$500 an hour not bad for a psych NP

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
We wouldn't even have independent midlevels if the federal government would increase residency positions enough to prevent a physician shortage. This is another example of how it was just about the money to the government.
For most people, it's about the money all the time. But you should also keep in mind that nurses outnumber doctors by a wide margin, and their largely middle class families love and support them. Catering to a narrow, wealthy elite doesn't generate the votes like throwing a bone to nurses while also claiming you "expanded access"

Members don't see this ad.
 
There are plenty of unsupervised (or minimally supervised so that the physician couldn't actually know what's really going on) out there as well and the trend is moving that way.

The current private practice cash model is largely dependant on out of network benefits. If universal medi-something kicks in and reimbursement craps out, it's going to get real hard to convince most people to pay $300 to see an MD when the NP is free, and definitely not on a recurring basis. Certainly not if the NP gives them some Xanax first appointment and it WORKS until it doesn't. There just aren't enough rich people who will be choosers.

And if you think that malpractice is going to even things out, remember, they will be held to a nursing standard and judged by peers. See Shelton vs. urgent care.

We all will probably be fine, but the next generation will enter a profession that is completely destroyed. I hope I am wrong.
 
There are plenty of unsupervised (or minimally supervised so that the physician couldn't actually know what's really going on) out there as well and the trend is moving that way.

The current private practice cash model is largely dependant on out of network benefits. If universal medi-something kicks in and reimbursement craps out, it's going to get real hard to convince most people to pay $300 to see an MD when the NP is free, and definitely not on a recurring basis. Certainly not if the NP gives them some Xanax first appointment and it WORKS until it doesn't. There just aren't enough rich people who will be choosers.

And if you think that malpractice is going to even things out, remember, they will be held to a nursing standard and judged by peers. See Shelton vs. urgent care.

I mean, I can find plenty of NPs that will gladly side with me against bad NPs...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I mean, I can find plenty of NPs that will gladly side with me against bad NPs...
Is it really about bad or good NPs or the fact that the minimum requirements are just too low? I'm sure all the good NPs you know have lots of years of training under a physician. The problem is the law has set the minimums way too low and the people likely to do grifting as the owner of a private practice are the bad NPs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is from an NP on reddit, “MDs provide better care” argument is not founded in outcome data. States with independent practice NPs have better outcomes at reduced cost. I’d cite the data but I’m on mobile and the evidence is so prevalent you can find it on your own. The only argument that MDs have is NPs put less time into their credentials, but more time does not equal better outcomes. If you haven’t noticed, I’m a PMHNP. Sure there are a lot of trash NPs out there, and I would argue there are just as many trash psychiatrists lol.

Having said all of that, I am of the opinion that RNs should require an amount of psych experience, like an RNC before being admitted to an msn program. My floor clinical experience as an RN gave me a huge leg up on my colleagues. I would argue I’m better at detox than any psychiatrist we have in our hospital, and the ED physicians I do consults for don’t know the difference between a COWS and a CIWA... If you don’t have experience you are going to provide poor care. Hell, half the problems I am trying to fix in my outpatient practice are from PCPs who are dabbling in psychiatry..."
 
This is from an NP on reddit, “MDs provide better care” argument is not founded in outcome data. States with independent practice NPs have better outcomes at reduced cost. I’d cite the data but I’m on mobile and the evidence is so prevalent you can find it on your own. The only argument that MDs have is NPs put less time into their credentials, but more time does not equal better outcomes. If you haven’t noticed, I’m a PMHNP. Sure there are a lot of trash NPs out there, and I would argue there are just as many trash psychiatrists lol.

Having said all of that, I am of the opinion that RNs should require an amount of psych experience, like an RNC before being admitted to an msn program. My floor clinical experience as an RN gave me a huge leg up on my colleagues. I would argue I’m better at detox than any psychiatrist we have in our hospital, and the ED physicians I do consults for don’t know the difference between a COWS and a CIWA... If you don’t have experience you are going to provide poor care. Hell, half the problems I am trying to fix in my outpatient practice are from PCPs who are dabbling in psychiatry..."

Kind of a stickler for research, but neither side really has much in terms of quality outcomes research. I'd love to see something if there is new work or citations that you have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Kind of a stickler for research, but neither side really has much in terms of quality outcomes research. I'd love to see something if there is new work or citations that you have.

I see the difference daily. It’s like black and white. It’s a waste of resources to do it. The problem is that good research requires strict limitations, procedures, and end points. Either that or an abundance of generalized data over years.

