Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You do a fantastic job of not sounding immature, egotistical, or egomaniacal yourself. Kudos.
Whats going ON... Doctors helping CRNA and NP students more.
Started by desijigga
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
You do a fantastic job of not sounding immature, egotistical, or egomaniacal yourself. Kudos.
FWIW, as a now MS-0 I have to agree with babyRN, a lot of med-students on this forum seem to be huge arrogant jerks who care more about protecting future salaries than anything else.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
lol
Are you laughing at my apparent self incrimination or how naive I am?
I honestly don't know.
Honestly, this may be partly true. Med students and doctors are in general over-confident to the point of arrogance, and are often needlessly rude and dismissive of others' opinions.
That being said, the fact that the other ~specialists (I mostly mean NPs here, as they're the most extreme example) think that they can have even close to comparable knowledge with maybe 5% of the training ranges from laughable, to insulting, to dangerous. Call me cocky and arrogant all you want, but if you show me someone who trusts the opinion of someone with <1k hours of clinical training over someone with thousands of hours, I'll show you an idiot.
They (NPs) also would like equal reimbursement to physicians. This is despite the fact that they claim physicians are all about the money and using NPs instead would save money in healthcare.
Third year med students have more training (both in the basic sciences and clinical hours) than NPs/DNPs by halfway through third year. Should we let them practice independently too?! I mean, it only makes logical sense right?
I didn't claim it was a good idea for NPs to practice independently, I was just pointing out that lots of med-students on this forum come across has huge jerks and often money/power seems to primarily be fueling their anger.
I'm pretty certain that if NP's/CRNA's were given complete practice independence, but were only making 50K a year, then 90% of the med-students who claim to be "motivated by patient safety" would probably not be all up in arms anymore.
Are you negating the value of patient satisfaction in the marketplace or just it's connection with quality care?
The problem with most of those studies is that they were done at clinics where the midlevel providers in question were employees. The difference that makes is simple. They can take as much time as they want with the patients (and in many practices they are given the "sick calls"/acute cases which normally do not take much time) and it would seem obvious that with more time with the patient comes higher satisfaction. The physicians, by contrast, are often partners in the business and even those who are considered employees have their income tied directly to the number of patients they see in a day (thanks to the way they get reimbursed). In addition, they often get the more complex patients. Unfortunately, those things are not taken into account.
To clarify, I'm negating the connection between patient satisfaction and quality medical care. A patient generally doesn't have the background in physio, path, pathophys, pharm, etc, to judge whether the provider is providing quality care. And that's the reason they come to you in the first place! Patients, in my limited clinical experience, absolutely love it if a provider (physician or otherwise) spends more than a few minutes talking to them and they tend to hate providers who are abrupt with them, spend less time with them, etc (none of which suggest that they're receiving lower quality care).
I don't think that's true. It doesn't matter how much NPs/DNPs make. It's the fact that they're claiming that they're equivalent (or, in some cases, superior) to physicians while receiving only a fraction of the training that's far more insulting, IMO.
Who's the bigger, more arrogant jerk?! The med students/physicians claiming NPs/DNPs do not have sufficient training to practice independently? Or the NPs/DNPs claiming that they're equivalent/superior to physicians and demanding equal reimbursements when they receive less than 10% of the training physicians receive? If you ask me, I'd say that the latter stance comes off as far more arrogant than the former...
👍 exactly, once you start school and You hear the nurses say they are the exact same as physicians you Know they're full of **** because you wont have enough time to learn everything in 4 years, let alone the 2 "rigorous" yrs of NP school. It would make you mad too that your education is being devalued
Not only is it arrogant its dangerous.
This is absurd. I don't think chiropractors or accupuncturists get much respect from the legitimate medical world either, and they're not exactly raking in the dough.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
There is a big reason why there aren't 20 threads on SDN a week attacking acupuncturists and witch doctors- physicians feel their income is not threatened by them.
If you notice the general stances of the forum, on pretty much any issue they align with the option that would maximize physician income. This is completely/normal and natural, but the problem is when people won't admit that. Its kind of convenient that "whats best for patients" seems to also invariably be "whats best for MD's bank accounts"
The physicians didnt start this fight the nursing associations did. Why?
so they could get more $$$$ but at the expense of patient care.
Its interesting how doctors are getting more and more overburdened with saftey restrictions and paperwork to that effect, yet we are completely ok with letting someone with a fraction of the training practice independently.
Its not just a threat to banks accounts. Its a threat to the entire profession and healthcare in general, all under the guise of patient care.
These nurses want the same pay yet have so much less training. Yet doctors are painted as the greedy ones.
Physician payments have been slipping for years. However like i said before this is more than just an attack on our bank accounts.
I think you're wrong about why there are anti-nursing midlevel posts frequently on SDN. The biggest reason, IMO, that you're seeing a lot of anti-NP/DNP posts these days is simple: many articles are being put out these days where NPs/DNPs are quoted saying that they're equal/superior to physicians and that they deserve equal reimbursements. If voodoo practitioners start doing that, I'm very sure that you'd see just as many anti-voodoo posts on SDN as well. It all comes down to who's being vocal enough to get noticed.
And I doubt that physicians are threatened that they're going to lose income. Even if every single NP/DNP suddenly became fully independent, there's still likely to be more than enough patients to go around. Not only that, if NPs/DNPs start getting reimbursed at the same rate as physicians, who do think patients are going to want to see? The physician with nearly a decade of training or the nursing midlevel with around 2 years (most of which can be done online)? If it's going to cost the patient the same no matter who they see, this is pretty much a no-brainer. So, really, your argument that this comes down to physicians' bank accounts doesn't really make much sense.
A reimbursement cut might go through, though, if NPs/DNPs everywhere became independent. However, nurses have a ridiculously powerful lobby and they want to be reimbursed as much as physicians are now. So, I have a hard time believing that physicians are acting against nursing midlevels in order to protect their incomes.
Ultimately, it comes down to providing quality medical care. It is about the patients and not exposing them to the undertrained (and the dangers associated with that). There is not a single study that doesn't have major design flaws (not minor ones) that suggests the care provided by nursing midlevels is equal to that of attending physicians. If such data existed and physicians still were against this movement, then I would be more inclined to agree with you. Until then, I completely disagree with what you've said.
Last edited:
