don't think it would happen. I'd love to see the results, but do you seriously think an IRB would see nothing wrong with subjecting patients to treatment from providers with a tenth of the training as the control arm and then preventing those providers from consulting the more highly-trained group?

Yeah the fact that he thinks an IRB would approve that is insane. It won't happen.
 
But yeah, I just really don't think it would happen. I'd love to see the results, but do you seriously think an IRB would see nothing wrong with subjecting patients to treatment from providers with a tenth of the training as the control arm and then preventing those providers from consulting the more highly-trained group?

I disagree here. NP’s have been fully independent in the Pacific Northwest for decades. I don’t think an IRB at a liberal university with a strong NP program would deny the study.
 
Yeah the fact that he thinks an IRB would approve that is insane. It won't happen.

I mean there are studies that have demonstrated NPs consult far more and order far more tests than physicians. The best we could probably do is a more robust version of that where NPs are free to consult, but each consult to a primary care physician is a "hit" and the number of consults to specialists is tracked in both groups. I doubt you'd find many NPs willing to participate in that sort of thing if they are fully informed on what it's measuring and how. I'm not sure how anyone could argue they are equivalent when they have to ask the other group for help.
 
I disagree here. NP’s have been fully independent in the Pacific Northwest for decades. I don’t think an IRB at a liberal university with a strong NP program would deny the study.

Lawmakers and IRBs are not the same and clearly don't have the same ethical standards.
 
Devils advocate again, how can NP’s prove that if physicians won’t participate in the study to be able to reduce the possibility of bias.
I mean there are studies that have demonstrated NPs consult far more and order far more tests than physicians. The best we could probably do is a more robust version of that where NPs are free to consult, but each consult to a primary care physician is a "hit" and the number of consults to specialists is tracked in both groups. I doubt you'd find many NPs willing to participate in that sort of thing if they are fully informed on what it's measuring and how. I'm not sure how anyone could argue they are equivalent when they have to ask the other group for help.
Just tell them that all consults must only be to other NPs in the specialties and that those NPs in specialties can't consult physicians. Take it out of that arm completely. You'd pretty much have to engineer a completely new health system.
 
Lawmakers and IRBs are not the same and clearly don't have the same ethical standards.

There are hundreds of NP only federally funded clinics. We could compare one of those with a purely physician practice in the same municipality. The NP’s could only consult other NP’s or specialists as appropriate. Could be a pretty interesting study if we found the right place.
 
We could compare one of those with a purely physician practice in the same municipality. The NP’s could only consult other NP’s or specialists as appropriate. Could be a pretty interesting study if we found the right place.

No. Why is it you NPs have literally no idea what a good study looks like? You would have to standardize everything from time spent with patient, patients seen an hour, and randomize the patient populations. You can't just choose two different practices and compare them. To do the study we are talking about you need far more N values than two clinics. You would need to have many different NPs and Physicians. You would need to randomize patients to be representative of the US population as a whole, not just a regional segment. It would need to be a massive study, one that spanned years. If you did what you are outlining all you would have is another crap study to throw onto the pile of garbage we already have.
 
Just tell them that all consults must only be to other NPs in the specialties and that those NPs in specialties can't consult physicians. Take it out of that arm completely. You'd pretty much have to engineer a completely new health system.

So what happens when a MD consults a psychNP?
 
No. Why is it you NPs have literally no idea what a good study looks like? You would have to standardize everything from time spent with patient, patients seen an hour, and randomize the patient populations. You can't just choose two different practices and compare them. To do the study we are talking about you need far more N values than two clinics. You would need to have many different NPs and Physicians. You would need to randomize patients to be representative of the US population as a whole, not just a regional segment. It would need to be a massive study, one that spanned years. If you did what you are outlining all you would have is another crap study to throw onto the pile of garbage we already have.

There are NP only federally funded clinics even in restricted practice states. That could be the methodology of the study in multiple locations. You are attempting to create a study that can’t actually be attempted due to logistical nightmares. Why don’t we talk about feasable methodology instead of going back to throwing around insults?
 
Just tell them that all consults must only be to other NPs in the specialties and that those NPs in specialties can't consult physicians. Take it out of that arm completely. You'd pretty much have to engineer a completely new health system.

No because then you are adding in a large, and variable component to the study, one that would make the study infeasible. If a specialty consult is appropriate then you simply note a "specialty consultation." If you start worrying about who they are referring to then the study gets to be too big and that also isn't the point of the study. The study would be a head to head of NPs and physicians in an outpatient PC model, who they refer to for their specialty consults would be inconsequential to the current study.