Given a protocol with something like diabetes, I could teach a high school dropout to manage the numbers equal to a physician. Anything unusual with the numbers or symptoms should prompt the physician to consult. The end result will be the high school dropout managing diabetes equal to the physician. You don’t need research to prove this, but midlevel groups did it.

We could probably do something similar with CBT over 12 sessions with a strict protocol. If we only look at 1 issue with a designed evidence based protocol for that issue, I bet my office assistant could run it equal to a PhD. The problem is that health care isn’t always 1 simple issue with a designed protocol. A PhD can handle any other issues that arise from counseling and identify other problems. My office assistant can’t. Where is the research showing an office assistant can’t perform CBT equal to a PhD? It doesn’t exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Here’s the thing though. This only works in areas where there’s literally NOBODY else for psych. In fact, if I wanted to live in where these NPs are living right now, Id run my ass over there ASAP. If you’re the kind of person who’s paying 500 bucks an hour out of pocket (or 200-300 out of pocket), you’re gonna be a much more discerning customer than your average Joe at the CMHC. Who do you think the person who’s paying this kind of money is going to rather see, an NP or MD/DO?


As for the issue about physicians charging less, they’re always welcome to charge more, nobody’s stopping them in the private pay world. But what you might find is that it gets more difficult to fill a practice if you go from 250 to 350 an hour.
Also this is again what they charge...it’s like eBay. Just cause the beanie baby is listed for 5000 bucks doesn’t mean anyone is actually gonna buy it for that...or they might. They may or may not actually have many patients.

This. The person can say they charge $10k per hour. But the people who can pay that want quality. So will they see the nurse ? Unlikely. Most wealthy patients likely have some sort of medical knowledge and will choose a physician.
 
I see the difference daily. It’s like black and white. It’s a waste of resources to do it. The problem is that good research requires strict limitations, procedures, and end points. Either that or an abundance of generalized data over years.

Given a protocol with something like diabetes, I could teach a high school dropout to manage the numbers equal to a physician. Anything unusual with the numbers or symptoms should prompt the physician to consult. The end result will be the high school dropout managing diabetes equal to the physician. You don’t need research to prove this, but midlevel groups did it.

We could probably do something similar with CBT over 12 sessions with a strict protocol. If we only look at 1 issue with a designed evidence based protocol for that issue, I bet my office assistant could run it equal to a PhD. The problem is that health care isn’t always 1 simple issue with a designed protocol. A PhD can handle any other issues that arise from counseling and identify other problems. My office assistant can’t. Where is the research showing an office assistant can’t perform CBT equal to a PhD? It doesn’t exist.

"Seeing" the difference daily is hardly convincing. I could find just as many people who could say the opposite. I'm not levying a charge against one specialty alone, healthcare in general has an issue with a dearth, or inadequate outcomes research. But, if people are going to claim that terrible outcomes are evident, there needs to be some evidence to that effect. Psychology deals with something similar with midlevels doing therapy. I can moan all day about the superiority of PhDs in that department, but we still don't have any convincing data that shows that.

And, the thing is, to truly do this research correctly, you have to go into it with the idea that alternative hypotheses could be true. It's easy to design a "research" project that is simply set up to support a preconceived idea. The healthcare world is full of such. It's harder to do everything in your power to try and prove your own hypothesis wrong. If we don't have this, we're just fighting financial turf wars. Which is fine, but we shoudl just be honest with ourselves about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
"Seeing" the difference daily is hardly convincing. I could find just as many people who could say the opposite. I'm not levying a charge against one specialty alone, healthcare in general has an issue with a dearth, or inadequate outcomes research. But, if people are going to claim that terrible outcomes are evident, there needs to be some evidence to that effect. Psychology deals with something similar with midlevels doing therapy. I can moan all day about the superiority of PhDs in that department, but we still don't have any convincing data that shows that.

And, the thing is, to truly do this research correctly, you have to go into it with the idea that alternative hypotheses could be true. It's easy to design a "research" project that is simply set up to support a preconceived idea. The healthcare world is full of such. It's harder to do everything in your power to try and prove your own hypothesis wrong. If we don't have this, we're just fighting financial turf wars. Which is fine, but we shoudl just be honest with ourselves about it.

There are several terrible, underpowered RTCs with joke outcomes that fail to find a difference between NP and MD care in limited settings or because MDs were actually providing most of the care in the NP group.

