go nurse practitioners

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I honestly don't have a problem with mid level healthcare practitioners. In the end they are usually making the doctor who hired them money. I don't get why doctors that get terratorial about it.
Only thing that upsets me is that these jobs exist in order to shore up the lack of supply. We are simply not training enough doctors to meet the demand, hence we get NPs and PAs to help relieve it.
 
Seeing NPs as an enemy is a narrow view. Could they hurt the field? Yes, but so too can they help us and the patient community if properly utilized.

A psychiatrist could extend his/her practice having NPs work to do simpler stuff such as medical refills, evals (then the doc decides what to do next), prior authorizations where the insurance company wants a clinician to discuss the case with them, and milder cases.

Given the shortage of psychiatrists across the country, to argue against an NP that is clearly designated as a mid-level provider, and the patient darned-well knows the nurse isn't at the same level of a doctor IMHO is going overboard.

I do think NPs can be a problem if they want to practice as a complete replacement for a doctor.
 
Completely agree with whopper. I've also seen NPs do excellent work, especially in psychiatry.
 
Seeing NPs as an enemy is a narrow view. Could they hurt the field? Yes, but so too can they help us and the patient community if properly utilized.

A psychiatrist could extend his/her practice having NPs work to do simpler stuff such as medical refills, evals (then the doc decides what to do next), prior authorizations where the insurance company wants a clinician to discuss the case with them, and milder cases.

Given the shortage of psychiatrists across the country, to argue against an NP that is clearly designated as a mid-level provider, and the patient darned-well knows the nurse isn't at the same level of a doctor IMHO is going overboard.

I do think NPs can be a problem if they want to practice as a complete replacement for a doctor.

All I have to say is....

CRNAs... hiring NPs to make money off of them was exactly what anesthesiologists did 20-30 years ago and that ended up killing their profession
 
All I have to say is....

CRNAs... hiring NPs to make money off of them was exactly what anesthesiologists did 20-30 years ago and that ended up killing their profession

could you elaborate on that? Last I checked anesthesiologists (and CRNAs for that matter) were doing quite well. What exactly happened?
 
The one area that NP's have not really stepped foot in...child psychiatry. Child psychiatry is sooo different than adult psychiatry that it is very difficult to truly feel adequate as a provider (physician or NP) unless you have years of experience (while in adult psychiatry, you can probably get by with a general medicine background and 6 months of psychiatry).
 
The one area that NP's have not really stepped foot in...child psychiatry. Child psychiatry is sooo different than adult psychiatry that it is very difficult to truly feel adequate as a provider (physician or NP) unless you have years of experience (while in adult psychiatry, you can probably get by with a general medicine background and 6 months of psychiatry).

Unfortunately, I'd disagree--in our area at least, a kid being prescribed stims for ADHD is more likely to be seeing a psychiatric NP than a child psychiatrist.
 
Any GP can diagnose and treat ADHD. Treatment of ADHD is normally left to the pediatrician or adult psychiatry NP (normally employed by an adult psychiatrists, that likes to take on the 14 yr old + crowd and accept insurance). Few child psychiatrists treat kids with pure ADHD. Let's face it...parents are not going to pay $150-200 a visit to pick up stimulants for their stable child. It's dealing with significant behavioral issues, ASD, and severe mood disorders that pediatricians, adult psychiatrists, nor NP's should pick up in their practice.

QUOTE=OldPsychDoc;14560031]Unfortunately, I'd disagree--in our area at least, a kid being prescribed stims for ADHD is more likely to be seeing a psychiatric NP than a child psychiatrist.[/QUOTE]
 
The one area that NP's have not really stepped foot in...child psychiatry. Child psychiatry is sooo different than adult psychiatry that it is very difficult to truly feel adequate as a provider (physician or NP) unless you have years of experience (while in adult psychiatry, you can probably get by with a general medicine background and 6 months of psychiatry).

The psych NP programs are changing to family psych NP, emphasizes the fact that they are seeking to treat all ages.
 
could you elaborate on that? Last I checked anesthesiologists (and CRNAs for that matter) were doing quite well. What exactly happened?