So what happens when a MD consults a psychNP?

Irrelevant as it would be a normal specialty consult. Although you would have to track how many specialty consults are requested for the two populations.
 
Just tell them that all consults must only be to other NPs in the specialties and that those NPs in specialties can't consult physicians. Take it out of that arm completely. You'd pretty much have to engineer a completely new health system.

Yeah which is why it wouldn’t work. I actually wouldn’t have a problem with NPs consulting subspecialists or non-primary care specialists, since physicians do that as well. They just would have to be precluded from consulting primary care physicians, and the number of consults made would have to be tracked between the two arms (what the consults were for, how often, etc).

There are hundreds of NP only federally funded clinics. We could compare one of those with a purely physician practice in the same municipality. The NP’s could only consult other NP’s or specialists as appropriate. Could be a pretty interesting study if we found the right place.

This might give you some sort of an insight into what to expect from a robust study, but it wouldn’t really be conclusive one way or the other. Too many variables would be left uncontrolled, and the sample size is too small. Additionally, you would have to control for patient self selection and diversion based on perceived acuity.
 
There are NP only federally funded clinics even in restricted practice states. That could be the methodology of the study in multiple locations. You are attempting to create a study that can’t actually be attempted due to logistical nightmares. Why don’t we talk about feasable methodology instead of going back to throwing around insults?

I'm not throwing around insults. You offered up an idea that would result in bad data.

You aren't getting it. To prove equivalence you need to RANDOMIZE patients. You can't just take the patient populations of two different clinics. You would have to register patients, and then randomize them to one of the two groups independent of medical conditions.

I'm not exactly sure how to make such a study feasible. Fortunately that is your problem and not mine.
 
Yeah which is why it wouldn’t work. I actually wouldn’t have a problem with NPs consulting subspecialists or non-primary care specialists, since physicians do that as well. They just would have to be precluded from consulting primary care physicians, and the number of consults made would have to be tracked between the two arms (what the consults were for, how often, etc).



This might give you some sort of an insight into what to expect from a robust study, but it wouldn’t really be conclusive one way or the other. Too many variables would be left uncontrolled, and the sample size is too small. Additionally, you would have to control for patient self selection and diversion based on perceived acuity.
I'm not throwing around insults. You offered up an idea that would result in bad data.

You aren't getting it. To prove equivalence you need to RANDOMIZE patients. You can't just take the patient populations of two different clinics. You would have to register patients, and then randomize them to one of the two groups independent of medical conditions.

I'm not exactly sure how to make such a study feasible. Fortunately that is your problem and not mine.

You guys are both proving that perfect is the enemy of good.
 
You guys are both proving that perfect is the enemy of good.

I'm going to say this just as a matter of fact, and I don't want you to take it as a personal insult. Studies need to meet a certain threshold for quality, or the results are suspect. You can run a study the way you want, and it very well might show that NPs are inferior. But even though that's the result I'm thinking will happen, since there would be so many variables that were not controlled for, it wouldn't be super convincing to most physicians because there are just too many confounders. For something to be convincing and significant, the study needs to be well done and control for those things.

You seem to think that a "good enough" study will be enough. It might be enough to say, "Hey this study showed X, and even though it had A, B, and C issues, it's a good indicator that X is true," but that's not the same as saying, "This study was robust and showed a statistically significant result indicating X." The latter is what we want, whether X is that NPs are equivalent or that they aren't.
 
No, all we want is a study that actually shows what you are claiming. You, however, are proving that you have zero idea of what a good non-inferiority study looks like.

I’m in the editorial process as first author in a medical journal. I don’t know if that’s accurate.
I'm going to say this just as a matter of fact, and I don't want you to take it as a personal insult. Studies need to meet a certain threshold for quality, or the results are suspect. You can run a study the way you want, and it very well might show that NPs are inferior. But even though that's the result I'm thinking will happen, since there would be so many variables that were not controlled for, it wouldn't be super convincing to most physicians because there are just too many confounders. For something to be convincing and significant, the study needs to be well done and control for those things.

You seem to think that a "good enough" study will be enough. It might be enough to say, "Hey this study showed X, and even though it had A, B, and C issues, it's a good indicator that X is true," but that's not the same as saying, "This study was robust and showed a statistically significant result indicating X." The latter is what we want, whether X is that NPs are equivalent or that they aren't.