You're absolutely correct that high quality studies would be helpful. However, no one will pay for this. Would the new NP grads volunteer? The studies would have to be powered to detect a meaningful outcome and the NPs would have to provide all the care. The AANP states unequivocally that NP care is equal to physician care without qualifiers and markets this claim hard. The only way to refute it is to say the truth, "there is no good evidence that this is true and NPs have a fraction of the training and it's way easier to get into NP school."
 
There are several terrible, underpowered RTCs with joke outcomes that fail to find a difference between NP and MD care in limited settings or because MDs were actually providing most of the care in the NP group.

You're absolutely correct that high quality studies would be helpful. However, no one will pay for this. Would the new NP grads volunteer? The studies would have to be powered to detect a meaningful outcome and the NPs would have to provide all the care. The AANP states unequivocally that NP care is equal to physician care without qualifiers and markets this claim hard. The only way to refute it is to say the truth, "there is no good evidence that this is true and NPs have a fraction of the training and it's way easier to get into NP school."

Not necessarily true. The best bet for this would be a larger scale project, which would most likely have to be government funded, which examined patient outcomes across a variety of settings. Provider type would simply be one set of variables among many. It'd be a huge undertaking, but would likely have broad support in a country with out of control and seemingly random healthcare costs.

As for the level of training adequacy, that's simply something we can't answer without resorting to anecdotes and potential bias. Truth is, we don't know what level of training, in any healthcare position, is adequate to ensure patient safety and efficacious care. We'd all probably agree that more training is better, but at what point do we reach a plateau in patient outcomes? We don't know, we can voice some opinions, but that's all they really are at some point. Don't get me wrong, I am a executive in my state psych board, I interact with state legislators often regarding fighting against bills put forth by midlevels trying to encroach beyond what we feel their scope of practice entails. I'll fight that any day, but I don't pretend I have irrefutable evidence about harm. Fight the good fight, but we should leave the claims that " evidence is so prevalent" and the like, at home until we can say it with a straight face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
There are several terrible, underpowered RTCs with joke outcomes that fail to find a difference between NP and MD care in limited settings or because MDs were actually providing most of the care in the NP group.

You're absolutely correct that high quality studies would be helpful. However, no one will pay for this. Would the new NP grads volunteer? The studies would have to be powered to detect a meaningful outcome and the NPs would have to provide all the care. The AANP states unequivocally that NP care is equal to physician care without qualifiers and markets this claim hard. The only way to refute it is to say the truth, "there is no good evidence that this is true and NPs have a fraction of the training and it's way easier to get into NP school."

If there is no difference between physicians and nurses, then what is the point of medical school? And why are we harassed with things like board certification adn what no? Hospitals and insurnace companies rag about BC it's ok for a nurse to provide care and apparently equivalent to a doctor? So something's gotta give. We either then get rid of med school perhaps if it's the same and certainly would be more cost efficient, and we should definitely do away with BC - what is the point after countless years of tarining to have to be BC if a nurse can just do our job?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Fight the good fight, but we should leave the claims that " evidence is so prevalent" and the like, at home until we can say it with a straight face.

There are requirements to use a “straight face”?

One of my largest referral sources is midlevel failures. I routinely review their notes and report them to their board (who does nothing). I’ve even seen NP’s misdiagnose so poorly with nurse patients that the RN’s lose their nursing license. Notes will state something like hypomania occurs due to irritability (sole symptom) and then dx Bipolar I. MS2’s could write a better note and develop a better plan. Now the RN is a danger to patient care and fired. It’s awkward debating with the nursing board that they train midlevels so poorly that they are destroying the careers of their own. Happens all the time. I see psychotic features in the diagnosis with no neuroleptic or documentation. Patients with licenses get reported by the midlevels when documentation is sent for return to work.

I’m not even getting to the poor med choices.
 
Can we definitively say this is different between provider types? We have anecdotes, but I can find just as many examples for any provider type, so where does that get us. Hence the need for good data.

Are you really suggesting that nurses are the equivalent of physicians? Is that what you are getting at? If nurses want to be doctors why don't they go to medical school? Doesn't add up...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Are you really suggesting that nurses are the equivalent of physicians? Is that what you are getting at? If nurses want to be doctors why don't they go to medical school? Doesn't add up...

You are not comprehending the argument. That's not even the point. The point is that the data does not exist to make a great argument either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
You are not comprehending the argument. That's not even the point. The point is that the data does not exist to make a great argument either way.

The vast majority of midlevels work under physicians - because most of us actually care that are patients are well taken care of. It would be unethical to have a major study where we have the same severity of patients being taken care of nurses vs. physicians - don't you think?

