Started new job, but unexpectedly I have an NP to supervise...

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

Ψ-117

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
82
Reaction score
42
After starting at my new job, I learned that I am going to be supervising an NP. Supervision of other providers is not written in my contract, so there has not been any discussion about how I will be compensated for it. Has anyone had a surprise like this when starting a new job? Any ideas on how to resolve this without creating conflict as a new employee?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
I'd secretly be pissed but would be polite about it. Go to the people who hired you and say "Supervision of other providers is not written in my contract. There has not been any discussion about how I will be compensated for it." If there is a contract that says you have to stay there, and in that contract supervision of other providers is not written in there, then the other option is to leave and find a job down the street because they breached the contract. It's a lucky thing that this happened so early because it sounds like if the status quo were to happen then you would become unhappy down the line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
Part of contract law is "consideration". A contract which does not provide compensation in some form or another (I.e., consideration) is not legally enforceable. Which is really screws up any prenup I'd make.

I would go to your "boss" and say something like, "hey, I don't think you realized that by requiring supervision without offering consideration you made the contract unenforceable. Since I'm being paid by productivity, it's in my best interest to only do work that generates revenue for me. I do not want to be losing money by taking time away to supervise someone. But if you offered compensation for supervision, it would make the contract enforceable and incentivize my participation. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
You have to bring this up, or you will be a door mat for the duration of your time there. How you handle it is your decision, but I would not let this pass without a change in compensation structure.

What would really piss me off is that this NP was hired, evidently, after you were hired, and you were not informed of your supervisory role, much less were you consulted on the hiring. If I am going to supervise a new hire, in the very least I would want a say in the hiring.

Finally, what does "supervise" mean? Will you be hand holding, consulted on every patient, signing off on every patient the NP sees? Sheesh...you need to be figuring out your patients, etc., in this new job, not figuring it out for someone else...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
NPs will vary greatly in their knowledge and experience. I believe they do 1 year or less of training in psychiatry so they could have as much knowledge as a pgy1. If they have been working for over 20 years they could have as much or more knowledge than a new attending.
 
It depends on if you want to do it or not. If you want to supervise the NP insist on negotiating reasonable compensation. Maybe an additional $20-30k per year for supervising a full time NP. If not just refuse. You never agreed to do it. Personally I would refuse because it doesn't make sense to take on the liability of a mid level's patients who you will probably never even see yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
NPs will vary greatly in their knowledge and experience. I believe they do 1 year or less of training in psychiatry so they could have as much knowledge as a pgy1.
A lot of them are more at the medical student level. There are many dangerously under-trained NPs out there. It's only going to get worse now that you can get your NP from places like an online program at University of Phoenix. Some of these NP programs accept 100% of the people who apply to them. The standards for NP programs are nothing like the standards for medical school.

Personally, I think it is incredibly shady that they didn't tell you something that important about the job until you started. If you do agree to do it, I absolutely think you should be paid for it. However, personally, I would refuse to supervise an NP in any capacity in my job. Why would I agree to take on liability in order to train a less-qualified person to do my job? Call me when the hospital administrators are training people to do their jobs at a lower amount of pay and THEN maybe I'll consider training NPs to do my job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
You signed the NP's paperwork? Why?

That was not your responsibility. You basically just volunteered to work extra for free with added liability.

I would immediately have informed the NP that you were not informed of her/his presence and refuse. I would also have commented about the ethics of a new employer omitting such vital information. I would have gone straight to admin to have a lengthy talk and possibly quit then.

You are being walked on top of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
Did you sign a contract with the old "perform other duties as assigned" clause? This is not really what that clause is supposed to be used for but I guess they could make the argument.
 
NPs will vary greatly in their knowledge and experience. I believe they do 1 year or less of training in psychiatry so they could have as much knowledge as a pgy1. If they have been working for over 20 years they could have as much or more knowledge than a new attending.

