DNPs will eventually have unlimited SOP

[SpecterGT260]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Do you really think so? I feel like their propoganda is pretty effective. I've seen many patients who call their NP "my doctor". Do you think most patients will really know the difference in a decade or two?

I think the bulk of people with decent insurance will demand the premium product. Those without we weren't going to see anyways

 

[peteB]

I think the bulk of people with decent insurance will demand the premium product. Those without we weren't going to see anyways

Yes, of course- if they know which is the premium product. But I fear that the nursing propoganda will convince the public that they're the same.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Yes, of course- if they know which is the premium product. But I fear that the nursing propoganda will convince the public that they're the same.

Time will tell I guess. Most people I know do not like seeing mid levels

 

[peteB]

Time will tell I guess. Most people I know do not like seeing mid levels

Hopefully it will stay that way. But now that we have midlevels getting doctoral degrees and referring to themselves as "doctors", will the common man know the difference?

 

[deleted6669]

Hopefully it will stay that way. But now that we have midlevels getting doctoral degrees and referring to themselves as "doctors", will the common man know the difference?

Keep in mind that pa's who get non md/do doctorates do not refer to themselves as Dr in a clinical setting, only in a lecture hall or in non-clinical settings as required by our agreements with the boards of medicine in our respective states. the only folks out there doing primary care and calling themselves Dr. who have not been to med school are the np's.(ok, there are naturopaths and chiros doing this too but they are outside the scope of this conversation)

 

[SpecterGT260]

Keep in mind that pa's who get non md/do doctorates do not refer to themselves as Dr in a clinical setting, only in a lecture hall or in non-clinical settings as required by our agreements with the boards of medicine in our respective states. the only folks out there doing primary care and calling themselves Dr. who have not been to med school are the np's.(ok, there are naturopaths and chiros doing this too but they are outside the scope of this conversation)

Those are masters degrees. Or are you talking about PhD?

 

[peteB]

Keep in mind that pa's who get non md/do doctorates do not refer to themselves as Dr in a clinical setting, only in a lecture hall or in non-clinical settings as required by our agreements with the boards of medicine in our respective states. the only folks out there doing primary care and calling themselves Dr. who have not been to med school are the np's.(ok, there are naturopaths and chiros doing this too but they are outside the scope of this conversation)

Thanks for that. Another reason why you guys are superior to NPs.

 

[RIPSanto]

I think the bulk of people with decent insurance will demand the premium product. Those without we weren't going to see anyways

Fifteen years from now there will not be a "premium ins product" thanks to the ACA. We will see the same patients as dnps

 

[SpecterGT260]

Fifteen years from now there will not be a "premium ins product" thanks to the ACA. We will see the same patients as dnps

You forget patients have a say in who they see as well.

 

[deleted6669]

Those are masters degrees. Or are you talking about PhD?

the typical pa today gets an ms degree from their pa program. about 5% of pa's later go to medschool at some point in their careers and another 5% get a doctorate of some kind postgrad (PhD, DSc, DHSc, PsyD, EdD, DrPH, JD, etc). I was talking about the 5% who get these non-md/do doctorates.

 

[xenotype]

Keep in mind that pa's who get non md/do doctorates do not refer to themselves as Dr in a clinical setting, only in a lecture hall or in non-clinical settings as required by our agreements with the boards of medicine in our respective states. the only folks out there doing primary care and calling themselves Dr. who have not been to med school are the np's.(ok, there are naturopaths and chiros doing this too but they are outside the scope of this conversation)

Some PAs like to tell patients that they went to 'medical school'. Many PAs think they deserve independence and "collaborative" practice just like NPs.

 

[deleted6669]

Some PAs like to tell patients that they went to 'medical school'. Many PAs think they deserve independence and "collaborative" practice just like NPs.

pa's shouldn't say they went to medical school. they can say they attended a pa program at a medical school.
the vast majority of pa's are against independence, I certainly am.
collaboration is a better term than supervision though without actually changing the relationship. supervision sounds like the pa can't be trusted and the doc constantly has to be looking over their shoulder..it doesn't inspire confidence in patients. collaboration sounds like a more collegial relationship and I prefer the terms collaboration or sponsorship(as currently used in some states) to supervision without actually changing the relationship between docs and pa's. I am not in favor of a pa/doc relationship without some degree of oversight like what the np's have.

 

[xenotype]

That's a very reasonable and level headed response. Thanks.