Study methodology grows off other studies. I get what your saying, but you’re creating a bar that’s almost impossible to reach. This study methodology would lead to more studies and research towards prospective research for NP practice. I’m going to continue to ignore the other dudes insults even though he seems pretty bent of provoking me. How would we create your perfect study, yet still feasable to implement?
 
You guys are both proving that perfect is the enemy of good.
Yeah which is why it wouldn’t work. I actually wouldn’t have a problem with NPs consulting subspecialists or non-primary care specialists, since physicians do that as well. They just would have to be precluded from consulting primary care physicians, and the number of consults made would have to be tracked between the two arms (what the consults were for, how often, etc).



This might give you some sort of an insight into what to expect from a robust study, but it wouldn’t really be conclusive one way or the other. Too many variables would be left uncontrolled, and the sample size is too small. Additionally, you would have to control for patient self selection and diversion based on perceived acuity.
I see what you guys are trying to do. Yeah I agree probably not the best model. If you go onto pubmed and search for an opinion you have you can often times reaffirm your own beliefs. The quality of many studies is suspect, but the key is to look at methods. A randomized double blind study in the PC setting would be a monster to design without confounds. At this point it's just better to fight back with better lobbying.
 
How would we create your perfect study, yet still feasable to implement?

You need a robust sample of patients that is completely randomized and divided into one of the two treatment arms (NP or physician), you need a robust sample of physicians and NPs. You need to decide on what the best outcomes would be to measure. You need to standardize things such as time with patient, patients seen per day, etc. You need to keep track of consults, what they were for, etc. NPs have already proven they refer more to specialists. If a specialist is consulted then it needs to be clearly documented WHY a specialist was needed. Likely you will need a large list of scenarios where it is ok to consult a specialist without a penalty. If you consult for something that you should be able to manage then you get a "hit."

Claiming equivalence to physicians with a fraction of the training is a very bold claim. Bold claims require large and robust studies. That is your problem, not ours, as it is you making the claim.

A randomized double blind study in the PC setting would be a monster to design without confounds. At this point it's just better to fight back with better lobbying.

Bold claims require massive studies. It is not our job to design such a study, it is theirs. I agree we need better lobbying, but because we need lawmakers to stop putting patients at risk with zero evidence in the name of saving some money. Unfortunately they have been doing that for a very long time. They love to make healthcare decisions that have no basis in fact.
 
I see what you guys are trying to do. Yeah I agree probably not the best model. If you go onto pubmed and search for an opinion you have you can often times reaffirm your own beliefs. The quality of many studies is suspect, but the key is to look at methods. A randomized double blind study in the PC setting would be a monster to design without confounds. At this point it's just better to fight back with better lobbying.

I agree. My whole point is that the kind of study that needs to be done to prove equivalence or inferiority is never going to happen, so we need to attack it from a different perspective (while also demonstrating why their "equivalence" studies are BS).
 
I agree. My whole point is that the kind of study that needs to be done to prove equivalence or inferiority is never going to happen, so we need to attack it from a different perspective (while also demonstrating why their "equivalence" studies are BS).

The perfect study is not feasable, but if one study is more rigorous then the previous, we can eventually, with a reasonable level of certainty, answer the question. So how would you design it?
 
I’m in the editorial process as first author in a medical journal. I don’t know if that’s accurate.


Study methodology grows off other studies. I get what your saying, but you’re creating a bar that’s almost impossible to reach. This study methodology would lead to more studies and research towards prospective research for NP practice. I’m going to continue to ignore the other dudes insults even though he seems pretty bent of provoking me. How would we create your perfect study, yet still feasable to implement?

It actually is feasible to run the study. Our argument is not that you couldn't do the study because it's not feasible, our argument is that it would never get approved because it is unethical. Making the two arms completely isolated so that there is no consulting to physicians at all is completely not feasible, but it's not even necessary. You could run the study, it would just really take a lot of effort and leg work to make it happen.

It's not impossible to reach. This is the standard for robust, practice-changing studies. I'm not saying not to run a less robust study, I'm just saying it won't be conclusive and would require further studies anyway. But that bar is definitely reachable. Studies meet it all the time (and many, many of them don't--but the ones that don't aren't exactly practice changing).
 