Group A - ICU patients taken care of by physicians
Group B- ICU patients being taken care of my nurses

Additiaonlly the fact that midlevels frequently are assigned easier cases than physicians - ie - even I have experienced this when undergoing surgery - healthy 30 something female gets CRNA - while 95year old diabetic, demented, CHF, h/o CVA female gets anesthesiologist - right!!

So you are right, "data" when we are dealing with real live human beings who can seriously get hurt by incompetence is not easy to provide.

Are there incompetent doctors? Sure. But the level of knowledge that even the worst doctor has compared to a nurse, is light years difference. And the gall that a nurse would have to say that they are equivalent to a physician shows how ignorant they are in their lack of knowledge - like the saying goes people don't know what they dont' know.

This is the same as the intern telling the attending what to do and thinking they know better because they are such a super star.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The vast majority of midlevels work under physicians - because most of us actually care that are patients are well taken care of. It would be unethical to have a major study where we have the same severity of patients being taken care of nurses vs. physicians - don't you think?

Not at all, this is already happening in many places/states/institutions.
 
You are not comprehending the argument. That's not even the point. The point is that the data does not exist to make a great argument either way.

it will take years as nurses push through politics. You can’t do studies of independent care and get it approved in my state.

No one will approve my mechanic running the IM floor for a week. No one will approve that for a midlevel without supervision in my state. You can’t do research on something that cant be done. It is a risk to patient safety. We will have to wait until medical associations start accumulating data in independent midlevel states which nursing associations are pushing against.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
it will take years as nurses push through politics. You can’t do studies of independent care and get it approved in my state.

No one will approve my mechanic running the IM floor for a week. No one will approve that for a midlevel without supervision in my state. You can’t do research on something that cant be done. It is a risk to patient safety. We will have to wait until medical associations start accumulating data in independent midlevel states which nursing associations are pushing against.

Thank you. What i said above in different words! And the other poster somehow states that it's being done in many states independently. Right!! I already have read of numerous numerous lawsuits against NPs for poor care and the vast majority were over basic things that a first year med student would know.

Sad. Perhaps doctors - who currently are being bogged down with nonsense like histology courses in med school, and pointless classes on professionalism and multiculturalism and studying minutia for board exams should be focusing on being more politically involved to debunk nonsense as above.
 
Sure, and then we'll have some data to look through, kind of how things go.

No, it’s not. It’s stupid to give large groups new prescribing rights, evaluate for years, and then determine how many patients were placed at risk. The FDA wouldn’t do this with new drugs. Skip the research big pharma, just start selling xyz. It should have been evaluated on a smaller scale over a long period of time in the real world (no VA or military influence) with consent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Sure, and then we'll have some data to look through, kind of how things go.

Why don' t you volunteer your spouse, parents, kids, etc for this "experiment"?

My mom on a recent midlevel visit - "Honey (aka me), that nurse practitioner didn't know anything! She prescribed me some Tylenol for the pain, which continued and then I saw the doctor later. Doctor told me I had a fracture." :/

Me - Mom!!! Why did you see an NP! I told you to ALWAYS ask for the doctor or re-schedule!!
 
Why don' t you volunteer your spouse, parents, kids, etc for this "experiment"?

My mom on a recent midlevel visit - "Honey (aka me), that nurse practitioner didn't know anything! She prescribed me some Tylenol for the pain, which continued and then I saw the doctor later. Doctor told me I had a fracture." :/

Me - Mom!!! Why did you see an NP! I told you to ALWAYS ask for the doctor or re-schedule!!

The patient safety concerns don't move the needle much for me on the emotional level. I mean, we have numerous examples of things widely done in medicine, of which we know the safety data would argue against. These practices go on for years, despite mounds of data about the safety aspects, before they are changed. Here, you are arguing for patient safety concerns, with no data.

No, it’s not. It’s stupid to give large groups new prescribing rights, evaluate for years, and then determine how many patients were placed at risk. The FDA wouldn’t do this with new drugs. Skip the research big pharma, just start selling xyz. It should have been evaluated on a smaller scale over a long period of time in the real world (no VA or military influence) with consent.

I mean, we've had some groups with these prescribing rights, including NPs and psychologists, for some time now. It was evaluated somewhat on a smaller scale in some contexts. Also, the FDA approves medications with terrible or unsafe outcome data all of the time, not sure I'd hold them up as a gold standard.