 

[45408]

Humans work with probabilities too. No one is ever sure exactly what is going what to happen. What we do is look at the situation and figure out what is likely to happen in our head (the probabilities), and then we act on the most likely scenarios. The way we figure out probabilities in our head is usually based on our personal experiences or data we've seen- the same way a computer would figure it out.

Then the computer has a flawed methodology as well. I'll admit that the human system isn't perfect, but if you're only basing your programming off past experiences, then it's not going to have the amazing skills you're proposing it will have.

Look, I really really want to end this argument so here's my final statement (for real this time). No one is going to replace humans completely any time soon. But computers can and will eventually be able to do a lot of the work humans do. So in the end we will need a lot fewer humans.

We'll still find something for those humans.

You were mocking me before, telling me that you don't see any grocery stores lying vacant..but if you actually look at the data of how many stores have closed you'll find that quite a few businesses have gone bankrupt because they can't compete with online retailers.

You'll notice I said grocery stores and not Best Buy or Blockbuster. I realize some industries have been hit hard, but grocery stores are not one of them. The retail market will always exist for people who need an item now, or for the many items that are too expensive to ship individually or that would require specialty shipping.

You keep proposing these computer totalitarian solutions that are completely unrealistic. Yes, computers will become more integrated. No, there won't be a bunch of unemployed humans watching the computers doing all the work. Who exactly do you think works at these online retailers? Oh right, EMPLOYEES.

Target is also seriously concerned. They just sent a letter out to their investors about how they're going to fight the practice of 'showrooming' - people coming into their stores to look at items and then buying them cheaper online: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/01/2...oom-for-the-stuff-you-buy-for-less-at-amazon/

Best Buy is a much bigger victim of that. Target is huge huge huge for parents/families, and there are quite a few things that are cheaper in the store than online (trust me, as a parent, we've looked). Amazon steals the market on high-priced items though, like cameras, TVs, computers, etc.

As for another example, let's look at the postal service: "The Internet has arguably hurt the postal service more than any other business. The drastic reduction in mail delivery has cost thousands of jobs in delivery and caused many post office closures around the country. Now, mail sorting jobs are set to disappear as a new automated system is implemented. Between 2008 and 2018, more than 54,500 jobs, or about 30 percent of current positions, are expected to vanish."

When you buy something online, how does it get to you? What's happening with UPS/FedEx?

I could go on and on, but I'll stop there.

As you can see these are real consequences happening today.

So the bottom line is, computer technology is going to change the game of medicine. When will it happen? I don't know. But it will gradually happen.

The end.

Jobs change. They don't really go away. Unemployment shuffles around, but it's never been 75%, nor will it be.

There will be no end.

 

[45408]

Unfortunately the governing bodies that regulate surgeons have no control over DNPs, as DNPs are regulated by nursing boards exclusively. (I learned this today) If the nursing boards can convince legislators that they are qualified to perform surgery, they can do it. They have a very strong lobby and they're good at coming up with studies that show their supposed competence, so I wouldn't put it past them.

And how would they have studies showing their competence unless they were out there doing the surgery that they're not licensed to do?

So is surgery the "last stand" for MDs? Geez, I wish I had done better on my Step 1.

I'd say so. You'll see a DNP doing just about anything before they're doing a AAA, colectomy, aneurysm clipping, ORIF or a prostatectomy.

If they are willing to pay big bucks for the training they will surely find a large number of surgeons willing to do it.

No.

 

[cbrons]

\

No.

how are you sure about that?

 

[peteB]

Then the computer has a flawed methodology as well. I'll admit that the human system isn't perfect, but if you're only basing your programming off past experiences, then it's not going to have the amazing skills you're proposing it will have.

I never said it was going to have skills greater than humans. I said it would be able to work the way humans do. Humans also work off past experiences. What I did say is that it could potentially work faster than humans and more efficiently in many ways because it has access to a lot more data instantaneously than any human does and can process it a lot faster. But I did not say the methodology would be superior to humans. It's the same methodology replicated in a machine. Machines, however, while using the same methodology, can make more accurate calculations because they have all the exact data available to them. Humans must rely on memory, which is far less perfect than information stored on a hard drive. Also, all information stored on a hard drive, regardless of how many millions of bytes there are, is always equally as easy to access. The same cannot be said for human memory. Some things are crisp in a person's mind, and others are not. This is demonstrated in the fact that the sophisticated computer network running Google can search through billions of pages in mere milliseconds, whereas you probably can't remember the content of webpages you saw yesterday, much less last week or earlier. A computer can recall the exact details of a case seen 10 years ago as quickly as it can a case seen yesterday. And not just "a" case, but every single case from 10 years ago. Your brain can't do that. That's the difference. It's not a difference in methodology, it's a difference in speed and memory.

