How do we stop nurse practitioners?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I believe that was done by having a group of NPs try to pass Step 3. The results were not inspiring. I'll try to find a source.

DNP's and MD/DO's are like comparing apples to oranges. They are NOT alike. It is my understanding that the DNP degree has more to do with policy, nursing leadership, public health, informatics, education, etc. (http://www.aacn.nche.edu/dnp/Talking-Points.pdf)-from the AACN website. There was a lot of talk about NP's requiring doctorates to practice and I believe this was another one of those bureaucratic objectives that never really went anywhere, but MSN students took it as a possibility and sought the degree for fear of being required to do it later, etc. It's exactly what it says it is: Doctor of NURSING practice. If I pursued this, would I be a doctor? Yes. But it would be regarding nursing practice and not medicine. It's kind of like Ophthalmologist vs Optometrist or Audiologist vs. ENT. I would definitely imagine that a DNP would not do well with (Step 3)! They are not trained the same way! :)

Chock up their response as a defense mechanism. They don't want to feel like their contributions are not valuable, and it's hard for some especially when they are met with resistance by (some not all) MD's/DO's.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would definitely imagine that a DNP would not do well with (Step 3)! They are not trained the same way! :)

What confuses me about this is that step 3 is essentially a clinical exam regarding patient management. I would understand the reasoning of "we don't train the same way" if we were asking NPs to take step 1 since you aren't required to know medicine to that level.

The reason why it was administered is because NP lobbying wishes to have the same independent practice rights as MD/DOs. Isn't medicine medicine? Is there some sort of other pathway you take when a patient has strep throat vs a MD/DO physician?



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
But, here's an idea: Imagine a sick population that is continually growing (because it is). Now imagine the immense stress and strain of having to see all of those patients with wait times up to 6 months? Some of them are critically ill. Would you rather them have to wait that long? Is that fair healthcare? Yes, you could hire another physician, but that's a lot of money--plus training and startup, and STILL won't reduce the wait-time by much. OR, you could hire several very qualified, top-notch NP's/PA's, etc.,--resulting in less money spent, plus--------the workload gets divided. You save money and increase your revenue as well. As a consequence, patients are happy/happier because they've been seen/and/or treated, and you don't have to refer them to someone else instead. There's also value in that. Think about it.

Its all sunshine and rainbows when you are not liable for damages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I agree that NPs should not hold the same authority of MDs. If they wanted to be an MD, they should have gone through the appropriate training.
But based on what I've read here, it looks like NPs gain ground in areas with shortages of doctors partially to address a need in health care.
Wouldn't this be due to 1. A general shortage of doctors in the nation. 2. Doctors unwilling to work in rural settings?

Wouldn't the best way to "stop NPs" be to increase the hold on our "turf"?
If there is no demand for NPs, then there is no reason for NPs to be able to open their own clinics.

Some additional ideas would include:
1. An ACTUALLY "holistic" admissions policy to med school. NPs should be allowed to pursue higher education if they so desire. Although medical schools do take in nontraditional students, it would be an excellent incentive for NPs/midlevel health care providers to pursue MDs if med schools held a few spots exclusively for midlevel providers (as they do for other groups, but that's another argument). Specifically, a hypothetically low undergraduate GPA should not haunt someone their entire lives. People change with experience, and I'd bet almost anything that a 34 year old NP is more qualified to enter medical school than someone in their early 20's such as myself.
2. Increasing the med school class sizes to address the deficit. (Already being done to a degree)
3. Establishing more med schools. (Already being done)
And like previously mentioned,
4. Stronger political presence of doctors. However, doctors are already overworked so I am unsure how this will occur. Not to mention this is territory already owned by medical businesses rather than doctors. So I guess the modern doctor is screwed unless, as someone mentioned, they unionize.
 
mid levels? they get paid better than residents, have better work hours, and also boss residents around. lol. i tink they are def higher up than residents on the food chain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I agree that NPs should not hold the same authority of MDs. If they wanted to be an MD, they should have gone through the appropriate training.
But based on what I've read here, it looks like NPs gain ground in areas with shortages of doctors partially to address a need in health care.
Wouldn't this be due to 1. A general shortage of doctors in the nation. 2. Doctors unwilling to work in rural settings?