Haha. Anesthesia has been doing very well, yes - because it's highly reimbursed. Asked anesthesiologists about CRNAs now, they will tell you that they can cut their salaries in half. I wouldn't mistake high reimbursements in the last decade for nurses helping their field.

Anyway, it all comes down to the ability to prescribe medicine independently. Once midlevels can practice independent of physicians, that changes everything - especially in more rural areas.
 
Anyway, it all comes down to the ability to prescribe medicine independently. Once midlevels can practice independent of physicians, that changes everything - especially in more rural areas.

Okay, so what? Is everything about the salary?

If they can provide an equivalent quality of care to the patients in a narrow range of expertise, I don't see how it can ever be a bad thing.
 
Okay, so what? Is everything about the salary?

If they can provide an equivalent quality of care to the patients in a narrow range of expertise, I don't see how it can ever be a bad thing.

I don't know about you, but yeah, for me it is.

Med school debt doesn't pay itself.... or does it? hmmmm..... No, it doesn't.😡😡
 
I don't know about you, but yeah, for me it is.

Med school debt doesn't pay itself.... or does it? hmmmm..... No, it doesn't.😡😡

Student loans are forgiven upon death. So there is a chance that it might pay itself. It isn't exactly winning the lottery though.
 
Okay, so what? Is everything about the salary?

If they can provide an equivalent quality of care to the patients in a narrow range of expertise, I don't see how it can ever be a bad thing.

Lol. This is a common misconception - "is everything about the salary?" No. Of course not.

Is the salary of a physician a critical factor? Absolutely.

Making false dichotomies - either it's everything or not important at all is a huge mistake. Here's what will happen in anesthesia - the salaries that are cut in half don't pass on to patients - as the altruistic idealist wants them to be - instead they go straight to the hospitals bottom line. The MD anesthesia provider may take a 300k salary and a CRNA takes 125k... well, the hospital CEO says "cha'ching" and will hire 4 CRNAs and 1 MD. He just made his hospital 700k. Did more patients get care? Not really. Did the cost of healthcare decrease? not really.

Hospitals and insurance companies have been running game on physicians for the last few decades - with doctors often saying, "let's just focus on the patient care, the money will work itself out".

"Equivalent care" is also something you hear often, but it's not meant by anyone. Better language is "sufficient care" or meeting the minimum requirements. The government doesn't really care if the care is excellent or just above average, they care about the cost - the same with the hospital admin.

So to the root of your question, is it a bad thing? I don't know. Taking the laissez faire attitude you may think, "oh this will provide more access and be better for patients" - and it could. Or it could barely increase access and just allow the administrators to skim more profit off the system. Imagine that MDs and NPs have equal rights - let's say the MD salary is 200k and the NP is 80k and reimbursments are static. Well, now a FM doc or a hospital hires the 80k NP and then puts all the profits right back into the hospital bottom line, they essentially took the difference between the NP/MD salary and gave it to the CEO/investors or business owners. No cost savings, arguable if there was a large increase in access.

So yeah, you open up a very tricky situation when they have independent Rx rights - while you think - "oh, that's good for everyone" - hardly. It's a naive view. Ask the anesthesia forum if the description I outlined above makes sense, they will tell you it absolutely does.

NPs also follow the money, just like America medical students. Our best students go into dermatology, orthopedics, plastics - NPs will do the same - whatever offers them the best practice options.

Edit: Not to mention that halving psychiatry salaries for MDs would most certainly be a death knell to future physicians entering the field - with debt ballooning to 200-300k for many students, it would not be feasible to earn 100k annually when so many other fields are earning 200-300k or more. Again, decreasing access to patients - possibly worse than it is already.
 
Last edited:
If NPs and PAs are to meet demand for healthcare then why was there a shortage of doctors in the first place? Is it lack of funding for residencies? Lack of interest from prospective med students? I seriously doubt patients would prefer a NP over a real doctor unless they had little to no choice.
 
If NPs and PAs are to meet demand for healthcare then why was there a shortage of doctors in the first place? Is it lack of funding for residencies? Lack of interest from prospective med students? I seriously doubt patients would prefer a NP over a real doctor unless they had little to no choice.