The thing is, I agree with you, I do think midlevels are less competent. How much less competent, or if there are clinically significant safety concerns, is more up to debate. I just don't think you have the data at this point to make a claim that the data is clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The emotional crux of the issue lies in the trajectory and timeline of our training. It's hard to communicate our training to people who haven't experienced it. How many of our closest spouses, friends, and family get what we do after all these years? I would say very view -- not to speak of lawmakers and policy-makers. By the time we are in the second year of medical school, and often much, much sooner, we will have already accrued or exceeded the number of shadowing hours needed for an NP to be licensed. We know how clueless we were at that point and how much more training we needed for competency. So it's mentally inconceivable that a study would be necessary to prove certain outcomes discussed above. I'm not saying the data indicates one way or another and that studies should not be pursued; I'm saying their necessity is inconceivable.
 
I'm not saying the data indicates one way or another and that studies should not be pursued; I'm saying their necessity is inconceivable.

This is a copout, it's lazy and unscientific. We actually do not know this. We do not know what is necessary or sufficient in terms of training to deliver certain treatments across the spectrum of healthcare that meet a certain level of safety and/or efficacy. This is even more of a case in an evolving healthcare world where specialization is becoming ever more narrow. All of our healthcare specialties could benefit from empirically examining this issue of necessary and sufficient. By saying their necessity is inconceivable, you are in essence just saying, "this is how it's always been done, so it's the only way." Quite simply, wrong. If that were the case, you'd still be prescribing trephination for your schizophrenic patients and trying to balance humours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
No. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't investigate these things more carefully, or suggesting what we should or should not do. I'm describing the experience of a physician and his/her training and the mentality that can arise from it, whether right or wrong.
 
I was going to stay out of this one, but I think we're dancing around the wrong issue here.

We keep referencing what NPs do more poorly than physicians -- we're not acknowledging what they do better. We're thinking of them as WalMart -- undercutting us in cost by way of reduced quality and sheer volume. But that's not entirely accurate -- really, they're more like Amazon. They're undercutting us with not only cost, but more efficient (yes, I know = inferior) training, and slicker business strategies.

This is a problem that starts as early as pre-med. We accept into our medical school students who are good test takers, generally scientifically inclined, a bit more on the bookish and fiscally conservative side. We then train in an environment of hard evidence, neglect to teach them any business or advocacy, and send them out into a changing world that doesn't respect education and experience the same way it did a few decades ago.

The assumption that wealthy people will make intelligent choices is no longer true. Today's elite consumer doesn't necessarily want the pedigree. There's an exploding interest in the spectrum of alternative medicine, from the perhaps useful to the completely woo-woo. The people not vaccinating their children? By and large, they're the people you guys are saying are wealthy enough to pay cash only. The celebrities doing bizarre detoxes and elimination diets? They could afford your hourly rate 10x over.

So this growing body of wealthy people has two options:

1) A well-educated, impeccably trained psychiatrist who says "I trained at XYZ and I'm the best doctor" and provides strong, evidence-based psychopharmacology.

2) A nurse with a glossy website, a good sense of interior design in his/her office, great people skills, and a marketing strategy that offers some version of "I'm a holistic/natural/integrative practitioner who blends natural and modern techniques to harmonize your body with minimal toxicity" etc etc etc

Who are they going to choose?

Main point - you're giving human beings too much credit. Fewer and fewer will care that you're the most competent. More and more will care only if you're selling a message they're buying. Nurses are cashing in on this, and we aren't. Those who say "But we really are providing the best care" -- your words are true.....as they echo and fade into history in the years to come.

We're the Blu-Ray of medicine - it really is better...but who's buying it? Welcome to the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
This is a copout, it's lazy and unscientific. We actually do not know this. We do not know what is necessary or sufficient in terms of training to deliver certain treatments across the spectrum of healthcare that meet a certain level of safety and/or efficacy. This is even more of a case in an evolving healthcare world where specialization is becoming ever more narrow. All of our healthcare specialties could benefit from empirically examining this issue of necessary and sufficient. By saying their necessity is inconceivable, you are in essence just saying, "this is how it's always been done, so it's the only way." Quite simply, wrong. If that were the case, you'd still be prescribing trephination for your schizophrenic patients and trying to balance humours.

So essentially you are suggesting we shut down medical schools - or forego residency? Or perhaps even better go from high school, do 2 years of med school, then maybe 2 years of residency, and allow all these half baked specialists go and treat patients? Let's have cardiothoracic surgeons, retinal surgeons, cardiologists, obgyne's all with maybe 4 years of med school/residency combined - perhaps if we are saying NPs and physicians are comparable, we should make the education comparable?