On the other hand, I also pointed out that it would be made less efficient due to the difficulty of getting quick and quality inputs, and a lot of work would be needed to find ways to gather information and communicate faster.

I never said it would have super-human skills. The mission is to model machines after the ways human brains work, not to create some sort of super-human thought process.

 

[peteB]

And how would they have studies showing their competence unless they were out there doing the surgery that they're not licensed to do?

How did they get licensed to do what they're doing now? The medical board certainly didn't give it to them. And they didn't do the studies they have now showing they are as competent as MDs at primary care before they were licensed. They got themselves licenses without them. I don't know how they got those licenses, but they did. The studies are meant to give them even more freedom after they've already set their foot on the playing ground.

They can start by demonstrating their proficiency at simple procedures under the guidance of surgeons who they will pay handsomely, get licensed to do those, then move into more and more territory step by step.

 

[peteB]

No.

To echo the poster above, how do you know? Do you speak for all surgeons in America?

 

[peteB]

You keep proposing these computer totalitarian solutions that are completely unrealistic.

Jobs change. They don't really go away. Unemployment shuffles around, but it's never been 75%, nor will it be.

There will be no end.

I never proposed any totalitarian solution. I said that computers will have a major impact on these industries, which they will, and already have. Never did I say we are going to eliminate every single human involved. You over-exaggerated my argument and took it to an extreme.

Also, where did you get that 75% number from? I never used that number anywhere. Now you're just making stuff up.

 

[peteB]

When you buy something online, how does it get to you? What's happening with UPS/FedEx?

Once again, blowing my point out of proportion. I never said all mail delivery will cease. Reread what I said. I said that mail delivery has been impacted, not eliminated. I also talked specifically about the post office, using actual statistics from them. I never mentioned either UPS or FedEx, and once again I certainly did not say all mail delivery was going to stop. You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between less and none.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I never proposed any totalitarian solution. I said that computers will have a major impact on these industries, which they will. Never did I say we are going to eliminate every single human involved. You over-exaggerated my argument.

Also, where did you get that 75% number from? I never used that number anywhere. Now you're just making stuff up.

yeah.... Nothing wrong with pulling a number out of your rectum when you need to emphasize a point. He could have held up both hands and said "this many!" but the effect would have been somewhat lost over the internet. The point was that unemployment stays somewhat steady even though it shifts around.

 

[peteB]

yeah.... Nothing wrong with pulling a number out of your rectum when you need to emphasize a point. He could have held up both hands and said "this many!" but the effect would have been somewhat lost over the internet. The point was that unemployment stays somewhat steady even though it shifts around.

I don't think making numbers up out of thin air in any way improves your argument. If he really wanted to strengthen his argument he could have looked up real statistics and posted them. Coming up with some arbitrary number and saying unemployment will never be that high is meaningless.

Unemployment has been steady? Have you been watching the news at all in the past few years? I think people will laugh at you if you say unemployment has been steady.

It's honestly ridiculous to think that no matter what happens to the world, the same number of people will still have jobs.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I don't think making numbers up out of thin air in any way improves your argument. If he really wanted to strengthen his argument he could have looked up real statistics and posted them. Coming up with some arbitrary number and saying unemployment will never be that high is meaningless.

Unemployment has been steady? Have you been watching the news at all in the past few years? I think people will laugh at you if you say unemployment has been steady.

It's honestly ridiculous to think that no matter what happens to the world, the same number of people will still have jobs.

You're agitated. Maybe you should go sit down for a bit 🙂

 

[Unzbuzzled]

You're agitated. Maybe you should go sit down for a bit 🙂

x2

 

[peteB]

You're agitated. Maybe you should go sit down for a bit 🙂

Lol, I'm not agitated, I'm just passionate.

 

[Rendar5]

Lol, I'm not agitated, I'm just passionate.

Is that what you tell your significant other?😛

 

[peteB]

Is that what you tell your significant other?😛

Haha, that was a good one. 🙂

 

[Mattchiavelli]

I'm going to side with the senior members and say yes, all of the midlevels I have worked with have been pretty much equivalent to partially trained residents in scope and competence. The horror stories about flagrant mismanagement come from rural areas where the options are see an NP or see no one.