Exactly. BUT... look at the delivery of healthcare - not the patient choice. In anesthesia, the VA decided to use CRNAs for many of their cases now. The patients don't pick that. What about if you are going to a hospital and all the sudden need surgery? You don't pick your anesthesiologist, they are provided by the healthcare provider. Well, this specialty is no different. If you have a huge managed care group and you see a PCP and all the sudden need a referral, they can refer you to their own in house NP - which could save that managed care group 50% salary but they get the same reimbursement - leading to profits for the managed care group.

There are plenty of doctors, they just go into the highest paying fields and live in the most populated areas. If you suddenly eliminated just those two factors, there would be no shortage.
 
Plain and simple: If I take my daughter to a pediatrician, I expect her to see the physician. If I go to the doctor, rare as it may be, I expect to see MD or DO on the door.

NP's are opening up medi-spas all around town. Like anyone else, why would they want to practice primary care if they can make more in a specialty. I wouldn't be surprised if they one day get privileges to put stents in.
 
I've thought a lot about this for several reasons--I love labor history, I tend to be a planner for bad scenarios--huge educational debt being the impetus, and I was raised by nurses and know their dirty laundry. Which is why I find their politics so corruptly and deliciously interesting. My mother is also an NP organizer in a state that is draconian and frivolous in its attempts to curb their scope of practice.

What I've come to realize is that employers and patients will drive the increasing numbers of np's and pa's in the market. They will get independent practice rights in all states eventually. Probably within a few decades. Maybe less. And we will be in a situation where there is the long, hard, expensive way to become a clinician in most specialties and then this other way--their way. It's gonna happen. It is happening.

We are wish thinking if we imagine that many people wouldn't prefer an NP or a PA or anybody who talks to them in a manner less rushed that can deliver their health care. They have kicked physician @ss up and and down the block by comprehension and deployment of this service aspect of what we do. We--most of us--perceive medicine as something that is only softened by polite service but that we cannot function by giving people what they want, rather what they need. And so we imagine with long hours of study that who else could see it otherwise?

That's why we've lost the politics. Or why we were beaten before it started. People are just not that smart. And they want customer service more than awe of their doctor--our most useful but now waning mojo.

I think it's an existential threat to the way we do things. Eventually we're going to have to figure out how to make being a physician accessible to the ever increasing lower socio economic classes. Because without the salaries at the end of it--it's a set up. And with cheaper competition in the workplace and dwindling resources, physician education is pretty much a dead end canyon on its present course.

I think I will have made it through the debt incurring part of the tunnel to make good. But I'm not certain for how long it will stay open. Some people think this is chicken little talk. I say tell that to a union factory worker in the heartland. We're not as irreplaceable as we think. Things will not always being getting better and more sophisticated. We're in an age of falling empire.
 
Last edited:
Most of those are great points Nasrudin but a few things I take issue with.

1) Many NPs do not spend more time with their patients, and most will not spend more time with their patients than we do in the future. As NPs become loaded with more and more patients and their schedules fill up like ours do and they feel the same billing pressures, their visits will look more and more like physicians'. This is not a good thing, but it's reality for now.

2) Patients really do prefer physicians, at least for now. Check out the efforts that many state medical societies and many huge patient surveys that have shown over and over that patients want to see a PHYSICIAN for their care, not a nurse. In many large surveys it is upward of 90% of patients that would prefer to see a physician. I know I want a physician taking care of my wife when she is pregnant, I want a physician taking care of my kids when they are sick, and I want a physician taking care of me when I am in need of medical services.
 
Most of those are great points Nasrudin but a few things I take issue with.

1) Many NPs do not spend more time with their patients, and most will not spend more time with their patients than we do in the future. As NPs become loaded with more and more patients and their schedules fill up like ours do and they feel the same billing pressures, their visits will look more and more like physicians'. This is not a good thing, but it's reality for now.

2) Patients really do prefer physicians, at least for now. Check out the efforts that many state medical societies and many huge patient surveys that have shown over and over that patients want to see a PHYSICIAN for their care, not a nurse. In many large surveys it is upward of 90% of patients that would prefer to see a physician. I know I want a physician taking care of my wife when she is pregnant, I want a physician taking care of my kids when they are sick, and I want a physician taking care of me when I am in need of medical services.

