mid-level encroachment

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Vaseline

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
74
Reaction score
24
how worried should we be? to what degree will we have to compete with PAs/ NPs for jobs in the future?

I will be starting med school this summer. by the time I am applying for my first job - around 2023 - will the job market be saturated? I intend to go into primary care. I worry about trend of clinicians shifting to working for large hospitals/ health groups. if they can hire me for the price of two PAs, why hire me?

are my concerns valid?
 
/ are there areas of medicine that are safe from mid level encroachment?
 
how worried should we be? to what degree will we have to compete with PAs/ NPs for jobs in the future?

I will be starting med school this summer. by the time I am applying for my first job - around 2023 - will the job market be saturated? I intend to go into primary care. I worry about trend of clinicians shifting to working for large hospitals/ health groups. if they can hire me for the price of two PAs, why hire me?

are my concerns valid?
Less of an issue if you go rural. Too many variables to know specifically if it's a valid concern for you in particular.
Worry about what is in front of you, in particular being the best PCP possible and they will come.
 
how worried should we be? to what degree will we have to compete with PAs/ NPs for jobs in the future?

I will be starting med school this summer. by the time I am applying for my first job - around 2023 - will the job market be saturated? I intend to go into primary care. I worry about trend of clinicians shifting to working for large hospitals/ health groups. if they can hire me for the price of two PAs, why hire me?
Then start your own practice. You can still do it in Family Medicine, and it is still very common in Psychiatry. Neither field is completely immune from Mid-level creep but you will very likely still be perfectly able to go out and practice on your own and not worry about getting hired by a hospital. You just have to make it a priority over other things such as more convenient hours, benefits, guaranteed salary, desirable location, and institutional support.

At least that's my understanding.
 
how worried should we be? to what degree will we have to compete with PAs/ NPs for jobs in the future?

I will be starting med school this summer. by the time I am applying for my first job - around 2023 - will the job market be saturated? I intend to go into primary care. I worry about trend of clinicians shifting to working for large hospitals/ health groups. if they can hire me for the price of two PAs, why hire me?

are my concerns valid?

because an actual doctor is worth much more than 2 pas. our training is more extensive and more comprehensive. the only problem is that the people who do the hiring don't understand the difference but only look at excel sheets on computers filled with stupid numbers like bed occupancy rates or ed door to doc time while the people who pay the bills just look at the bottom line. the people in charge don't actually care about patients as long as someone can keep moving the meat through expensive tests, scanners and operations. somewhat hyperbolic of course
 
You're a fool if you let "midlevel encroachment" control your future, dear OP.
People were screaming of this issue 50 years ago, 20 years ago, 5 years ago, yesterday, etc. They were all wrong. There is no evidence that NPs and PAs have impacted physicians' job prospects, or that they ever will. Do you really want to wear a parachute that's failed all its stress tests?

If you care that much about autonomy embark on MSF after you're done.
I hear you'll get a lot of autonomy alone in Syria.
 
You're a fool if you let "midlevel encroachment" control your future, dear OP.
People were screaming of this issue 50 years ago, 20 years ago, 5 years ago, yesterday, etc. They were all wrong. There is no evidence that NPs and PAs have impacted physicians' job prospects, or that they ever will. Do you really want to wear a parachute that's failed all its stress tests?

If you care that much about autonomy embark on MSF after you're done.
I hear you'll get a lot of autonomy alone in Syria.

Ask anesthesiologists about their job prospects and then come tell us how midlevels are insignificant when it comes to finding a job.

On the other hand, I agree that most midlevels are mostly interested in working as little as possible, rather than learning how to become autonomous. Even midlevels who want increased respect/autonomy etc are often not willing to make the sacrifices required to fill a physicians place. So while their lobby sucks, I don't think their encroachment is a large-scale problem, yet.
 
I'll add- the more doctors talk about making medicine a job rather than a career, and the less we are willing to work/sacrifice, the more we start to look like midlevels in the eyes of the business people that manage us.
 