That would only be fair.
I have found most NPs lazy. I can count maybe less than 5 NPs who I have come across who were truly interested in patient care and competent. The rest - I would allow a med student to treat me before having an NP. I remember an ER NP idiot who didn't know what an autoimmune disease was, didn't understand what fluoro was, etc. NPs are so desperate to make money and pretend they have equity with physicians that they have this half assed desperate campaign to "prove" this nonsense but we all know that they would dead in the water if they were to undergo med school and residency.

After all if tehy are the same as physicians, we are saying that 1- med school is not needed, and we should cut out a large chunk of the requireents of med school, including undergrad (i have always been a proponent of that - years wasted), OR 2- nurses who want to be doctors should go to med school if they want to be doctors.

Otherwise we have noctors who are deluded. As physicians we should be more involved. Clearly nurses have far more time on their hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I was going to stay out of this one, but I think we're dancing around the wrong issue here.

We keep referencing what NPs do more poorly than physicians -- we're not acknowledging what they do better. We're thinking of them as WalMart -- undercutting us in cost by way of reduced quality and sheer volume. But that's not entirely accurate -- really, they're more like Amazon. They're undercutting us with not only cost, but more efficient (yes, I know = inferior) training, and slicker business strategies.

This is a problem that starts as early as pre-med. We accept into our medical school students who are good test takers, generally scientifically inclined, a bit more on the bookish and fiscally conservative side. We then train in an environment of hard evidence, neglect to teach them any business or advocacy, and send them out into a changing world that doesn't respect education and experience the same way it did a few decades ago.

The assumption that wealthy people will make intelligent choices is no longer true. Today's elite consumer doesn't necessarily want the pedigree. There's an exploding interest in the spectrum of alternative medicine, from the perhaps useful to the completely woo-woo. The people not vaccinating their children? By and large, they're the people you guys are saying are wealthy enough to pay cash only. The celebrities doing bizarre detoxes and elimination diets? They could afford your hourly rate 10x over.

So this growing body of wealthy people has two options:

1) A well-educated, impeccably trained psychiatrist who says "I trained at XYZ and I'm the best doctor" and provides strong, evidence-based psychopharmacology.

2) A nurse with a glossy website, a good sense of interior design in his/her office, great people skills, and a marketing strategy that offers some version of "I'm a holistic/natural/integrative practitioner who blends natural and modern techniques to harmonize your body with minimal toxicity" etc etc etc

Who are they going to choose?

Main point - you're giving human beings too much credit. Fewer and fewer will care that you're the most competent. More and more will care only if you're selling a message they're buying. Nurses are cashing in on this, and we aren't. Those who say "But we really are providing the best care" -- your words are true.....as they echo and fade into history in the years to come.

We're the Blu-Ray of medicine - it really is better...but who's buying it? Welcome to the future.

Precisely right. But part of the issue is what here - we are bogged down with nonsense. Let's look at this - admission into med school is brutally competitive - realistically most of us wouldn't get into med school these days if we were applying myself included. Some of pre meds have ridiculous CVs - stellar grades, stellar research, volunteer, et etc. For what? Who is truly going to use the physics - perphas the less than 200 ppl per year who go into rad onc?, or biochem, or even chem, etc. All done to dilute and get rid of competition.
The 4-5 years that people spend in pre-med/getting undergrad is useless. This should be done away with.

Then comes the MCAT - pointless test, again does nothing other than exclude people from med school. Then admissions - ok, tons of people don't make it. Then for the lucky ones comes med school. Exceedingly expensive - and we take pointless crap - histology, more biochem, etc. etc. professionalism nonsense, multiculturalism nonsense, etc. 4 years of med school - really? We all know that the 4th year ismostly useless and flufff. some peopl even do research, etc. So 4-5 years.

Then comes residency and the brutality of the match - again countless years of tratining - some needed, some likely superfluous.

Obviously this creates a backlog of yearsssss before a physician is made. So now come the NPs - nurses who may "SEEM" like they know stuff - mostly bc they do the same repetitive thing over and over and over again and typically under the supervision of a doctor, and tend to take care of simpler cases. however bc patietns tend to be more and more ignorant, they have no idea about who treats them!

While NPs with their little nursing degrees and online courses have this brutal, aggressive campaigns since they do what 6 years of training total? while we are taking 24 hour call, 80 hour weeks, worrying about "professionalism" compalints bc we didn't like the call that the idiot nurse made at 2am to asks us about whether the patient can have pudding with their soft diet, cramming for "board exams" that are useless -
again we have no time, and of course we are seen as the "evil" doctors who "golf on wednesdays" while the "poor nurses" do all the work!!