I politely disagree with the analysis of how knowledge an experience interact. Our training in medical sciences. Our systematic introduction to all the core fields of medicine. And our system of training in residency with it's layered complexities and graduated progression of iterative management discussions with a variety of attendings. Our opportunities, yet not completely lost, for excellent training in psychotherapy. All of this. Are living, embodied, perceptual constructs though which the knowledge of experience can enter consciousness and inhabit a meaningful place there.

I'll put it like this. You take a person who could barely graduate high school. And put them on an assembly line. For 30 years. Do we suppose they would have a clue about how to develop AI systems and industrial design and engineering systems that would be better placed at the core of a constellation of emerging world economies than in the rust belt... where this person graduated high school. No...

So. Experience. While potentially useful. In the right consciousness. Doesn't touch an explanation of the difference between their training and ours. Which, I think, as others have pointed out, doesn't even have to be held to any account of a quality product in the current 3rd party payor clinical market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I politely disagree with the analysis of how knowledge an experience interact. Our training in medical sciences. Our systematic introduction to all the core fields of medicine. And our system of training in residency with it's layered complexities and graduated progression of iterative management discussions with a variety of attendings. Our opportunities, yet not completely lost, for excellent training in psychotherapy. All of this. Are living, embodied, perceptual constructs though which the knowledge of experience can enter consciousness and inhabit a meaningful place there.

I'll put it like this. You take a person who could barely graduate high school. And put them on an assembly line. For 30 years. Do we suppose they would have a clue about how to develop AI systems and industrial design and engineering systems that would be better placed at the core of a constellation of emerging world economies than in the rust belt... where this person graduated high school. No...

So. Experience. While potentially useful. In the right consciousness. Doesn't touch an explanation of the difference between their training and ours. Which, I think, as others have pointed out, doesn't even have to be held to any account of a quality product in the current 3rd party payor clinical market.

You make a good point. An NP may know what to do but not why it is done. I once by accident saw an NP's patient when I was a fellow. She just finished her training a few months prior. This guy had alcoholism, recently been sent out from jail due to seizure, not on any seizure medications and was manic. I stopped his elavil and wanted to temporarily add a benzo till he got seen by neuro. For some reason I did not want to add a mood stabilizer at that point. She disagreed with adding the benzo and was perplexed why I would stop elavil in the manic patient. She felt he needed elavil for his insomnia. (In jail elavil is the the number 1 treatment for insomnia it seems). She was not impressed when I explained to her the elavil can in fact make his mania and sleep worse. She was impressed when I told her the elavil will increase his seizure risk. I feel my med students would have understood this. However, NPs who were working for decades would understand the limits of their knowledge. The ones who graduated don't know enough to know what they don't know.
 
Part of contract law is "consideration". A contract which does not provide compensation in some form or another (I.e., consideration) is not legally enforceable. Which is really screws up any prenup I'd make.

I would go to your "boss" and say something like, "hey, I don't think you realized that by requiring supervision without offering consideration you made the contract unenforceable. Since I'm being paid by productivity, it's in my best interest to only do work that generates revenue for me. I do not want to be losing money by taking time away to supervise someone. But if you offered compensation for supervision, it would make the contract enforceable and incentivize my participation. "

OP, please do not do this. Consideration can be compensation, but it is not necessarily so, and the way it is being formulated above as a kind of quid pro quo is absolutely, horrifically wrong. Without quoting Lord Denning or getting into peppercorns, just understand that it's much more complex than the above.

Futhermore, if one has a contract for work and the contract sets out that you will do work and receive money in exchange for said work, there is consideration. The contract could be void wholly or partially for many other reasons, but not for lack of consideration. Now this NP thing could be an issue WRT your contract but no one whose advice is worth talking would opine on this without reviewing the contract.

It may be very tempting to Google legal concepts and apply them to one's situation (or however the quoted person came to their conclusion) but you run the very real risk of appearing as I would if I walked into your workplace with a some WebMD printouts and started diagnosing people.