I'll add- the more doctors talk about making medicine a job rather than a career, and the less we are willing to work/sacrifice, the more we start to look like midlevels in the eyes of the business people that manage us.
Keep telling yourself that.
You're a fool if you let "midlevel encroachment" control your future, dear OP. People were screaming of this issue 50 years ago, 20 years ago, 5 years ago, yesterday, etc. They were all wrong. There is no evidence that NPs and PAs have impacted physicians' job prospects, or that they ever will.
You need to read more and keep up with current events.
 
Keep telling yourself that.

You need to read more and keep up with current events.

I'm not advocating the old fashioned dogma of doctors must sacrifice their entire life for their profession. However, some/many doctors have gone too far and have started offering similar services as midlevels. I've learned this from senior anesthesia staff who keep trying to motivate their residents to be true experts in their field and to offer value to patient care that can't be replaced by a midlevel.

Otherwise, we can hide behind "but we've gone through so much more training so therefore we must be better" argument and see how far that'll take us.
 
I'm not advocating the old fashioned dogma of doctors must sacrifice their entire life for their profession. However, some/many doctors have gone too far and have started offering similar services as midlevels. I've learned this from senior anesthesia staff who keep trying to motivate their residents to be true experts in their field and to offer value to patient care that can't be replaced by a midlevel.

Otherwise, we can hide behind "but we've gone through so much more training so therefore we must be better" argument and see how far that'll take us.
At the end of the day, most administrators don't care about your expertise. The things that are saving physicians now are state laws and these malpractice lawyers (even though these lawyers are also a pain in butt for physicians)...
 
It seems that we have such a deficit of doctors (30,000 in the U.S. last time I checked?) that will only grow as the baby boomers continue to retire and age, that we will probably never have enough PAs/NPs/MDs/DOs to fill all the available positions. Pretty much everything I read says this. Plus PAs/NPs are used for specialists practices so much I don't think there will be enough left over to dominate primary care.
 
It seems that we have such a deficit of doctors (30,000 in the U.S. last time I checked?) that will only grow as the baby boomers continue to retire and age, that we will probably never have enough PAs/NPs/MDs/DOs to fill all the available positions. Pretty much everything I read says this. Plus PAs/NPs are used for specialists practices so much I don't think there will be enough left over to dominate primary care.
We don't have a doctor deficit problem, we have a doctor distribution problem and midlevels aren't going to the areas that don't have docs. midlevels go for the same nice urban areas that docs do.
 
It seems that we have such a deficit of doctors (30,000 in the U.S. last time I checked?) that will only grow as the baby boomers continue to retire and age, that we will probably never have enough PAs/NPs/MDs/DOs to fill all the available positions. Pretty much everything I read says this. Plus PAs/NPs are used for specialists practices so much I don't think there will be enough left over to dominate primary care.
How is the doctor deficit calculated? I've heard that thrown around a lot. And does doctor deficit necessarily correlate to job availability? Is there a push to correct that deficit?
 
It seems that we have such a deficit of doctors (30,000 in the U.S. last time I checked?) that will only grow as the baby boomers continue to retire and age, that we will probably never have enough PAs/NPs/MDs/DOs to fill all the available positions. Pretty much everything I read says this. Plus PAs/NPs are used for specialists practices so much I don't think there will be enough left over to dominate primary care.

There is no "doctor shortage." The US physician per capita figure is on par with many countries which are considered to have "good" healthcare systems. This is propaganda put out by the AMA and AAMC to increase funding for programs their constituents are interested in.
 
Okay I stand corrected apparently. And that really sucks about the anesthesia graduates. I'm considering that specialty. Now I'm getting worried about this whole thing...
 
Care to elaborate on this?

Go read the anesthesia forum. There's more than enough complaining about midlevels over there.