Wouldn't the best way to "stop NPs" be to increase the hold on our "turf"?
If there is no demand for NPs, then there is no reason for NPs to be able to open their own clinics.

Some additional ideas would include:
1. An ACTUALLY "holistic" admissions policy to med school. NPs should be allowed to pursue higher education if they so desire. Although medical schools do take in nontraditional students, it would be an excellent incentive for NPs/midlevel health care providers to pursue MDs if med schools held a few spots exclusively for midlevel providers (as they do for other groups, but that's another argument). Specifically, a hypothetically low undergraduate GPA should not haunt someone their entire lives. People change with experience, and I'd bet almost anything that a 34 year old NP is more qualified to enter medical school than someone in their early 20's such as myself.
2. Increasing the med school class sizes to address the deficit. (Already being done to a degree)
3. Establishing more med schools. (Already being done)
And like previously mentioned,
4. Stronger political presence of doctors. However, doctors are already overworked so I am unsure how this will occur. Not to mention this is territory already owned by medical businesses rather than doctors. So I guess the modern doctor is screwed unless, as someone mentioned, they unionize.

A big piece to that recipe is having increased incentives to do residency training in a rural area and/or to find ways to keep them there after graduation. Additionally, expansion of GME slots as well.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The reason why it was administered is become NP lobbying wishes to have the same independent practice rights as MD/DOs. Isn't medicine medicine? Is there some sort of other pathway you take when a patient has strep throat vs a MD/DO physician?



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

It's more like being able to identify that time when what looks like strep, isn't strep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Its all sunshine and rainbows when you are not liable for damages.
Hmm. Sunshine and rainbows. Since I work nightshift, I never see either of those, and since I work in the medical field, I ALSO never see much of that. There's nothing "sunshine and rainbows" when damages are created. And yes, according to Business Insurance, nurse practitioners are being held similarly in court to that of PCP's: 1) Primary care provider role exposes nurse practitioners to malpractice risks - Business Insurance --2.) Lawsuits against nurses could lead to higher professional liability rates - Business Insurance And while I hate referring to Medscape for anything, this was an interesting article: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/775746_2 .

Again, nothing is ever "hunky dory" when an accident is made involving the life or well-being of a patient, ever or if someone get's sued. Let's be fair.

While I'll never subscribe to the notion that NP's should be completely independent, here's a systematic review of RCT's regarding the safety and effectiveness (aka sunshine and rainbows)--originating from Columbia University: http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/docume... of Primary Care Advanced Practice Nurses.pdf

I have to say though, I like your name,"Weirdy."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I just refer to them as midlevels constantly because that is what they are. I feel like as physicians we are pressured to be "nice" and "team players" but we have gotten soft in doing so and now I see NPs and PAs not wanting to be referred as a midlevels and wanna be called some other nonsense to float their self esteem boat. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want good hours, minimal debt, and a good salary be an NP/PA recognizing you are a MIDLEVEL. If you want to be trained at the highest level and call the shots, pay your dues, go to med school, incur the ridiculous debt, go through the indentured servitude of residency, and then come out of it as TOPLEVEL.
I think that's a very fair statement. But I'm curious: what the heck else do NP's and PA's want to be called besides mid-levels, NP's and PA's? Big "The Dude" Lebowski? This had better be good... :)
 
I think that's a very fair statement. But I'm curious: what the heck else do NP's and PA's want to be called besides mid-levels, NP's and PA's? Big "The Dude" Lebowski? This had better be good... :)
O, you know, the hoards of dnps who have "Dr. so and so" with 45 erroneous letters after their name on their white coat who walk into patients room and say, "hi I'm Dr. so and so" but never identify themselves as NOT the physician. Don't try to play dumb here, you know precisely what they and literally every np i've ever met are trying to do: pretend to be doctors. It is 100% unethical, in a clinical setting, to not identify themselves as a NURSE or NURSE practitioner.