From your friendly neighborhood employment lawyer

The above is information not advice
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
OP, please do not do this. Consideration can be compensation, but it is not necessarily so, and the way it is being formulated above as a kind of quid pro quo is absolutely, horrifically wrong. Without quoting Lord Denning or getting into peppercorns, just understand that it's much more complex than the above.

Futhermore, if one has a contract for work and the contract sets out that you will do work and receive money in exchange for said work, there is consideration. The contract could be void wholly or partially for many other reasons, but not for lack of consideration. Now this NP thing could be an issue WRT your contract but no one whose advice is worth talking would opine on this without reviewing the contract.

It may be very tempting to Google legal concepts and apply them to one's situation (or however the quoted person came to their conclusion) but you run the very real risk of appearing as I would if I walked into your workplace with a some WebMD printouts and started diagnosing people.

From your friendly neighborhood employment lawyer

The above is information not advice


while i am more than willing to admit my knowledge does not approximate that of an attorney, I did not arrive at this knowledge base by "googling" anything.
 
Thanks everyone for your responses. I also consulted with my contract attorney who agreed there should be something written in the contract and compensation should be included. Regarding the NP, it turns out she has some experience as an RN but she only graduated from NP school a couple of weeks ago.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the NP, it turns out she has some experience as an RN but she only graduated from NP school a couple of weeks ago.

If she has solid inpatient psych experience that should make a significant difference with regard to her diagnostic skills and ability to prescribe. If not I would be hesitant to take on that burden, compensation or not.

You will learn her strengths/weaknesses and hopefully as a new grad she will be appreciative of your insight and guidance so this will be the start of a pleasant working relationship.
 
Regarding the NP, it turns out she has some experience as an RN but she only graduated from NP school a couple of weeks ago.

Wow! It gets worse. I would have resigned effective immediately.

The process of recruiting, hiring and credentialing usually takes months. For months, they kept you in the dark about one of your primary responsibilities and highest liability risk. In my opinion, that is unethical, and I would question all of their decisions.

A new grad should receive many multiple of hours of your time per week. Knowledge at that level is so low that every patient should be run by you. It'll affect your production level and increase time. Without a bonus of over 25% of your entire compensation, it is insulting. Maybe much higher if you have production bonuses that will be lost.

On top of that, you weren't included in the hiring process. How intelligent is the NP? How well do y'all get along? How responsive to criticism is he/she? Do you have an agreement with the NP on what medications he/she can prescribe under your name? How broadly will they understand scope of care? How much dedicated/paid time do you get to review charts and give lectures.

A new NP is starting with a new psychiatrist who wasn't informed of the hire and the boss is unavailable at this crucial time? Hahaha. An addendum is needed? Try a huge addendum! May as well start the contract over.

Anything short of outrage on your part shocks me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Anything short of outrage on your part shocks me.

I agree with everything TexasPhysician wrote, but especially the above.

Maybe I am a hot head, but I would be livid if this had happened to me. I would be gone, baby, gone from this gig.
 
Administration is a bunch of night school mbas that exploit the fact that physicians are usually inherently altruistic. I remember when I started my pay was delayed in breach of my contract I was told "it will take a few weeks to sort out", the next day I sent a letter to the CEO reporting that I wouldn't be coming to work until I was paid. The CEO drove a handwritten check to my house 2 hours later. Hold their feet to the fire, it's the only thing that works.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
A decent compromise if you can't just up and quit is to request the additional compensation and then require that you get one of the existing NP's in the practice while a more experienced doc gets the newbie. The other doc will probably howl because the new NP will kill their productivity but from the sounds of the experienced docs her a newbie Psychiatrist and newbie NP is going to be a disaster.
 
Administration is a bunch of night school mbas that exploit the fact that physicians are usually inherently altruistic. I remember when I started my pay was delayed in breach of my contract I was told "it will take a few weeks to sort out", the next day I sent a letter to the CEO reporting that I wouldn't be coming to work until I was paid. The CEO drove a handwritten check to my house 2 hours later. Hold their feet to the fire, it's the only thing that works.