There's certainly a reason why gas was one of the most competitive specialties a decade ago, and now they have hundreds of unfilled spots every match.
 
There is no "doctor shortage." The US physician per capita figure is on par with many countries which are considered to have "good" healthcare systems. This is propaganda put out by the AMA and AAMC to increase funding for programs their constituents are interested in.

Shortage is simply demand > offer for work. If on average, during a certain period of time, there are more job offers than people taking them -for whatever reason, including location & salary- there is a shortage.

Physician per capita is only a very rough proxy for comparison purposes.

Ask anesthesiologists about their job prospects and then come tell us how midlevels are insignificant when it comes to finding a job.

I don't care about what anes people say, tbh.

Data. Give me data showing that more anesthesiologists are unemployed and that the only attributable cause is "midlevel creep", and I'll grant you this point.
 
Shortage is simply demand > offer for work. If on average, during a certain period of time, there are more job offers than people taking them -for whatever reason, including location & salary- there is a shortage.

Physician per capita is only a very rough proxy for comparison purposes.

But the point is that as a whole, physician per capita in the US is on par with other countries that don't have these huge "physician shortages."

The problem is a problem of distribution, as mentioned previously. There are areas in the US with significantly higher physicians per capita figures and areas with significantly lower. Solving the "doctor shortage" is less a problem of training more physicians (who will likely continue to go to those "desirable" areas that are already supersaturated, much as has been seen with the training of more mid-levels) and more a problem of figuring out how to get to people (i.e., incentivizing) to go and practice in those areas in which physicians are lacking.
 
What do anesthesiologists know about the anesthesia market?
I don't know a single anesthesiologist who is out of work. I do know some that work for management companies which used to be private practices. That's just a big pay cut.
The age of solo providing anesthesia is coming to an end. Jobs doing your own cases, outside of a few markets, are becoming much harder to find, and many that you do find suck.
If a management company takes over a group of 18 anesthesiologists providing solo care and replaces them with a supervision of CRNA model at 3 or 4:1. They can go from 18 anesthesiologists to 6 or 8 and maybe 12-15 CRNAs.
That's 10-12 anesthesiologists now out of a job. They can get another one, probably not doing their own cases, and probably in another city, and probably for less money. That's no big deal, right? Uprooting your family and moving to a new city or state? Hopefully their wives are stay at home moms.
There's no mid level creep.
Anesthesia income is not on the decline.
 
Last edited:
But the point is that as a whole, physician per capita in the US is on par with other countries that don't have these huge "physician shortages."

The problem is a problem of distribution, as mentioned previously. There are areas in the US with significantly higher physicians per capita figures and areas with significantly lower. Solving the "doctor shortage" is less a problem of training more physicians (who will likely continue to go to those "desirable" areas that are already supersaturated, much as has been seen with the training of more mid-levels) and more a problem of figuring out how to get to people (i.e., incentivizing) to go and practice in those areas in which physicians are lacking.

The world isn't a laboratory.

Perhaps the USA do need more physicians per capita, because its physicians e.g. are less hardworking, demand a higher wage, better conditions, etc, or its citizens are sicker. Culture has a humongous impact on this stuff, more than you seem to realize.

That being said, if we agree that jobs demand > jobs offer... training more physicians would almost certainly fix the shortage. Physicians don't make money out of thin air, they can only stay unemployed for so long. They'll be forced to flock to the countryside when the competition gets too fierce. It's simple supply & demand once more.

One could, however, question the efficacy of the measure. Perhaps monetary incentives to practice in undesirable spots would be more economically efficient than training additional physicians. Or perhaps not. Do you know?
 
That scenario, of private practice takeovers by management companies, is happening all the time too small to midsize groups all the time all across the United States. The cRNA model is more cost-effective and they can make more profit from that model then by employing physicians doing cases themselves. So it's not just mid-level creep, it's also corporate America and greed.
 