If this new crop of advanced practice nurses is going to be as inept as some suggest, well let them practice and let the cards fall where they will. I personally think that physicians giving pushback have some good points but they get buried in the hype and fear mongering that comes along with the arguments

 

[cbrons]

I think a lot of you are making a big mistake throwing primary care to the wolves. You give an inch you lose a mile.

 

[peteB]

I think a lot of you are making a big mistake throwing primary care to the wolves. You give an inch you lose a mile.

I agree completely. I think at this point we've already lost a few miles.

 

[duckie99]

Technically all a person has to do is graduate medical school and finish 1 year of residency to get a license. That person is then lawfully allowed to do anything in medicine. Anything. It is not against the law to do anything if you have a license. Obviously no hospital will let a doctor like that do something, no insurance company will provide malpractice, etc. That person can essentially only take cash and is taking a huge risk but he/she can do anything. This also does not happen very often and patients are usually not that stupid...

So to think a state would give a NP the same privileges is foolhardy. Also NPs at large are not that dumb to think they could.

It really doesn't seem to be a great concern among physicians out there that NPs represent a threat. The majority of the concern is from naive med students. NPs cannot function at the level of a physician and the government is aware of it.

Also studies show wellness primary care to be essentially useless. A NP can work and do some basic screening stuff on their own. I have no problem with them giving flu shots, counseling on weight, smoking, etc, skin exams, checking BP and blood sugar, etc. etc. But they cannot manage a patient with medical conditions long term. Studies that show equivalence are usually done in a controlled setting and only over a period of a 6 months at most. They also cannot do any specialty/surgical field at all.

so please let this dumb thread end.

 

[strongboy2005]

That's not the apt comparison. The average midlevel isn't usually fresh from school, and they won't compare to the averge doctor, who also isn't fresh from school. But the average midlevel is usually better than the person still in school or just graduate from school because they've been working for awhile.

I still work with residents every days, and junior residents still fail to have the clinical acumen, speed, and overall ability to manage patient care that experienced midlevels have. And they have very little clue that they're not that good yet. It's not until someone's a senior resident that they realize how much of an "idiot" they were as an intern or as a medical student. I promise you, as soon as you start 2nd year in your field, you will look at the interns and think "oh my god, that was me last year"

I've never met a midlevel who could match a 4th year medical student. I don't care how many years they are out - their entire training is 2 years! They are practically a watered-down 3rd year medical student.

 

[deleted6669]

I've never met a midlevel who could match a 4th year medical student. I don't care how many years they are out - their entire training is 2 years! They are practically a watered-down 3rd year medical student.

keep a few things in mind:
many pa's were prior medics/rn's/rt's. a former ob rn knows a lot of ob. a former rt knows a lot of critical care, etc
years of on the job training can teach one a lot. all of the pa's in my group(avg experience 10 yrs, some as many as 30) run circles around new md interns (who we train as part of our jobs). I have met very few interns who could function at the level of an experienced pa. in 25 years I can count them on 1 hand.interns just haven't had enough pt care exposure yet. they will, but they aren't there yet. for example I have seen over 125,000 patients in the ER representing all levels of acuity. I learned something from the workup of those folks. compare this to the few thousand pts a typical ms4 has seen.
an ms4 without a residency doesn't look like much but after a residency they get up to speed in their specialty. it is residency that makes a physician different than a pa, not the extra yr(ms1) of memorizing enzymatic pathways which bears little relationship to the practice of medicine on a day to day basis.

 

[Rendar5]

I've never met a midlevel who could match a 4th year medical student. I don't care how many years they are out - their entire training is 2 years! They are practically a watered-down 3rd year medical student.

You speak from a lack of perspective, not having been an intern or a senior resident, and not having had to directly supervise interns, med students, and midlevels. Please talk to me again after you've been in residency a few years and can actually see how much you've grown as a provider before you start telling me that your training is only 4 years and a PA's training is only 2 years. Med school trains you to be a resident and to pick a field. Residency is what actually trains you to be a physician. Don't get full of yourself and think you're all that and better than midlevels with several years of experience in their field until you've completed your training. Then you can be as cocky as you want.

(This actually reminds me of a study done at my residency where cosmetic results of lacerations were graded several weeks after healing, there was an extremely rapid rise in cosmesis from MS4, to intern, to PGY2. Then it leveled off very fast. Attending, PGY-3, and PA's all had very similar scoring)

 

[Lokhtar]

I think the bulk of people with decent insurance will demand the premium product. Those without we weren't going to see anyways

I don't think so. People like my parents wouldn't know the difference, and wouldn't really care if they did. They'll go to whoever they think will spend more time with them.