Good counterpoints. Especially the first one pertaining to the dynamic that the more they become like us the more they'll be like us, warts and all.

You know what I think about people answering surveys with multiple choice answers is that they might say one thing that sounds good to their pea brains at the time. And exactly 7 seconds later you could ask them the same question reworded to get a different answer and god knows what you'll get.

Who ever comes into the room with a white coat or the introduction of the person taking care of them then they'll respond to them in that role. People don't know crap about the difference between clinicians.

If you say look here chowder head, would you like Ms. Nurse McNursey-nurse to take of you or the Doctor, then of course....they might read strain their mind to read the social code your indicating and say yes...Doktur Pleez.

I kind of subscribe to the Mike Judge thesis of human development and evolution articulated in Idiocracy. Or for stand-up comedy nerds, a few years prior by Joe Rogan.
 
Who ever comes into the room with a white coat or the introduction of the person taking care of them then they'll respond to them in that role. People don't know crap about the difference between clinicians.

No doubt as you progress through residency you will be exposed to many, many patients who "know crap" about the differences 🙂
 
No doubt as you progress through residency you will be exposed to many, many patients who "know crap" about the differences 🙂

It doesn't have the slightest thing to do with progressing through residency. I know more about what patients think before and after the wizard procession makes it's way through the wards than most. What you gain an appreciation for is how much the provider mojo influences the interaction.

Also I suspect you might be experiencing what I call the San Francisco effect. Or insert whatever insulated bubble most pertains to you. As I spent 12 years in SF, it's the one that affected me most. And I was straight off the train from the rural southeast. I knew better. And yet after spending years in a place where the average person was smart and educated and hip to nuances in various professions, I found I had trouble relating to what average America thought. I would briefly check the news and think no....they can't be that stupid...omg...this is not ironic....these people are that stupid. And so on.

I work in a hospital that serves an underserved urban, uneducated populations. Most of our psych patients were on a survival mental economy. Who the script writer was...didn't make a single difference.

To some, no doubt, it does matter. But I don't think that's a bankable notion going forward. And please, make a point in the world outside the bubble that doesn't defer to the hierarchy in the bubble lest you seek to prove my point about the bubble.
 
I don't know about you, but yeah, for me it is.

Med school debt doesn't pay itself.... or does it? hmmmm..... No, it doesn't.😡😡

I highly doubt any fully qualified physician is ever going to find it hard to spare $2,000 a month to repay his/her loan, even on minimum academic salary.

Here are some mean figures: https://www.aamc.org/download/152968/data
 
Although my point was awareness of training variation, we're just going to have to accept that various sorts of people don't prefer us. They might prefer a psychologist, a social worker, a naturopath, a priest, a guru. And most certainly an NP. It happens. You think you're there in the room when a wizard from a different school is working their mojo on a patient and that patient is singing their praises. Or do you think it's more likely you hear the one's singing yours?
 
Most of those are great points Nasrudin but a few things I take issue with.

1) Many NPs do not spend more time with their patients, and most will not spend more time with their patients than we do in the future. As NPs become loaded with more and more patients and their schedules fill up like ours do and they feel the same billing pressures, their visits will look more and more like physicians'. This is not a good thing, but it's reality for now.

2) Patients really do prefer physicians, at least for now. Check out the efforts that many state medical societies and many huge patient surveys that have shown over and over that patients want to see a PHYSICIAN for their care, not a nurse. In many large surveys it is upward of 90% of patients that would prefer to see a physician. I know I want a physician taking care of my wife when she is pregnant, I want a physician taking care of my kids when they are sick, and I want a physician taking care of me when I am in need of medical services.

And what if your wife wants a nurse midwife providing her care?
 
I agree actually with all the points mentioned above despite that there seems to be some points made to counter each other.

If you're a practicing doctor, minding your own business for the most part, you will have little if any impact on the actual NP policies in your state. In that regard, the NPs you're working with, just treat them like any other clinician with regard to their skill.