The perfect study is not feasable, but if one study is more rigorous then the previous, we can eventually, with a reasonable level of certainty, answer the question. So how would you design it?
Well lets start out by measuring harm: it's not something easy to measure. If a PA/NP orders more tests which cause more radiation exposure which causes more cancer down the line how do we measure that in a reasonable time frame? We know that it's not good for patients to just send them off to a CT or X-Ray. But what conclusions can you make?

There is also financial harm: how do you measure that a patient doesn't need a consult and will get the same outcome? It is difficult to deduce given the questions and complexities. I don't have the answer, but designing a good study would take a lot of great minds and cooperation. Given the current climate of discussion this is why we can't have that study. I would like this study to occur so we can figure out how better to work with PA and NP colleagues to provide better care. It won't occur because of egos on both side of the issue.
 
The perfect study is not feasable, but if one study is more rigorous then the previous, we can eventually, with a reasonable level of certainty, answer the question. So how would you design it?

I mean, what you would have is a bunch of studies that point to something. But we have some of that already. There are studies that show NPs use more tests and consult more. There are studies that show NPs have equivalent outcomes to resident physicians when caring for fewer, lower acuity patients. Etc. We already have studies pointing to what we know. You can't put the nail in the coffin and the issue to bed (am I mixing metaphors?) without at least one really robust study, unfortunately.
 
Well lets start out by measuring harm: it's not something easy to measure. If a PA/NP orders more tests which cause more radiation exposure which causes more cancer down the line how do we measure that in a reasonable time frame? We know that it's not good for patients to just send them off to a CT or X-Ray. But what conclusions can you make?

There is also financial harm: how do you measure that a patient doesn't need a consult and will get the same outcome? It is difficult to deduce given the questions and complexities. I don't have the answer, but designing a good study would take a lot of great minds and cooperation. Given the current climate of discussion this is why we can't have that study. I would like this study to occur so we can figure out how better to work with PA and NP colleagues to provide better care. It won't occur because of egos on both side of the issue.

That's why the study needs to be years to decades long. Mismanagement of hypertension will not cause an apparent harm in a 6 month study, but down the line it most certainly will. Same with many of the bread and butter that some NPs think are so easy they can manage them with 500 clinical hours an and online degree.

Also, we know how to work with them. They need to work in a supervised model where they are given progressively less oversight until an appropriate amount for their experience and training is reached. They should never be practicing without a safety net and should be made to feel completely comfortable asking what they might consider a stupid question though as well, which means if they want to clarify something about a condition or treatment that physicians think should be a no-brainer, they shouldn't be hammered down for that. They can be used to see a lot more patients that are currently not being cared for. But giving them free reign to practice autonomously with 1/10th the amount of training is not the answer.
 
That's why the study needs to be years to decades long. Mismanagement of hypertension will not cause an apparent harm in a 6 month study, but down the line it most certainly will. Same with many of the bread and butter that some NPs think are so easy they can manage them with 500 clinical hours an and online degree.

Also, we know how to work with them. They need to work in a supervised model where they are given progressively less oversight until an appropriate amount for their experience and training is reached. They should never be practicing without a safety net and should be made to feel completely comfortable asking what they might consider a stupid question though as well, which means if they want to clarify something about a condition or treatment that physicians think should be a no-brainer, they shouldn't be hammered down for that. They can be used to see a lot more patients that are currently not being cared for. But giving them free reign to practice autonomously with 1/10th the amount of training is not the answer.

Honestly, in order to eliminate harm to patients and sail through an IRB, a retrospective study with a giant sample from multiple regions of the country might be the best we could do. Say, 100k patient encounters? Some surgeons are actually proving that retrospective studies can be very rigorous if done correctly. What are your ideas for the methodology?
 
Honestly, in order to eliminate harm to patients and sail through an IRB, a retrospective study with a giant sample from multiple regions of the country might be the best we could do. Say, 100k patient encounters? Some surgeons are actually proving that retrospective studies can be very rigorous if done correctly. What are your ideas for the methodology?

How would you correct for patient non-randomization, informal consults, etc?
 
Honestly, in order to eliminate harm to patients and sail through an IRB, a retrospective study with a giant sample from multiple regions of the country might be the best we could do. Say, 100k patient encounters? Some surgeons are actually proving that retrospective studies can be very rigorous if done correctly. What are your ideas for the methodology?

You can’t. Reasons for which starting with the issues stated above.
 