I first read that as "inherently autistic." If not altruistic (or autistic), then too docile and obedient. You don't get into medical school and through residency by rocking the boat.

Anyways, good psychological jiu jitsu. Respect.

I agree with TexasPhysician that they're deliberately trying to take advantage of OP. If OP lets this slide, they'll push him even more and it will be even more outrageous the next time (i.e. here is the second and the third newbie NP you will have to supervise and sign off on).
 
Last edited:
Administration is a bunch of night school mbas that exploit the fact that physicians are usually inherently altruistic. I remember when I started my pay was delayed in breach of my contract I was told "it will take a few weeks to sort out", the next day I sent a letter to the CEO reporting that I wouldn't be coming to work until I was paid. The CEO drove a handwritten check to my house 2 hours later. Hold their feet to the fire, it's the only thing that works.
cv6.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Read over the supervision requirements in your state before you talk to administration. I was put in a similar position two months into my first job.
Not part of the interview process, not even told about it until they'd already had her sign a contract. It was badly run and I don't think anyone in administration understood that NP's couldn't work independently and that a certain percentage of charts needed to be reviewed and signed by the MD every month. You need to get a reasonable amount of time set aside without it impacting productivity. It turned out that the NP was ok, but I don't know what I could have done if she hadn't been. They hired a bad one at the same time, luckily in a different clinic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
For anyone interested in an update, I complained and held a meeting. My supervisor profusely apologized, and appeared sincere that he honestly thought this was already in my contract. (Earlier this year we had discussed the possibility of supervision, as I had inquired about it, but it wasn't anything set up at that time so we never went into detail about it.) He is giving me the option to either accept or reject this supervisory role (and if I choose the latter, he will look into seeing if other providers would work with this NP). So it's not a huge problem at this time; if I don't like it I can still tell him no thank you. Without getting into specifics here, I would be expected to review a small percentage of the NP's notes (might be something like 5 notes per week), provide guidance as needed, and I would receive additional compensation for this work. I can choose which types of cases the NP would see, and I would approve the hiring of any future NPs should I wish for more. After our meeting today, I was feeling better about the situation, and I was given time to make my decision.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
For anyone interested in an update, I complained and held a meeting. My boss profusely apologized, and appeared sincere that he honestly thought this was already in my contract. (Earlier this year we had discussed the possibility of supervision, as I had inquired about it, but it wasn't anything set up at that time so we never went into detail about it.) My employer is giving me the option to either accept or reject this supervisory role (and if I choose the latter, they will look into seeing if other providers would work with this NP). So it's not a huge problem at this time; if I don't like it I can still tell them no thank you. Without getting into specifics here, I would be expected to review a small percentage of the NP's notes (might be something like 5 notes per week), provide guidance as needed, and I would receive additional compensation for this work. I can choose which types of cases the NP would see, and I would approve the hiring of any future NPs should I wish for more. After our meeting today, I was feeling better about the situation, and I was given time to make my decision.

Maybe I missed it, but is the "boss" an MD? Or an MBA/managerial type?

This supervisory role sounds like a lot more than just reviewing 5 notes a week. What is the structure of the additional compensation? Is it per note, or per hour for your time, or what?
 
Maybe I missed it, but is the "boss" an MD? Or an MBA/managerial type?

This supervisory role sounds like a lot more than just reviewing 5 notes a week. What is the structure of the additional compensation? Is it per note, or per hour for your time, or what?

The "boss" will quote the minimum required notes reviewed by state law. The problem is that the physician maintains the liability and should do A LOT more than the minimum.

The OP doesn't seem to grasp the severity of the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
The problem is if you are the supervising doctor you are responsible for every note, every patient, every bad outcome... even if you never reviewed it as your "5 notes per week" and even if it was an extremely challenging case the NP never brought up in supervision. I don't understand why anyone would supervise mid-levels unless you are employing them directly and they are adding to your practice bottom line. And even then the liability potential downside outweighs any increased revenue for me.
 