I suppose if I have a doctorate in literally anything then I, as a medical student, can walk in and introduce myself as "Dr." to patients...Give me a break...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
DNP's and MD/DO's are like comparing apples to oranges. They are NOT alike. It is my understanding that the DNP degree has more to do with policy, nursing leadership, public health, informatics, education, etc. (http://www.aacn.nche.edu/dnp/Talking-Points.pdf)-from the AACN website. There was a lot of talk about NP's requiring doctorates to practice and I believe this was another one of those bureaucratic objectives that never really went anywhere, but MSN students took it as a possibility and sought the degree for fear of being required to do it later, etc. It's exactly what it says it is: Doctor of NURSING practice. If I pursued this, would I be a doctor? Yes. But it would be regarding nursing practice and not medicine. It's kind of like Ophthalmologist vs Optometrist or Audiologist vs. ENT. I would definitely imagine that a DNP would not do well with (Step 3)! They are not trained the same way! :)

Chock up their response as a defense mechanism. They don't want to feel like their contributions are not valuable, and it's hard for some especially when they are met with resistance by (some not all) MD's/DO's.


........
Optom is trained linearly for the eye and treats to correct vision impairments with lenses

Optho receives gen med training and treats with surgical eye privileges following mentorship

Audiology is trained linearly for the ear and treats to correct hearing impairments with hearing aids

ENT receives gen med training and treats with surgical Ear, nose, and throat privileges following mentorship

PAs have Rx and some surgical privileges but never want to be autonomous

NPs have Rx and some surgical privileges but many are wanting to be autonomous.

Also, step 1 is the important one.....not steps 2 and 3. You seriously cannot compare allied health fields to what NP leadership is trying to do...although economics are pushing that it seems
 
Last edited:
What confuses me about this is that step 3 essentially a clinical exam regarding patient management. I would understand the reasoning of "we don't train the same way" if we were asking NPs to take step 1 since you aren't required to know medicine to that level.

The reason why it was administered is become NP lobbying wishes to have the same independent practice rights as MD/DOs. Isn't medicine medicine? Is there some sort of other pathway you take when a patient has strep throat vs a MD/DO physician?



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
You said, "The reason why it was administered..." You're referring to your previous comment regarding Step 3, correct? But, you made a very valid point regarding step 1: "NP's aren't required to know medicine to that level," so how on God's green earth would anyone expect NP's to have the same independent rights as MD's/DO's? I'm not insulting my own area, but seriously, --I'd rather work under a physician who has that level of training. I cannot speak for Step 3 because I'm not familiar, but I follow what you're saying: Patient Management should be the same for either. Since I am a student, this is something I'd need to do more thorough research on regarding patient management/approaches from both fields, etc. Thanks a lot for your response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
You said, "The reason why it was administered..." You're referring to your previous comment regarding Step 3, correct? But, you made a very valid point regarding step 1: "NP's aren't required to know medicine to that level," so how on God's green earth would anyone expect NP's to have the same independent rights as MD's/DO's? I'm not insulting my own area, but seriously, --I'd rather work under a physician who has that level of training. I cannot speak for Step 3 because I'm not familiar, but I follow what you're saying: Patient Management should be the same for either. Since I am a student, this is something I'd need to do more thorough research on regarding patient management/approaches from both fields, etc. Thanks a lot for your response.

I mean no disrespect to your profession at all with my inquiry. I was seriously curious if perhaps they had taught something that we didn't in the way of taking care of patients. If you indeed find something that would show that differences please do provide it!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
I mean no disrespect to your profession at all with my inquiry. I was seriously curious if perhaps they had taught something that we didn't in the way of taking care of patients. If you indeed find something that would show that differences please do provide it!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
We are not taught to hold patients' hands and tell them 'it's going to be ok.':p
 
Hmm. Sunshine and rainbows. Since I work nightshift, I never see either of those, and since I work in the medical field, I ALSO never see much of that. There's nothing "sunshine and rainbows" when damages are created. And yes, according to Business Insurance, nurse practitioners are being held similarly in court to that of PCP's: 1) Primary care provider role exposes nurse practitioners to malpractice risks - Business Insurance --2.) Lawsuits against nurses could lead to higher professional liability rates - Business Insurance And while I hate referring to Medscape for anything, this was an interesting article: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/775746_2 .

Again, nothing is ever "hunky dory" when an accident is made involving the life or well-being of a patient, ever or if someone get's sued. Let's be fair.