No. The NP hate abscess has been building for a few months now. Time to get it lanced. Up next; NP’s are all educated at the same awful online school, they are going to be cardiac surgeons and take everyone jobs, I saw a dumb NP once. Standby! :beat:

To clarify, I think mid-levels are an essential part of the healthcare system and help physicians do their jobs better. However, the job they were initially intended to do and which they are still trained to do is no longer the job many of them are doing. They're practicing outside of their scope with inadequate training and that's dangerous.

NP education is a problem. Online schools are expanding rapidly which is another dangerous trend as many of these graduates will have no real clinical experience when they start practicing. Something only the nursing board seems to allow as opposed to every other professional board which requires extensive clinical experience.

You realize “on the front lines” most hospitals don’t “hire” doctors right?

Doctors are on the medical staff but unlike nurses and techs, we have no employee/employer relationship with the hospital. We bill patients and insurance companies for our services. Where I work, any qualified physician can apply for privileges, start admitting patients and do procedures at the hospital. The amount of “face time”is completely determined by the doctors. The hospital administration has absolutely nothing to do with that. Most doctors tend to round once a day and spend a bare minimum of time with any given patient. The rest of the time they are at the office or doing procedures.

Depends on where you're at and what field you're talking about. The hospitals I rotated through in med school almost all hired internists themselves. They weren't contracting outside groups. So yea, administrators were responsible there. You're right that the amount of facetime is determined by docs. But when you're carrying 25 patients how much facetime can you realistically provide? If you spend 10 minutes with each patient that's over 4 hours at the bedside not counting time it takes to go from room to room and talk to other members of the team. Rounds would literally take 6 hours. Then you've got orders and notes for 25 patients and that's assuming no other complaints, questions, or problems arise. That's not a realistic schedule in any setting.

The administration may not directly determine facetime, but they often determine patient load based on how many docs they're willing to hire. Let's not pretend like this is all on us.

Most doctors I know graduated in the late 90s/early 2000s and they still crush it. For example, my cousin is a GI-doc who lives in Winnetka (one of the fanciest suburbs of Chicago and hope to multiple top 10 private/public schools) and he just graduated like 5 years ago from GI fellowship. My attendings all live in the fanciest parts of the city, send their kids to the fanciest schools. There are no plumber/electrician kids at these schools and communities. It's mostly C-suites, high level programmers/engineers, and doctors. You are kidding yourself if you think anyone would be making similar money to pediatricians in any other career. All the people I know from college are living basically middle class lives and that's about as good as it gets for them.

I find this post ironic for many reasons, partially because I grew up in that general area (though not a suburb as well-off as Winnetka). You're making several bad arguments here though. First, you're assuming that your cousin is a typical physician when he's in the highest paying field for all IM docs other than maybe interventional cards. It's easy to say "look how great they've got it!" when your reference point is making double that of the typical doc. You're also assuming all your attendings are financially well off just because their kids go to fancy schools. How do you know they're not still in significant debt or that they didn't have parents paying for their education? Again, not really proof of anything. Additionally, even the 90's and early 200's debt was nothing like it is today. Here's a chart from the AAMC graduating student survey that shows average debt at those times:

main-qimg-e03e4efa4c271e69901f8524842e664a.webp


You'll notice that even back then the average debt was literally half of what it is today, and pay is NOT significantly higher. There are better charts out there, but this one fits the time frame you're referring to.

We also have very different circles of college friends then. Many of my friends made 6 figures straight out of college working in finance and accounting and a couple are now making physician pay. Even the ones who aren't though are financially as well off as most docs in the big picture. More on that below.

With regard to finances, I'm 28 and on track to make 130k this year just moonlighting extra in internal medicine (and I'm not even aggressive about it). Student loans are not as big a deal as people are suggesting and it's mostly people who either did multiple degree programs or went to everything private. I went to public undergraduate and private medical school, zero family help, and I'll have around 220k at the end of residency.

If the bolded is true than you are far outside the norm. When people are able to moonlight, they're making closer to 30k/yr on average. You're making $100k more than that. It's not fair at all to compare yourself to the "average" med school grad or resident. The average resident will graduate medical school with ~$225k in debt which will end up being $275k by the end of residency when they're 31 years old (average matriculant is now 24 and assuming 3 year residency). Not outrageous debt, but given that many don't want to keep living like a resident, want to start a family, AND have what will likely end up being $350k in debt repayment, it's a much bigger deal that some people make it out to be.