On a legislative level, well, ahem, that is different. For example, if someone wanted to propose a bill to give NPs full practicing power on the same order as a physician, heck I'd be against it. Not out of some desire to protect my turf, but because I don't think a NP can do everything a doctor can.

NPs can fulfill a needed niche in the healthcare field. I'm all for them in that niche, outside of it, I'd be willing to put up a debate but that really needs to go on a level above what goes on in the day-to-day clinical stuff that most doctors are in. Such debate should be more focused on state legislation and administrative policies.

And what if your wife wants a nurse midwife providing her care?

Several women would rather have an NP or something with less training than a doctor such as a doula handle or at least provide advice on care. My wife had a doula.

And guess what? That doula was excellent and was willing to teach my wife all the BS that happens with physicians and patients such as the often practiced norm of a doctor really trying to direct the care in the manner easier for the doctor than really having the patient be the real decision maker and the doctor in the role of advisor. Several doctors practice on an unannounced pretense that everything should be up to them despite that it's firmly established in legal and medical ethics that it's really the patient that's supposed to have the say, and we're just supposed to give them the options and let them decide.

The doula did things such as give recommendations to my wife on which Ob-Gyns appeared to share similar philosophies with her on how she wanted her birth done, prep on the birthing day, and several things that docs just really don't do because it's not cost-effective for them.

A typical doctor's visit (and let's just all admit this really happens, and in fact may even be the norm) is docs see patients for a few minutes, write a script, and then have that patient removed from the room or they go to the next room. The doula filled the role of explaining to my wife everything that was really going on in layman's terms. Something a doc is supposed to do but often times does not.

(which brings me to my idea that a doctor could do a documentary, go into doctor's offices with a camera, record the meeting and I'd bet you the majority of docs wouldn't even fulfill the minimal legal required practices such as instead of simply telling the patient what to do, offer the options, the risks and benefits of the options and alternatives, and answer the patients' questions even if it required an answer of more than 3 minutes).
 
Last edited:
I agree actually with all the points mentioned above despite that there seems to be some points made to counter each other.

If you're a practicing doctor, minding your own business for the most part, you will have little if any impact on the actual NP policies in your state. In that regard, the NPs you're working with, just treat them like any other clinician with regard to their skill.

On a legislative level, well, ahem, that is different. For example, if someone wanted to propose a bill to give NPs full practicing power on the same order as a physician, heck I'd be against it. Not out of some desire to protect my turf, but because I don't think a NP can do everything a doctor can.

NPs can fulfill a needed niche in the healthcare field. I'm all for them in that niche, outside of it, I'd be willing to put up a debate but that really needs to go on a level above what goes on in the day-to-day clinical stuff that most doctors are in. Such debate should be more focused on state legislation and administrative policies.



Several women would rather have an NP or something with less training than a doctor such as a doula handle or at least provide advice on care. My wife had a doula.

And guess what? That doula was excellent and was willing to teach my wife all the BS that happens with physicians and patients such as the often practiced norm of a doctor really trying to direct the care in the manner easier for the doctor than really having the patient be the real decision maker and the doctor in the role of advisor. Several doctors practice on an unannounced pretense that everything should be up to them despite that it's firmly established in legal and medical ethics that it's really the patient that's supposed to have the say, and we're just supposed to give them the options and let them decide.

The doula did things such as give recommendations to my wife on which Ob-Gyns appeared to share similar philosophies with her on how she wanted her birth done, prep on the birthing day, and several things that docs just really don't do because it's not cost-effective for them.

A typical doctor's visit (and let's just all admit this really happens, and in fact may even be the norm) is docs see patients for a few minutes, write a script, and then have that patient removed from the room or they go to the next room. The doula filled the role of explaining to my wife everything that was really going on in layman's terms. Something a doc is supposed to do but often times does not.

(which brings me to my idea that a doctor could do a documentary, go into doctor's offices with a camera, record the meeting and I'd bet you the majority of docs wouldn't even fulfill the minimal legal required practices such as instead of simply telling the patient what to do, offer the options, the risks and benefits of the options and alternatives, and answer the patients' questions even if it required an answer of more than 3 minutes).

I don't support independent practice either. Unless we devised a contiguous system of training that could be traversed in both directions.