While I'll never subscribe to the notion that NP's should be completely independent, here's a systematic review of RCT's regarding the safety and effectiveness (aka sunshine and rainbows)--originating from Columbia University: http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/documents/nursingoap/files/Quality of Primary Care Advanced Practice Nurses.pdf

I have to say though, I like your name,"Weirdy."
The problem with studies like this, and in general, is people are saying they have evidence that there is no difference because a study wasn't significant. Failure to reject the null hypothesis of no difference between the groups (or any other null hypothesis) doesn't actually provide any evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. In this case, just because studies fail to find a significant difference between mid-level care and physician care doesn't mean they have evidence that no difference exists (or that they've proven equality or something similar). That's just not how hypothesis testing works. So when they make the conclusion that "care is equal" because some studies didn't find a significant difference, they've misunderstood the results and improperly conveyed that in their paper (unless I missed them using non-inferiority testing, but that wasn't obvious in my 1 minute skim).

Then people see "a great study from an esteemed school such as Columbia" and they don't think to question it or don't know enough to question it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm. Sunshine and rainbows. Since I work nightshift, I never see either of those, and since I work in the medical field, I ALSO never see much of that. There's nothing "sunshine and rainbows" when damages are created. And yes, according to Business Insurance, nurse practitioners are being held similarly in court to that of PCP's: 1) Primary care provider role exposes nurse practitioners to malpractice risks - Business Insurance --2.) Lawsuits against nurses could lead to higher professional liability rates - Business Insurance And while I hate referring to Medscape for anything, this was an interesting article: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/775746_2 .

Again, nothing is ever "hunky dory" when an accident is made involving the life or well-being of a patient, ever or if someone get's sued. Let's be fair.

While I'll never subscribe to the notion that NP's should be completely independent, here's a systematic review of RCT's regarding the safety and effectiveness (aka sunshine and rainbows)--originating from Columbia University: http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/documents/nursingoap/files/Quality of Primary Care Advanced Practice Nurses.pdf

I have to say though, I like your name,"Weirdy."

Thank you for the compliment.

You linked me a systematic review.

Of the 7 studies included only 1 is from the U.S.

I respect the fact that you cited research articles. This study particularly still makes a weak case.

Regarding your #1 article for Primary care role. The article says NPs are facing the same increase of claims against them regarding "A five-year closed claims analysis conducted by Chicago-based CNA Insurance Co. on claims against nurse practitioners bears this out, with the most frequent allegations made against nurse practitioners involving failure to diagnose and delay in making a correct diagnosis, failure to provide proper treatment and care, and medication prescribing errors." like primary care physicians were before.

Their solution was to rely strictly on more protocols put in place to mitigate risk. Protocol is great for an instant pass in driving down risks. But the problem still lies in depth of education and diagnosis. Any capable human being with minimal education can follow a protocol. It takes more than that to understand the why when things go wrong. You cannot solve increased duties and intensity of care by adding more protocols. That has to change at an education level, which is not being addressed properly in the nursing field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
O, you know, the hoards of dnps who have "Dr. so and so" with 45 erroneous letters after their name on their white coat who walk into patients room and say, "hi I'm Dr. so and so" but never identify themselves as NOT the physician. Don't try to play dumb here, you know precisely what they and literally every np i've ever met are trying to do: pretend to be doctors. It is 100% unethical, in a clinical setting, to not identify themselves as a NURSE or NURSE practitioner.

I suppose if I have a doctorate in literally anything then I, as a medical student, can walk in and introduce myself as "Dr." to patients...Give me a break...
I don't think they're as nefarious as you're making them out to be. I'll give you a little anecdote for context. I know a post-doc (PhD in molecular biology), who's decided to be a nurse instead. Even though she has a doctorate, which gives her the authority to be called doctor at any time, she's been specifically instructed by more senior nurses to refrain from introducing herself as doctor. N=1, but I'm sure that they know being called Dr. _____ would be extremely confusing to patients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't think they're as nefarious as you're making them out to be. I'll give you a little anecdote for context. I know a post-doc (PhD in molecular biology), who's decided to be a nurse instead. Even though she has a doctorate, which gives her the authority to be called doctor at any time, she's been specifically instructed by more senior nurses to refrain from introducing herself as doctor. N=1, but I'm sure that they know being called Dr. _____ would be extremely confusing to patients.
Either these seniors don't have a doctorate at all, and thus, would hate for her to be referred to as "doctor", or they have nursing doctorates and, ironically, they don't think she should be called "doctor" in a clinical setting since she doesn't have the DNP:rofl:
 
I just refer to them as midlevels constantly because that is what they are. I feel like as physicians we are pressured to be "nice" and "team players" but we have gotten soft in doing so and now I see NPs and PAs not wanting to be referred as a midlevels and wanna be called some other nonsense to float their self esteem boat. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want good hours, minimal debt, and a good salary be an NP/PA recognizing you are a MIDLEVEL. If you want to be trained at the highest level and call the shots, pay your dues, go to med school, incur the ridiculous debt, go through the indentured servitude of residency, and then come out of it as TOPLEVEL.
I refer to them as B team providers.