It's gone insane.

I am an advocate for NPs to practice independently - so once the crap hits the fan, and they are sued independently, the cost savings really becomes no cost savings at all. If anything, I have seen countless nightmares from NPs - it increases business quite a bit. Those patients never go back to the NPs.

Inthe famous words of one of my patients, "Doc, my primary care doctor was a nurse!"

Additionally, look at salaries these days - PCPs are making in the high 100's to low 200's - for seeing a crap ton of patients. Why make $180 as a PCP when you can make $110k as a PA when the PCP has more responsibility, more call, tons of debt, etc?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Precisely right. But part of the issue is what here - we are bogged down with nonsense. Let's look at this - admission into med school is brutally competitive - realistically most of us wouldn't get into med school these days if we were applying myself included. Some of pre meds have ridiculous CVs - stellar grades, stellar research, volunteer, et etc. For what? Who is truly going to use the physics - perphas the less than 200 ppl per year who go into rad onc?, or biochem, or even chem, etc. All done to dilute and get rid of competition.
The 4-5 years that people spend in pre-med/getting undergrad is useless. This should be done away with.

Then comes the MCAT - pointless test, again does nothing other than exclude people from med school. Then admissions - ok, tons of people don't make it. Then for the lucky ones comes med school. Exceedingly expensive - and we take pointless crap - histology, more biochem, etc. etc. professionalism nonsense, multiculturalism nonsense, etc. 4 years of med school - really? We all know that the 4th year ismostly useless and flufff. some peopl even do research, etc. So 4-5 years.

Then comes residency and the brutality of the match - again countless years of tratining - some needed, some likely superfluous.

Obviously this creates a backlog of yearsssss before a physician is made. So now come the NPs - nurses who may "SEEM" like they know stuff - mostly bc they do the same repetitive thing over and over and over again and typically under the supervision of a doctor, and tend to take care of simpler cases. however bc patietns tend to be more and more ignorant, they have no idea about who treats them!

While NPs with their little nursing degrees and online courses have this brutal, aggressive campaigns since they do what 6 years of training total? while we are taking 24 hour call, 80 hour weeks, worrying about "professionalism" compalints bc we didn't like the call that the idiot nurse made at 2am to asks us about whether the patient can have pudding with their soft diet, cramming for "board exams" that are useless -
again we have no time, and of course we are seen as the "evil" doctors who "golf on wednesdays" while the "poor nurses" do all the work!!

It's gone insane.

I am an advocate for NPs to practice independently - so once the crap hits the fan, and they are sued independently, the cost savings really becomes no cost savings at all. If anything, I have seen countless nightmares from NPs - it increases business quite a bit. Those patients never go back to the NPs.

Inthe famous words of one of my patients, "Doc, my primary care doctor was a nurse!"

Additionally, look at salaries these days - PCPs are making in the high 100's to low 200's - for seeing a crap ton of patients. Why make $180 as a PCP when you can make $110k as a PA when the PCP has more responsibility, more call, tons of debt, etc?
If you're making that little as a PCP you're doing it wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If you're making that little as a PCP you're doing it wrong.

I'm not a PCP. But I've seen countless postings of <200k. Even if you are making 200K as a PCP is it really worth it in comparison to a midlevel?
 
So essentially you are suggesting we shut down medical schools - or forego residency? Or perhaps even better go from high school, do 2 years of med school, then maybe 2 years of residency, and allow all these half baked specialists go and treat patients? Let's have cardiothoracic surgeons, retinal surgeons, cardiologists, obgyne's all with maybe 4 years of med school/residency combined - perhaps if we are saying NPs and physicians are comparable, we should make the education comparable?

That would only be fair.
I have found most NPs lazy. I can count maybe less than 5 NPs who I have come across who were truly interested in patient care and competent. The rest - I would allow a med student to treat me before having an NP. I remember an ER NP idiot who didn't know what an autoimmune disease was, didn't understand what fluoro was, etc. NPs are so desperate to make money and pretend they have equity with physicians that they have this half assed desperate campaign to "prove" this nonsense but we all know that they would dead in the water if they were to undergo med school and residency.

After all if tehy are the same as physicians, we are saying that 1- med school is not needed, and we should cut out a large chunk of the requireents of med school, including undergrad (i have always been a proponent of that - years wasted), OR 2- nurses who want to be doctors should go to med school if they want to be doctors.