What I perhaps, disagree about is the political capital we have to publicly thwart their indefatigable efforts to gain their own separate route to independence. It seems to me, that there's no way to do it without looking bad--something their organizations exploit in a brilliant political pincer maneuver.
 
The one area that NP's have not really stepped foot in...child psychiatry. Child psychiatry is sooo different than adult psychiatry that it is very difficult to truly feel adequate as a provider (physician or NP) unless you have years of experience (while in adult psychiatry, you can probably get by with a general medicine background and 6 months of psychiatry).

NPs have been in child psych for years. In fact, the Adult psych certification has been retired and you have to study Family Psych. Glad I finished before I had to mess with any kids.
 
Lol. This is a common misconception - "is everything about the salary?" No. Of course not.

Is the salary of a physician a critical factor? Absolutely.

Making false dichotomies - either it's everything or not important at all is a huge mistake. Here's what will happen in anesthesia - the salaries that are cut in half don't pass on to patients - as the altruistic idealist wants them to be - instead they go straight to the hospitals bottom line. The MD anesthesia provider may take a 300k salary and a CRNA takes 125k... well, the hospital CEO says "cha'ching" and will hire 4 CRNAs and 1 MD. He just made his hospital 700k. Did more patients get care? Not really. Did the cost of healthcare decrease? not really.

Hospitals and insurance companies have been running game on physicians for the last few decades - with doctors often saying, "let's just focus on the patient care, the money will work itself out".

"Equivalent care" is also something you hear often, but it's not meant by anyone. Better language is "sufficient care" or meeting the minimum requirements. The government doesn't really care if the care is excellent or just above average, they care about the cost - the same with the hospital admin.

So to the root of your question, is it a bad thing? I don't know. Taking the laissez faire attitude you may think, "oh this will provide more access and be better for patients" - and it could. Or it could barely increase access and just allow the administrators to skim more profit off the system. Imagine that MDs and NPs have equal rights - let's say the MD salary is 200k and the NP is 80k and reimbursments are static. Well, now a FM doc or a hospital hires the 80k NP and then puts all the profits right back into the hospital bottom line, they essentially took the difference between the NP/MD salary and gave it to the CEO/investors or business owners. No cost savings, arguable if there was a large increase in access.

So yeah, you open up a very tricky situation when they have independent Rx rights - while you think - "oh, that's good for everyone" - hardly. It's a naive view. Ask the anesthesia forum if the description I outlined above makes sense, they will tell you it absolutely does.

NPs also follow the money, just like America medical students. Our best students go into dermatology, orthopedics, plastics - NPs will do the same - whatever offers them the best practice options.

Edit: Not to mention that halving psychiatry salaries for MDs would most certainly be a death knell to future physicians entering the field - with debt ballooning to 200-300k for many students, it would not be feasible to earn 100k annually when so many other fields are earning 200-300k or more. Again, decreasing access to patients - possibly worse than it is already.
Agree with this 1000 percent! Don't let them fool you!
 
All I have to say is....

CRNAs... hiring NPs to make money off of them was exactly what anesthesiologists did 20-30 years ago and that ended up killing their profession

anesthesiologists can still make 6-700k in some areas pretty easily after residency though starting out....
 
anesthesiologists can still make 6-700k in some areas pretty easily after residency though starting out....

Hello Mr. Grass is always greener.

I remember you saying how great it is to be a hospitalist too - while hearing from hospitalists how terrible it is to do over the long run.

Making 600-700k in Anesthesia is possible, just like it's possible in psychiatry. It's not very common though. For someone deciding to train in Anesthesia today - i.e. practicing 4 years from now, the idea of making 600k starting is likely not realistic. If you think it is, could you show me any data or actual info supporting this? To say it's "pretty easy", you should be able to post a job listing or a salary report showing that.
 
Median
Making 600-700k in Anesthesia is possible, just like it's possible in psychiatry.

Medscape averages for 2012:

Psychiatry: 186k (40 hours per week)
Anesthesiology : 337k (50 hours per week)

It might be easier to get to 600-700k if you're an anesthesiologist. Their hourly rate is significantly higher than ours.
 
Top