What outcomes?
The np studies are mostly observational. And the outcomes they select are essentially surrogates for some larger picture, which may or may not have relevance to what the study implies it is measuring.
Primary care actually requires more not less knowledge than specialized care (at least if you want primary care in this country to have some value as opposed to being a way-station for unnecessary test-ordering and specialty referrals).
NPs in primary care have "similar outcomes" (as determined by weak observational studies done by nurses or government stooges) because they refer everything remotely complex to specialists. They know how to do screen and triage and then ship people off to someone more qualified. I see NPs regularly refer women with a FH of BC to ObGyn to determine when they need a mammogram, or to sports medicine/ortho/rheum for anything musculoskeletal or to heme/onc for very straightforward anema. Their lack of education becomes obvious when you see how little an NP in primary care can take care of solo. (This is also why there are hospitals who've decided not to hire mid-levels on certain units, because their cheaper salary cost doesn't makeup for their over-ordering of tests - @Winged_Scapula had such a story she told a while back about this).
There's also the not-insignificant fact that rich/wealthy people and other doctors are not going to get their primary care from a nurse practitioner. They will (and do) pay a lot of money, even if its out of pocket, to see an M.D. The type of system where NPs are "given" primary care is the one where poor people get NPs and not doctors.
No hospital is going to let NPs run an ED completely by themselves. No hospital is going to allow an NP-only ICU to exist.
This is one of the reasons randomized control trials of NP vs MD care is impossible to run in actually sick patients. They are considered ethical no-gos from the very start.
Sent from my SM-N910P using
SDN mobile