And don't forget about all those office-based practice jobs or G.I. centers that used to have anesthesiologists and now are only nurse anesthesia staffed. Some smaller more rural locations are also staffed only by cRNA's. There is actually A Medicare rural pass-through policy that penalizes hospitals for staffing with an anesthesiologist in very rural areas. That is nuts. These practices are expanding because hospital owned groups can make a profit on anesthesia services with this model. It will only get worse.
Can an anesthesiologist get one of those jobs? Possibly. But only if they are willing to work for half or less of their current income.
 
hopefully other areas don't succumb towards anesthesia model. if physicians are trending towards a supervisory role, it sounds as though we should be pumping out less docs and not more.

i work for a physician right now that is planning his exit strategy (due to old age, not discontentment with profession). he also trains most of the residents in his field. he elected to hire a PA several months ago in lieu of another MD (when i know a few of his resident grads were actively looking for jobs). i thought it was interesting move. it may be inappropriate interpretation, but i thought it was somewhat of a slight.
 
You're a fool if you let "midlevel encroachment" control your future, dear OP.
People were screaming of this issue 50 years ago, 20 years ago, 5 years ago, yesterday, etc. They were all wrong. There is no evidence that NPs and PAs have impacted physicians' job prospects, or that they ever will. Do you really want to wear a parachute that's failed all its stress tests?

If you care that much about autonomy embark on MSF after you're done.
I hear you'll get a lot of autonomy alone in Syria.

if docs are trending to work for large profit-driven groups, and they can hire a few docs and many MLPs - which is evidently a more cost-effective model , eg anes model - how can you say MLPs are not affecting our job prospects? please, give me your reasoning.

it doesn't seem so foolish to me.
 
Your first line is a giant assumption that has not been borne out in reality. That's the reasoning.
It has in anesthesia, EM and pathology. And Radiology.
Hospitalists are next.
The surgeons will be the last to go. If you try to salary them and offer little incentive pay they'll just go down the road.
 
Last edited:
@Tired yes, that is my concern, but you are much further along than me and if you aren't overly worried about, i won't fret either. yet. lol

could you elaborate on the workplace challenges and reimbursement changes that can accompany mid-levels? thanks
 
Good question. Besides midlevel providers, medicine is be affronted by technology as well. It's not as important to have a highly trained physician who know the "art" of practicing medicine anymore. We have algorithms for that now. We even have data that shows when we try to get "artsy" with our practices, our outcomes are probably worse than if we had just used the algorithm some PhD whipped up in their free time with an excel sheet and some stats work. The idea that more education makes you more useful is only valid if you can prove there is some added value to that education. The medicine system is built like a guild, where all the training is a rite of passage in which you "buy in" and gain the RIGHT to treat patients. AMA is one of the most successful groups at maintaining high barriers to entry (in this case entry is lawful ability to treat humans for medical diseases).

I would love it if someone here could show some data that clearly demonstrates increased mortality when patients are treated by NP instead of physician, but I'm not aware of it. I have noticed in my own experience that MLP's seem to "over workup" patients. Perhaps due to their inferior training. This would increase the cost of care/diagnosis per patient, but the hospitals (who employ MLP and physicians) also make money of this stuff, so they have no incentive there to slow that down do they?

I agree surgeons will be the final line in the battle. You have a highly trained person intellectually, but you also have a carefully learned technical skill. An NP may be able to work through the pre-surgical diagnosis and treatment, but they are a LOOOONG ways away from being able to supplant a surgeon in the operating room with any level of facility. Also, a patient is probably fine with an NP ordering a chest X-ray and giving them antibiotics, but I'm thinking they will not be so eager to sign up for the craniotomy, whipple, hip replacement etc done by a MLP.

I think for you as a medical student, the bigger challenge isn't the NP supplanting your role as a physician (you will always be needed in some manner), but the reality that it is getting harder for medical students to find residency spots. This is because medical school is shifting toward the "for profit" mentality (like law schools), and they are increasing enrollment far quicker than residency positions are growing. More and more american grads are now holding an MD, but not matching in their desired specialty, or not even matching at all. This is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Increasing residency positions will make it easier to match, but will shift the supply/demand curve that helps keep physician pay high.....
 