I understand the liability risk, which is the main reason I am hesitating on this. As far as the workload is concerned, the expectation is that I review a certain percentage of the NP's notes (though starting out I would plan to review every note). Also, I can determine how patients are given to the NP. For example, I could decide to turn over patients I have treated whom I consider to be stable, or I can decide that she only treat straightforward cases in general. Initially she won't have very many patients to see; she isn't going to inherit a panel of patients, but rather, will start with zero and build from there.
 
Last edited:
For example, I could decide to turn over patients I have treated whom I consider to be stable, or I can decide that she only treat straightforward cases in general. Initially she won't have very many patients to see; she isn't going to inherit a panel of patients, but rather, will start with zero and build from there.

Although time consuming, I'd think it would be wise to have her sit in with you for a few days while you see patients so you can get a feel for her aptitude. Realistically it can be difficult to decide which cases are "straightforward" unless you have actually done the eval so although she might push back if the psychiatrist does the initial evaluation then passes off subsequent med checks to the NP that would ensure more control over diagnosis and starting the patient on an appropriate medication regimen. She will need to trust your skills and be willing to do her initial visit as a med check but beggars can't be choosers. Hopefully she's sharp and although still a liability you can forge a good working relationship.

Worth noting, forgive me if this has already been addressed, more and more FNPs or Adult NPs are jumping on the psych bandwagon due to the higher rate of pay as well as their ego? codependent urges?. It is crucial, imo, that you know that your NP has completed and is board certified in psychiatry. I believe ANCC is the only certifying board for this NP specialty. Many state's nursing boards don't allow NPs to practice outside their specialty when there is a specific board certification however even that hasn't stopped the charlatans from working exclusively in psych and would likely result in a legal slam dunk in the case of an adverse event.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Just to play devils advocate a bit. Isn't a major point of contention amongst many on the board that midlevels should be supervised by a physician? I know that in primary care here that is how it is set up. Each midlevel reports or is assigned to a physician with the exception being the psychiatric NP unfortunately. So most other specialties appear to be okay with overseeing midlevels. What is the difference in this case?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Just to play devils advocate a bit. Isn't a major point of contention amongst many on the board that midlevels should be supervised by a physician? I know that in primary care here that is how it is set up. Each midlevel reports or is assigned to a physician with the exception being the psychiatric NP unfortunately. So most other specialties appear to be okay with overseeing midlevels. What is the difference in this case?
In procedural specialties mid levels do the scut work and free up the physician to do procedures. In primary care I suspect the change has happened slowly enough and physicians have such little leverage and so much patient load demand, they've been coerced into supervising mid levels and can't turn back. It's an evil irony that family doctors are training their replacements, and all the while keeping all of the liability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
In procedural specialties mid levels do the scut work and free up the physician to do procedures. In primary care I suspect the change has happened slowly enough and physicians have such little leverage and so much patient load demand, they've been coerced into supervising mid levels and can't turn back. It's an evil irony that family doctors are training their replacements, and all the while keeping all of the liability.
But, isn't this how it works? In states where NPs have independent practice rights, the doctors are not liable for them.
 
Just to play devils advocate a bit. Isn't a major point of contention amongst many on the board that midlevels should be supervised by a physician? I know that in primary care here that is how it is set up. Each midlevel reports or is assigned to a physician with the exception being the psychiatric NP unfortunately. So most other specialties appear to be okay with overseeing midlevels. What is the difference in this case?

Well, for the OP, he was not told about it, it wasn't in his contract, and compensation for supervision wasn't spelled out.

For me, I don't want a job where I am supervising any midlevel, if I can avoid it. And I intend to avoid it, along with avoiding call. And I sure as heck don't want to show up for the first day of my job and find out I am supervising a midlevel without having agreed to it in advance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
But, isn't this how it works? In states where NPs have independent practice rights, the doctors are not liable for them.
True to some extent. However even in independent practice states, some clinics and hospitals require mid levels be supervised by physicians for liability reasons. Namely to shift the liability from the clinic/hospital onto the physician.
 