 

[swamprat]

keep a few things in mind:
many pa's were prior medics/rn's/rt's. a former ob rn knows a lot of ob. a former rt knows a lot of critical care, etc
years of on the job training can teach one a lot. all of the pa's in my group(avg experience 10 yrs, some as many as 30) run circles around new md interns (who we train as part of our jobs). I have met very few interns who could function at the level of an experienced pa. in 25 years I can count them on 1 hand.interns just haven't had enough pt care exposure yet. they will, but they aren't there yet. for example I have seen over 125,000 patients in the ER representing all levels of acuity. I learned something from the workup of those folks. compare this to the few thousand pts a typical ms4 has seen.
an ms4 without a residency doesn't look like much but after a residency they get up to speed in their specialty. it is residency that makes a physician different than a pa, not the extra yr(ms1) of memorizing enzymatic pathways which bears little relationship to the practice of medicine on a day to day basis.

Thats a very good explanation and I have to agree. The thing that people get all mixed up about is that they are comparing a new just graduated MD vs a seasoned PA in the field for 10, 20+ years. Since when does medical school train one to become a competent ER doc right out the door? I think to make a better comparison you'd have to compared a newly graduated PA vs a newly graduated MD and then follow them forward.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I don't think so. People like my parents wouldn't know the difference, and wouldn't really care if they did. They'll go to whoever they think will spend more time with them.

Could be. There is a spectrum of people there. I have met too many people who see a mid level person, have a poor experience, and decide they want expertise over "warm and fuzzy".
You are basically describing the people who will take the reliability of a honda over the craftsmanship of a mercedes any day. I don't think this is a substantial group of people.

 

[peteB]

Med school trains you to be a resident and to pick a field. Residency is what actually trains you to be a physician. Don't get full of yourself and think you're all that and better than midlevels with several years of experience in their field until you've completed your training. Then you can be as cocky as you want.

If residency is what really matters in our training, why do we have 4 years of med school? That seems like an absurdly long time to pick a field and prepare for residency. Why don't we cut it down to 2 years and spend more time in residency? The PAs seem to be doing fine with just 2 years in school and learning the rest on the job. 4 years is a lot of time and a lot of money to spend when you're saying that it doesn't even really matter that much and it doesn't actually train you to become a physician.

 

[Rendar5]

If residency is what really matters in our training, why do we have 4 years of med school? That seems like an absurdly long time to pick a field and prepare for residency. Why don't we cut it down to 2 years and spend more time in residency? The PAs seem to be doing fine with just 2 years in school and learning the rest on the job. 4 years is a lot of time and a lot of money to spend when you're saying that it doesn't even really matter that much and it doesn't actually train you to become a physician.

I could see some of med school maybe getting cut down, but as I said, med school trains you for residency and life-long learning (said earlier in thread I believe). that in addition to residency is what really sets you apart.

 

[peteB]

I could see some of med school maybe getting cut down, but as I said, med school trains you for residency and life-long learning (said earlier in thread I believe). that in addition to residency is what really sets you apart.

Do you think this applies more to the non-primary care fields and surgical specialities?

If someone only wants to go into primary care, would you suggest going to medical school, or becoming a midlevel- considering the large difference in training time and cost.

 

[strongboy2005]

keep a few things in mind:
many pa's were prior medics/rn's/rt's. a former ob rn knows a lot of ob. a former rt knows a lot of critical care, etc
years of on the job training can teach one a lot. all of the pa's in my group(avg experience 10 yrs, some as many as 30) run circles around new md interns (who we train as part of our jobs). I have met very few interns who could function at the level of an experienced pa. in 25 years I can count them on 1 hand.interns just haven't had enough pt care exposure yet. they will, but they aren't there yet. for example I have seen over 125,000 patients in the ER representing all levels of acuity. I learned something from the workup of those folks. compare this to the few thousand pts a typical ms4 has seen.
an ms4 without a residency doesn't look like much but after a residency they get up to speed in their specialty. it is residency that makes a physician different than a pa, not the extra yr(ms1) of memorizing enzymatic pathways which bears little relationship to the practice of medicine on a day to day basis.

Med school trains you to be a resident and to pick a field. Residency is what actually trains you to be a physician.