I bet if I said it while wearing scrubs and pullover fleece, you wouldn't be able to tell if I was a doctor or a nurse.

Doesn't matter what you wore, you'd still sound like a nurse saying MDA and giggling about it.
 
/ are there areas of medicine that are safe from mid level encroachment?

Rad onc is safe. The nuclear regulatory commission ensures that only licensed rad oncs can direct radiation treatment. Even if that wasn't the case, no NP or PA could ever get enough training to do what a rad onc does, because the science and skills are not taught in their schooling (or med school really). Anatomical patterns of cancer spread, radiation biology, radiation physics, cancer biology, clinical judgment...these are all things that can only be learned over several years of residency. Not to mention rad oncs also have to be very familiar with surgical oncology and medical oncology because cancer care is so interdisciplinary.
 
I have been looking over job postings. MD/DO positions are different from PA and NP positions. MDs/DOs have to delegate tasks to everyone based on that person's scope of practice. MDs/DOs also have to evaluate all patient charts. I have not seen PAs and NPs given this task.
 
I have been looking over job postings. MD/DO positions are different from PA and NP positions. MDs/DOs have to delegate tasks to everyone based on that person's scope of practice. MDs/DOs also have to evaluate all patient charts. I have not seen PAs and NPs given this task.

The concern is that a practice that used to need 10 MDs now needs 2 MDs and 8 PAs/NPs. So the job postings will be different but theoretically there will be less MD jobs.
 
Rad onc is safe. The nuclear regulatory commission ensures that only licensed rad oncs can direct radiation treatment. Even if that wasn't the case, no NP or PA could ever get enough training to do what a rad onc does, because the science and skills are not taught in their schooling (or med school really). Anatomical patterns of cancer spread, radiation biology, radiation physics, cancer biology, clinical judgment...these are all things that can only be learned over several years of residency. Not to mention rad oncs also have to be very familiar with surgical oncology and medical oncology because cancer care is so interdisciplinary.

Yeah and a mid level could read the literature, work in a residency program, attend conferences etc etc and get "up to speed" of sorts. It takes longer and not streamlined like a formal residency but I don think it's that far out of the realm of possibilities.
 
The concern is that a practice that used to need 10 MDs now needs 2 MDs and 8 PAs/NPs. So the job postings will be different but theoretically there will be less MD jobs.

That is frustrating to see the ratio of providers hired based on need. So from what I understand MDs/DOs have open up private practices that tailor to specific groups of people.
 
That is frustrating to see the ratio of providers hired based on need. So from what I understand MDs/DOs have open up private practices that tailor to specific groups of people.

Not sure what you mean. The numbers I mention are made up and meant to illustrate a point to answer your question. Yes- while MD jobs have certain aspects that APPs can't do, the existence of APPs can certainly lead to less jobs for MDs in certain specialties and locations.
 
Rad onc is safe. The nuclear regulatory commission ensures that only licensed rad oncs can direct radiation treatment. Even if that wasn't the case, no NP or PA could ever get enough training to do what a rad onc does, because the science and skills are not taught in their schooling (or med school really). Anatomical patterns of cancer spread, radiation biology, radiation physics, cancer biology, clinical judgment...these are all things that can only be learned over several years of residency. Not to mention rad oncs also have to be very familiar with surgical oncology and medical oncology because cancer care is so interdisciplinary.

Eh, I wouldn't be so sure. I agree with doxy, everything you mention can be learned by immersion. Plus the rad onc job market will likely always be tight, so any mid level movement will probably have more of an impact.
 
Yeah and a mid level could read the literature, work in a residency program, attend conferences etc etc and get "up to speed" of sorts. It takes longer and not streamlined like a formal residency but I don think it's that far out of the realm of possibilities.