True to some extent. However even in independent practice states, some clinics and hospitals require mid levels be supervised by physicians for liability reasons. Namely to shift the liability from the clinic/hospital onto the physician.
They really are a pain in the butt.
 
I believe ANCC is the only certifying board for this NP specialty. Many state's nursing boards don't allow NPs to practice outside their specialty when there is a specific board certification however even that hasn't stopped the charlatans from working exclusively in psych and would likely result in a legal slam dunk in the case of an adverse event.

This is correct. For psych, the NP must be board certified by ANCC as either an adult or family PMHNP (family certification covers the lifespan and allows for the treatment of children. Adult is 14 and up). If the NP is not boarded in psych, they should not be working in psych - in any capacity; this is practicing outside the scope of practice. Nursing boards do not take kindly to this, btw. Additionally, it is my understanding that in order to bill and be reimbursed by Medicare in psych, the NP must be boarded in psych in order to be reimbursed.
 
Depending on who I ask about this, I get mixed responses. It seems most posters on this thread are opposed to supervising mid-levels. On the other hand, when I talk with people I know personally, they are generally supportive of the idea of supervision. One such person, an attending of mine from fellowship, thought it was great that I am being given the option to accept or decline this supervision opportunity and he thought the pay was fair. It was also his understanding that liability would primarily belong to the NP, and that any liability I might have would be minimal. My contract attorney said that the compensation being offered is fair and in line with what he typically sees, and he also agreed that my liability would be only slightly increased. I haven't quite decided what to do about it though.

By the way, just an observation here... I don't visit SDN too often, but last time I was here, it seemed that most posters in this forum were not concerned in the least about mid-level providers entering psychiatry. Now, it seems that there is great concern about training mid-levels to replace psychiatrists. Why is that? Has there been a significant influx of new providers in this field?
 
Last edited:
It was also his understanding that liability would primarily belong to the NP, and that any liability I might have would be minimal. My contract attorney said that the compensation being offered is fair and in line with what he typically sees, and he also agreed that my liability would be only slightly increased.
It is really hard to be successfully sued as an outpatient psychiatrist (or NP for that matter) because the standard of care is so low in our field. But it is not true that liability would primarily belong to the NP. This is due to two doctrines. One is "captain of the ship". Physicians, as the most qualified healthcare professional, and typically leaders of the team are seen as captains of the ship and thus liable for any negligence on the part of anyone working under them. the second is "respondeat superior" which literally means "let the master respond" and essentially means that you can be appropriately named as party for a lawsuit for any negligence committed by anyone under your supervision. Typically when a negligence/malpractice suit is filed, they name everyone and then whittle it down. Even med students get named. But they really want to go after those with the deepest pockets. First is the hospital or organization, because no one likes corporations and people feel better about suing faceless organizations. Second is the physician because they get paid the most. So it is true that your liability only slightly increases because the chance of the NP being successfully sued is so low to begin with. But, if there is a successful suit, they will go after you because why go after the monkey, if you can have the organ grinder? It would not matter if you have never even heard of the patient in question (in fact that would make it worse!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
By the way, just an observation here... I don't visit SDN too often, but last time I was here, it seemed that most posters in this forum were not concerned in the least about mid-level providers entering psychiatry. Now, it seems that there is great concern about training mid-levels to replace psychiatrists. Why is that? Has there been a significant influx of new providers in this field?

There has been a marked increase in the numbers of NPs and it is predicted to continue as now every As Seen on TV U has a plethora of NP programs and will accept anyone who can fog up a mirror held directly under their nose and write a tuition check. Psychiatry is especially vulnerable to this new trend because psychNPs historically make considerably more than FNPs, there has been the much publicized " mental health provider shortage" and as in medicine there is the thought that psych is easy, sigh. To make matters worse as I've complained about ad nauseam most NP programs no longer require psych or even RN experience making the brief journey to NP even more flimsy, in my opinion.