No, it's not insurmountable, but it's also not a "shrug, it'll all work out" kind of deal either.

There are essentially a handful of jobs that will pay 6 figures other than being in healthcare and nothing at the level of a specialist in medicine and certainly nothing that gets you that level of money just by going through the motions. Getting into medical school is hard, everything else after that is fairly straightforward. Not so in real life. I turn down 250k+ jobs (with amazing health insurance, 401k/403c, etc etc) every week that essentially only top-tier programmers and engineers will ever get.

are they working 40 hours a week? Hint, they aren't. And, in aggregate, that's not what plumbers make on average. No plumber is living the easy life and doing everything a doctor does.

Nothing in America, in aggregate, makes more lifetime earnings (including stock and retirement stuff) than a doctor, nevermind a subspecialist, will make.

Not completely wrong, but there are many jobs that pay 6 figures that require nowhere near the time or financial commitment that medical school does. Let's come back to the part from above and break the numbers down though. I know many people who made 6 figures straight out of UG and they took on a relatively small amount of debt (<25k). Let's run some numbers on 2 individuals who both retire at 65 and contribute 15% of their income annually to retirement (recommended amount) at a 5% interest rate:

An accountant will graduate from college with minimal debt and can start making 6 figures straight out of UG. Investing $15k/yr for year for 43 years (22-65) will end up with a retirement savings of $2.25 million, with 71% (1.6 mil) of that being money made through investments. Additionally, they can start their adult life far earlier, start a family sooner, purchase a house in their 20's, etc (many of my hs and college friends fit this profile).

A physician will finish residency at 31-32 and if they invest $30k/yr into retirement for 34 years they'll end up with $2.52 mil, with only 61% (1.5 mil) of that being made through investments. So actually less passive income than the accountant. That's also not accounting for the massive educational debt they'll be paying back. So they're getting a later start, taking on more debt, and their overall net worth isn't all that different. Let's also keep in mind that the accountant is probably working less hours and has a far better lifestyle than the physician until they are in their 40's and the docs have their debts paid off.

Now there's 2 major differences between medicine and most other fields. The first is simply job security. If you have an MD or DO degree, you'll pretty much always be able to have a job somewhere. Some other fields have great job security, but not like medicine. The other point is earning potential. As you pointed out, sub-specialists can make a lot of money. However, you said everything after acceptance is straightforward, I'd argue that to land a residency in one of the top fields (ortho, neurosurg, derm), it is far from straightforward and you have to be above and beyond to get there. Some people simply aren't capable of this.

So yea, physician is a solid gig. However, it's not the field it used to be and there are plenty of other options available for those wanting to be financially secure that don't involve 7-11 more years of education after college, have nice lifestyles, and are still strong financial options.

In case you haven’t noticed, we are pretty much on the same side of the fence on the problems with NP education and scope. I just have a problem with NP bashing by elitist med students.

The problem is that massive numbers of NPs who aren't on that side of the fence. So many so that it's no longer a minority. It's a legitimate and serious problem.

Nor is there a consensus that they are.

I know of a few NP FB groups with thousands of members who would disagree with you. Google "Brain of a doctor, heart of a nurse" and get ready to feel depressed.
 
To clarify, I think mid-levels are an essential part of the healthcare system and help physicians do their jobs better. However, the job they were initially intended to do and which they are still trained to do is no longer the job many of them are doing. They're practicing outside of their scope with inadequate training and that's dangerous.

NP education is a problem. Online schools are expanding rapidly which is another dangerous trend as many of these graduates will have no real clinical experience when they start practicing. Something only the nursing board seems to allow as opposed to every other professional board which requires extensive clinical experience.



Depends on where you're at and what field you're talking about. The hospitals I rotated through in med school almost all hired internists themselves. They weren't contracting outside groups. So yea, administrators were responsible there. You're right that the amount of facetime is determined by docs. But when you're carrying 25 patients how much facetime can you realistically provide? If you spend 10 minutes with each patient that's over 4 hours at the bedside not counting time it takes to go from room to room and talk to other members of the team. Rounds would literally take 6 hours. Then you've got orders and notes for 25 patients and that's assuming no other complaints, questions, or problems arise. That's not a realistic schedule in any setting.

The administration may not directly determine facetime, but they often determine patient load based on how many docs they're willing to hire. Let's not pretend like this is all on us.