I doubt it. If they had the work ethic in the first place they wouldn't be a mid level and they don't have the foundation that we get in medical school. There are some people who are very competent no matter what they do but there is a large difference in general
 
It has in anesthesia, EM and pathology. And Radiology.
Hospitalists are next.
The surgeons will be the last to go. If you try to salary them and offer little incentive pay they'll just go down the road.

There's been basically no midlevel encroachment in any of those fields besides anesthesia.

The EM job market is as good as ever, which is why EM is getting more competitive every year. Do a lot of EDs use PAs/NPs? Sure, usually in a type of "fast track" role, they aren't exactly pushing EM physicians out of jobs.

Pathology and radiology caused their own problems, and it's really only pathology that seems to have the big problem with residents having to do multiple fellowships to get the kind of jobs they want. This has nothing to do with midlevels at all and more to do with overtraining residents in fields where attendings can easily work till they're 80. Even so, the radiology starting salaries are solidly in the high 200s to 300s...not exactly poverty on the streets.
 
I doubt it. If they had the work ethic in the first place they wouldn't be a mid level and they don't have the foundation that we get in medical school. There are some people who are very competent no matter what they do but there is a large difference in general

I agree. That is a path of high resistance considering there are so many other fields of medicine that get more coverage in schooling. The role of mid levels in rad onc will always be to just see basic on-treatment follow ups and maybe inpatient consults. MDs will always be deciding and directing radiation treatments. Would you trust an NP to be the authorized user planning and overseeing your stereotactic radiosurgery? The NRC says that only rad oncs can be authorized users.
 
There's been basically no midlevel encroachment in any of those fields besides anesthesia.

The EM job market is as good as ever, which is why EM is getting more competitive every year. Do a lot of EDs use PAs/NPs? Sure, usually in a type of "fast track" role, they aren't exactly pushing EM physicians out of jobs.

Pathology and radiology caused their own problems, and it's really only pathology that seems to have the big problem with residents having to do multiple fellowships to get the kind of jobs they want. This has nothing to do with midlevels at all and more to do with overtraining residents in fields where attendings can easily work till they're 80. Even so, the radiology starting salaries are solidly in the high 200s to 300s...not exactly poverty on the streets.
If you read above, the quote is in reference to those physicians becoming employees of large physician groups that are changing the traditional practice model, that's what I was referring to.
WRT the poverty comment, taking a job for ~300 that used to pay over 400 is a problem and you might be working significantly harder for less as well. That's what management companies are doing to anesthesia now. They're a bigger problem than CRNAs imho. But that's a topic for another thread.
 
Last edited:
I doubt it. If they had the work ethic in the first place they wouldn't be a mid level and they don't have the foundation that we get in medical school. There are some people who are very competent no matter what they do but there is a large difference in general

I agree. That is a path of high resistance considering there are so many other fields of medicine that get more coverage in schooling. The role of mid levels in rad onc will always be to just see basic on-treatment follow ups and maybe inpatient consults. MDs will always be deciding and directing radiation treatments. Would you trust an NP to be the authorized user planning and overseeing your stereotactic radiosurgery? The NRC says that only rad oncs can be authorized users.

This is the line of thinking in all specialties using mid-levels though... yet mid levels always end up doing a little more every year. Urology PA's are doing cystoscopy now. GI NPs are doing colonoscopies at Johns Hopkins. The slope is slippery. Sure, they will never replace MDs in any (most?) fields, but they will impact the job market.

Regarding ED physicians, sure the market is still good-- but at many places the MD:mid-level ratio is changing. At our main hospital, they recently expanded the ED and changed the ratio from 1 MD per 1 mid-level to 1 MD per 2 mid-levels. In this case, when the ED exapanded they opted for more mid-levels instead of more ED docs. The sky isn't falling, but we shouldn't ignore that these changes are happening.
 
Top