Otherwise we have noctors who are deluded. As physicians we should be more involved. Clearly nurses have far more time on their hand.

You are not good at logical argument. You may want to leave this to TexasPhysician and others who don't engage in gross logical fallacies and misquoting. Either that, or learn how to have good faith arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
You are not good at logical argument. You may want to leave this to TexasPhysician and others who don't engage in gross logical fallacies and misquoting. Either that, or learn how to have good faith arguments.

Perhaps you should leave arguments about physicians and medicine to people who actually went to medical school and have the title of MD, not pseudo, wanna be doctors who think they are doctors - phd's included, thanks.
 
That's your experience - do you assume your experience is universal?
Did I say it was that way everywhere or universal?

Perhaps you should leave arguments about physicians and medicine to people who actually went to medical school and have the title of MD, not pseudo, wanna be doctors who think they are doctors - phd's included, thanks.

You have a habit of gross misquoting and absurd extensions. It is not conducive to a good faith argument. Feel free to air out your insecurities any way you want, projection, ad hominems, etc. But, if you ever want a good faith discussion, we're here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Kind of a stickler for research, but neither side really has much in terms of quality outcomes research. I'd love to see something if there is new work or citations that you have.
The problems with all of the research that I've seen is they aren't randomized studies, they're examining practices of NPs and MDs without proper controlling for complexity of patients. Many of the NPs in the past studies also weren't acting independently, and actually had physician oversight. Finally, they often followed very narrow outcomes for short periods of time. If you want a real NP vs MD study, they should randomly assign patients of equal complexity to MDs and NPs and then watch and wait for a few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I'm not a PCP. But I've seen countless postings of <200k. Even if you are making 200K as a PCP is it really worth it in comparison to a midlevel?
Any primary care physician should be making 250k+ at a bare minimum if they aren't in academics. If you work for less, you've screwed yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Did I say it was that way everywhere or universal?



You have a habit of gross misquoting and absurd extensions. It is not conducive to a good faith argument. Feel free to air out your insecurities any way you want, projection, ad hominems, etc. But, if you ever want a good faith discussion, we're here.

Last time I checked this was a forum for physicians. You, the NPs can air out YOUR insecurities by pretending to be equals vs. say - hey we know much less, we are ok with that, and we are ok with assuming our rightful place in the chain - which is being an assistant. Needing to equate equality with aphysician and desperate creating "equivalency" programs - DOCTOR of nursing? lol screams insecurity. Thanks.
 
Any primary care physician should be making 250k+ at a bare minimum if they aren't in academics. If you work for less, you've screwed yourself.

Not saying what should or should not be, I personally of the 15 or so PCPs that I know, not a single one is making that or anywhere near that.
 
Not saying what should or should not be, I personally of the 15 or so PCPs that I know, not a single one is making that or anywhere near that.
Then unless you're in a low paying area (NYC, LA, SF) they are either bad at business (if in PP) or getting screwed.

I see RVU numbers for my group of 50+ PCPs and the full time doctors are all making over 250k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Last time I checked this was a forum for physicians. You, the NPs can air out YOUR insecurities by pretending to be equals vs. say - hey we know much less, we are ok with that, and we are ok with assuming our rightful place in the chain - which is being an assistant. Needing to equate equality with aphysician and desperate creating "equivalency" programs - DOCTOR of nursing? lol screams insecurity. Thanks.

Lol, this is awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Then unless you're in a low paying area (NYC, LA, SF) they are either bad at business (if in PP) or getting screwed.

I see RVU numbers for my group of 50+ PCPs and the full time doctors are all making over 250k.

Good for them, not a single one that I know are making that, and they are all excellent physicians from excellent residency programs.
 
The problems with all of the research that I've seen is they aren't randomized studies, they're examining practices of NPs and MDs without proper controlling for complexity of patients. Many of the NPs in the past studies also weren't acting independently, and actually had physician oversight. Finally, they often followed very narrow outcomes for short periods of time. If you want a real NP vs MD study, they should randomly assign patients of equal complexity to MDs and NPs and then watch and wait for a few years.

Best you could hope for in this case would likely be case control after the fact.
 
Perhaps you should leave arguments about physicians and medicine to people who actually went to medical school and have the title of MD, not pseudo, wanna be doctors who think they are doctors - phd's included, thanks.
You... Do realize that PhDs were doctors before the MD ever existed, right? We are physicians, but if anything, they hold the real title of "doctor."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Top