I find this post ironic for many reasons, partially because I grew up in that general area (though not a suburb as well-off as Winnetka). You're making several bad arguments here though. First, you're assuming that your cousin is a typical physician when he's in the highest paying field for all IM docs other than maybe interventional cards. It's easy to say "look how great they've got it!" when your reference point is making double that of the typical doc. You're also assuming all your attendings are financially well off just because their kids go to fancy schools. How do you know they're not still in significant debt or that they didn't have parents paying for their education? Again, not really proof of anything. Additionally, even the 90's and early 200's debt was nothing like it is today. Here's a chart from the AAMC graduating student survey that shows average debt at those times:

main-qimg-e03e4efa4c271e69901f8524842e664a.webp


You'll notice that even back then the average debt was literally half of what it is today, and pay is NOT significantly higher. There are better charts out there, but this one fits the time frame you're referring to.

We also have very different circles of college friends then. Many of my friends made 6 figures straight out of college working in finance and accounting and a couple are now making physician pay. Even the ones who aren't though are financially as well off as most docs in the big picture. More on that below.



If the bolded is true than you are far outside the norm. When people are able to moonlight, they're making closer to 30k/yr on average. You're making $100k more than that. It's not fair at all to compare yourself to the "average" med school grad or resident. The average resident will graduate medical school with ~$225k in debt which will end up being $275k by the end of residency when they're 31 years old (average matriculant is now 24 and assuming 3 year residency). Not outrageous debt, but given that many don't want to keep living like a resident, want to start a family, AND have what will likely end up being $350k in debt repayment, it's a much bigger deal that some people make it out to be.

No, it's not insurmountable, but it's also not a "shrug, it'll all work out" kind of deal either.



Not completely wrong, but there are many jobs that pay 6 figures that require nowhere near the time or financial commitment that medical school does. Let's come back to the part from above and break the numbers down though. I know many people who made 6 figures straight out of UG and they took on a relatively small amount of debt (<25k). Let's run some numbers on 2 individuals who both retire at 65 and contribute 15% of their income annually to retirement (recommended amount) at a 5% interest rate:

An accountant will graduate from college with minimal debt and can start making 6 figures straight out of UG. Investing $15k/yr for year for 43 years (22-65) will end up with a retirement savings of $2.25 million, with 71% (1.6 mil) of that being money made through investments. Additionally, they can start their adult life far earlier, start a family sooner, purchase a house in their 20's, etc (many of my hs and college friends fit this profile).

A physician will finish residency at 31-32 and if they invest $30k/yr into retirement for 34 years they'll end up with $2.52 mil, with only 61% (1.5 mil) of that being made through investments. So actually less passive income than the accountant. That's also not accounting for the massive educational debt they'll be paying back. So they're getting a later start, taking on more debt, and their overall net worth isn't all that different. Let's also keep in mind that the accountant is probably working less hours and has a far better lifestyle than the physician until they are in their 40's and the docs have their debts paid off.

Now there's 2 major differences between medicine and most other fields. The first is simply job security. If you have an MD or DO degree, you'll pretty much always be able to have a job somewhere. Some other fields have great job security, but not like medicine. The other point is earning potential. As you pointed out, sub-specialists can make a lot of money. However, you said everything after acceptance is straightforward, I'd argue that to land a residency in one of the top fields (ortho, neurosurg, derm), it is far from straightforward and you have to be above and beyond to get there. Some people simply aren't capable of this.

So yea, physician is a solid gig. However, it's not the field it used to be and there are plenty of other options available for those wanting to be financially secure that don't involve 7-11 more years of education after college, have nice lifestyles, and are still strong financial options.



The problem is that massive numbers of NPs who aren't on that side of the fence. So many so that it's no longer a minority. It's a legitimate and serious problem.



I know of a few NP FB groups with thousands of members who would disagree with you. Google "Brain of a doctor, heart of a nurse" and get ready to feel depressed.


None of this is new. Did you discover all this after you started medical school?
 
Rigorous methodologies and a large enough sample size would help. Eliminate it? No.

The problem is you can’t control for informal consults and patient selection doing it retrospectively. They’ve done that sort of study, and the outcomes were similar. But when they looked at the types of patients seen, the NPs were seeing fewer patients that were significantly less complex. So this “equivalence” study showed that there was equivalence when the NPs had much healthier patients than the physicians and were allowed to consult as needed. That hardly shows equivalence, but you can’t argue that it definitely shows inferiority since the patients weren’t matched, and informal consults were allowed. So you can say that the study results likely show that NPs are not truly equivalent given what had to occur for there to be an equivalence in outcomes, but that isn’t good enough since a truly equivalent set up was not used.
 
