I think a lot of this is true of PA as well. Certainly not at all bad options - not to mention solid pay and high demand.
I thought quite long and hard about the PA path, but it would have exacerbated some of the problems with my own background - in particular the very steep clinical experience requirements (typically 2K hours, sometimes more, and in some cases a lot more). In other words, the PA path seemed more useful for young candidates (who could afford to take a few years being a CNA or EMT to gain those clinical hours), or those already in the health care professions, but wanting to "upgrade". The NP bridge programs are targeted at career changers, and accommodate the fact that these candidates simply aren't likely to have a ton of clinical experience because of their background.
Of all the NPs that I know, every single one absolutely *loves* it (which is *not* true for the docs I know). One of them didn't become an NP until she was 54.
Another issue to consider between the NP and PA paths are supervision requirements. In my state, PAs must be supervised, while NPs can practice independently (this isn't true in all states, however).
A downside to the NP program is the PA program is much shorter (2 years), and the NP bridge programs are 3 to 4 years (so half the debt for the PA). However, either of which is far better than 7-10+ years for an MD/DO. One NP I know said she came out with about $120K in debt, and got rid of a big chunk of that by participating in one of those rural service debt forgiveness programs.
Anyways, I didn't consider these options when I applied to medical school, and really wish I had been more aware of them - probably a better fit for my own background as a much older career changer. At the time, I didn't even know that NPs could provide primary care.
- Tom