Vast Increase in Number of Nurse Practitioners In Past 10 Years
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
There has been a marked increase in the numbers of NPs and it is predicted to continue as now every As Seen on TV U has a plethora of NP programs and will accept anyone who can fog up a mirror held directly under their nose and write a tuition check. Psychiatry is especially vulnerable to this new trend because psychNPs historically make considerably more than FNPs, there has been the much publicized " mental health provider shortage" and as in medicine there is the thought that psych is easy, sigh. To make matters worse as I've complained about ad nauseam most NP programs no longer require psych or even RN experience making the brief journey to NP even more flimsy, in my opinion.

Vast Increase in Number of Nurse Practitioners In Past 10 Years

Exactly. Some of their programs are 100% online. It has become too easy to move up the nursing ranks.

Quality has continually been slipping.

Unless completely independent, any lawsuit that includes the NP will include the physician. Its basic math that any attorney will follow.

Employers add NP's because they profit more with them as many physicians agree to supervise them for low bonuses. Utilizing an intelligent NP to your own practice could be a 6 figure yearly bonus. Are you being offered 6 figures to supervise?

Medical boards hold the physician responsible for inadequate supervision of prescribing. A colleague of mine had his license pulled for not catching the documented benzos and pain pills Rx by his NP in combination. Had he reviewed every chart carefully, this wouldn't have happened. That was 4 years ago, and his appeals are still pending.

With much higher liability, significant time sink, lower quality graduates, medical license risks, and poor employer bonuses, it makes 0 sense to supervise a NP outside of private practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Medical boards hold the physician responsible for inadequate supervision of prescribing. A colleague of mine had his license pulled for not catching the documented benzos and pain pills Rx by his NP in combination. Had he reviewed every chart carefully, this wouldn't have happened. That was 4 years ago, and his appeals are still pending.

That's a bingo!
 
Employers add NP's because they profit more with them as many physicians agree to supervise them for low bonuses. Utilizing an intelligent NP to your own practice could be a 6 figure yearly bonus. Are you being offered 6 figures to supervise?

That is something that I DO NOT understand. The insurance pays the same money for the CPT codes regardless if the provider is a MD or NP. That means the NP can generate a similar amount of money to the employer.
Why would the MD supervise the NP for less than 20-30k/year?
 
Why would the MD supervise the NP for less than 20-30k/year?

20-30k is way too low. The MD is responsible for added liability, teaching, consults, and chart review. Liability is not only added insurance fees (which do exist), but also the risk of losing multiple clinic days to a lawsuit. Lost clinic days would affect production and related bonuses. If production affects a bonus, more clinic hours could be more rewarding than NP related duties. That's a lot of time and risk with loss of bonuses.

Anything less than 50k is an insult in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
That is something that I DO NOT understand. The insurance pays the same money for the CPT codes regardless if the provider is a MD or NP. That means the NP can generate a similar amount of money to the employer.
Why would the MD supervise the NP for less than 20-30k/year?

Medicare (under some circumstances- not when billing is incident to) pays for NP services at an 85% rate. Some private insurers follow this policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm curious, what would be appropriate for a psychNP to be doing (with and without supervision)?
 
There has been a marked increase in the numbers of NPs and it is predicted to continue as now every As Seen on TV U has a plethora of NP programs and will accept anyone who can fog up a mirror held directly under their nose and write a tuition check. Psychiatry is especially vulnerable to this new trend because psychNPs historically make considerably more than FNPs, there has been the much publicized " mental health provider shortage" and as in medicine there is the thought that psych is easy, sigh. To make matters worse as I've complained about ad nauseam most NP programs no longer require psych or even RN experience making the brief journey to NP even more flimsy, in my opinion.





Vast Increase in Number of Nurse Practitioners In Past 10 Years

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top