I have no problem with midlevels and will gladly see one if I think they demonstrate competence and enough humility to know their limitations, AND they have an involved supervising physician. That’s how the pediatric practice my daughters go to is run. And I have no problem with them seeing the NP there.

I’ve seen a PA myself in the military. Those PAs are very well trained and seem to know their limits as well. I’ve never worked with the NPs, but I imagine it’s similar.
 
I have no problem with midlevels and will gladly see one if I think they demonstrate competence and enough humility to know their limitations, AND they have an involved supervising physician. That’s how the pediatric practice my daughters go to is run. And I have no problem with them seeing the NP there.

I’ve seen a PA myself in the military. Those PAs are very well trained and seem to know their limits as well. I’ve never worked with the NPs, but I imagine it’s similar.
We chose our pediatrician with the promise we would not be scheduled with a midlevel. If I’m paying the same price, I want the doctor
 
We chose our pediatrician with the promise we would not be scheduled with a midlevel. If I’m paying the same price, I want the doctor

I respect that. We schedule our appointments with the physician as much as possible, but if we need to get in for something like a well check or something like that, I don’t mind seeing the NP.
 
We chose our pediatrician with the promise we would not be scheduled with a midlevel. If I’m paying the same price, I want the doctor
Sometimes that promise is fake. I asked to see the dermatologist when I went in for a full body scan. I have extensive melanoma in my family history. I was told on the phone that I would see the physician. When I got there I saw the physician's assistant.

I was pissed and wanted to walk out. They had my insurance and there was nothing I could do. Net outcome: I am down over $500 and who knows if the PA missed something important. There's no recourse for me
 
Sometimes that promise is fake. I asked to see the dermatologist when I went in for a full body scan. I have extensive melanoma in my family history. I was told on the phone that I would see the physician. When I got there I saw the physician's assistant.

I was pissed and wanted to walk out. They had my insurance and there was nothing I could do. Net outcome: I am down over $500 and who knows if the PA missed something important. There's no recourse for me
I would have had the insurance company and medical board on the phone filing complaints if they threatened to charge me after breaking that promise
 
I would have had the insurance company and medical board on the phone filing complaints if they threatened to charge me after breaking that promise
how would I prove it?
 
I would have had the insurance company and medical board on the phone filing complaints if they threatened to charge me after breaking that promise
there's a lot of things I've wanted to do, such as write a nasty review online. Problem is the clinic is associated with the medical school. I am trying to keep my head down as I am just a M1 and this kind of thing could bite me in the A**.
 
I specifically don’t have my family see clinics related with my school/residency
Good idea. Yeah I just wish there was a way to warn others/fix the issue without jeopardizing my career.
 
So what happens when a MD consults a psychNP?

If it's a simple case that the MD is turfing because they don't want to deal with it

None of this is new. Did you discover all this after you started medical school?

The financial stuff no. I was well aware and chose to pursue medicine because I legitimately thought I'd love it. For the most part I've enjoyed the ride so far and am still happy with my decisions.

The midlevel stuff partially. I was aware that expansion was happening, but was not aware of how abysmal the education that many receive nor was I aware of the extent to which they were trying to practice. I also was not aware how quickly independent practice expansion was happening. Since 2013 6 states have passed laws for NPs to have independent practice. Apparently several passed laws in 2010 after the ACA starting being further enacted as well. So no, I was not aware of that until med school and I think the vast majority of physicians still aren't aware of the extent and rate of expansion even after practicing for years. I wasn't until I started getting more active with the current legislation.
 
You guys are both proving that perfect is the enemy of good.

No inadequate is the enemy of good.

Seriously with all the fluff courses on trial design and research that is in the standard NP curriculum you'd think you guys would have at least a rudimentary knowlege of what makes an adequate trial.
 
No inadequate is the enemy of good.

Seriously with all the fluff courses on trial design and research that is in the standard NP curriculum you'd think you guys would have at least a rudimentary knowlege of what makes an adequate trial.

Yawn. That the best you can do?
 
did you read my post on the difficulties of measurement of outcomes or are you just ignoring it?

I kinda figured the conversation was over when I get mocked by random jerks who weren’t even in the conversation at all. I’ll pass on continuing this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top