I will agree with you both on one thing: an emergency medicine PA with years of experience being an emergency medicine PA knows more emergency medicine than an intern on their first day.

Emergency medicine is not the only field of medicine.

Once that emergency medicine PA is off their "turf" and challenged by a 4th year medical student to a contest of reading pathology slides (just an example), the 4th year medical student comes out ahead. Isn't that part of being a physician? Was that not part of your training before you got that M.D.? Don't sell yourself short.

Medical school is what makes a physician, not residency. Residency focuses you, but the knowledge you gain should never completely replace the knowledge you learned in medical school.

You say that biochemistry is not what makes a physician different than a PA, and again I disagree. This is one of many differentiating factors. Many metabolic/genetic abnormalities (e.g., glycogen storage diseases) require an understanding of biochemistry. These are not important to a pediatrician? Or medical geneticist? You are keeping the focus of your argument too narrow by looking only at your own specialty.

Take a PA out of their own field, and a 4th year medical student comes out ahead.

 

[Lokhtar]

Could be. There is a spectrum of people there. I have met too many people who see a mid level person, have a poor experience, and decide they want expertise over "warm and fuzzy".
You are basically describing the people who will take the reliability of a honda over the craftsmanship of a mercedes any day. I don't think this is a substantial group of people.

I suspect you'll be very surprised. Look at the data on places where non physicians are providing primary care services. People like it and don't mind.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I suspect you'll be very surprised. Look at the data on places where non physicians are providing primary care services. People like it and don't mind.

We will have to see. This isn't worth the speculative yoyoing we are doing here. I know many people who would rather see a physician. You have parents that don't know the difference. The rest is moot

 

[peteB]

I suspect you'll be very surprised. Look at the data on places where non physicians are providing primary care services. People like it and don't mind.

I think most of those places have little or no other options.

 

[projectlogic]

Relevant NYTimes article from today:

The Family Doctor, Minus the M.D.
https://www.readability.com/articles/7yciasqv?legacy_bookmarklet=1

 

[peteB]

Relevant NYTimes article from today:

The Family Doctor, Minus the M.D.
https://www.readability.com/articles/7yciasqv?legacy_bookmarklet=1

This article is really biased towards NPs. It points out all the positives for NPs, and all the negatives for M.D.s. It paints MDs as these uncaring, cold people who treat patients like meat while NPs are so loving and caring and wonderful- bull****.

Also, It doesn't mention at all the differences in training. I would like to see a family doctor write an opinion piece in the NY times refuting this.

Good news is there are only 150,000 of them as of yet- so we need not worry about them shoving us out of business for quite some time.

 

[FunnyDocMan1234]

This article is really biased towards NPs. It points out all the positives for NPs, and all the negatives for M.D.s. It paints MDs as these uncaring, cold people who treat patients like meat while NPs are so loving and caring and wonderful- bull****.

Also, It doesn't mention at all the differences in training. I would like to see a family doctor write an opinion piece in the NY times refuting this.

Good news is there are only 150,000 of them as of yet- so we need not worry about them shoving us out of business for quite some time.

From my experience, it's true. I try to see my NP always instead of my MD simply because my MD is kinda creepy and makes me feel very uncomfortable to be talking about private issues with him. Usually when I am coming in a have a pretty good idea of what I need (e.g. I have lots of dandruff and the non-prescription shampoos don't work - I need a prescription shampoo) and I sure as heck don't need an MD to look up which prescription is the best for me - so I feel like I am doing good by saving the healthcare system some waste. At least I did before I started med school haha

 

[SpecterGT260]

This article is really biased towards NPs. It points out all the positives for NPs, and all the negatives for M.D.s. It paints MDs as these uncaring, cold people who treat patients like meat while NPs are so loving and caring and wonderful- bull****.

Also, It doesn't mention at all the differences in training. I would like to see a family doctor write an opinion piece in the NY times refuting this.

Good news is there are only 150,000 of them as of yet- so we need not worry about them shoving us out of business for quite some time.

they annoying thing about that is NONE of those qualities are due to training. They are personality traits which are independent, and therefore more than likely equal between the two professions er.... profession and vocation 😉 lets not give them too much credit until they stop the BS propaganda machine.

 

[peteB]

From my experience, it's true. I try to see my NP always instead of my MD simply because my MD is kinda creepy and makes me feel very uncomfortable to be talking about private issues with him.

But this is just about your particular MD's personality. Someone could find an NP creepy too. It's about their individual personality and whether or not you like it, not their degree.