Not really tho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What confuses me about this is that step 3 is essentially a clinical exam regarding patient management. I would understand the reasoning of "we don't train the same way" if we were asking NPs to take step 1 since you aren't required to know medicine to that level.

The reason why it was administered is because NP lobbying wishes to have the same independent practice rights as MD/DOs. Isn't medicine medicine? Is there some sort of other pathway you take when a patient has strep throat vs a MD/DO physician?

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Medicine is medicine. And nursing is nursing. And that is the problem. This is the foundation of my essential rant on this topic: Nursing IS NOT medicine.

Physicians are trained differently because their focus is fundamentally different in some subtle ways that I think very few appreciate unless they have actively studied both disciplines. Physicians, how ever "holistic," are essentially focused on disease processes and their diagnosis and treatment... and further, they are focused to some extend on theory.

Nursing focuses on application and on the "human response to disease." It is NOT just watered down or simplified medicine. That is to say, at its core, nursing is about how the disease affects the patient and also the implementation of treatment plans. This is sometimes treated with less respect by physicians who imagine that their role is more indispensable, when the truth is that most intellectually honest physicians will readily admit that they may not actually know HOW to implement all of the orders they write.

Oh, sure, they might have an idea of how to place an IV or safely administer a drug or get someone off a bed pan without causing a skin tear or to perform a safe pivot transfer from a wheelchair to a bed or all the steps needed to arrange a transfer to another facility, etc, etc. But they don't always know the nuances that go into actually performing all the hands on care that their patients need. Those who think that they can learn all that it takes to be a nurse and to surpass the nurses in that specialized body of knowledge in the first few weeks of their internship are just as arrogant and just as wrong as the RNs who think they can learn to be a physician in a 20 month online NP program.

Nursing is an important discipline in the provision of care to patients. Medicine is another, separate discipline. And here is the thing... in theory, NPs never really study medicine. They study "advanced nursing." Advanced Practice Nurses, like CRNAs and NPs get a crash course in a bricolage conglomeration of nursing dressed up as medicine and medicine dressed up as nursing, which ends up being weaker than either discipline on its own.

In nursing school and throughout practice as a regular old RN, nurses are restricted from using medical diagnoses and have to instead use a ridiculous and convoluted system of diagnoses in order to avoid stepping on medicine's toes. Nursing notes can read like gobbledygook if you don't know the lingo, and physicians wonder why nurses write bizarre things like "Alteration of elimination, related to dietary intolerance, as evidenced by liquid malodorous stool, abdominal pain, and excessive flatus subsequent to consumption of dairy products," when everyone knows what they really mean is "lactose-intolerance induced diarrhea." If you read a formal nursing care plan, you will see example after example of these nursing diagnoses. It isn't because nurses are being deliberately obtuse. They just aren't permitted to say "The patient has diarrhea" because that is making a medical diagnosis, which they are not, as nurses, qualified to do.

Then you take that same person who learned all their clinical skills in that setting, and give them a year or two (*maybe* 3) of didactic and often no further required clinical education, a large part of which will be devoted, not to learning medicine, but to learning a slightly more detailed version of what they already knew, but letting them use medical diagnoses that make it sound like they are now practicing medicine.

They aren't. They weren't taught it. And that is the essential argument that must be made and made convincingly every time this argument comes up. Nurses don't perform well on tests of medical practice because they are practitioners of nursing.

If this point were fully appreciated, there would be no further question about how to cope with midlevel encroachment. No one who needs medical attention would be satisfied with nursing care alone... any more than they would get better if the physicians rounded on them and wrote orders, but without nurses available to actually provide the necessary care.

Both disciplines are harmed by role confusion. And most importantly, patients are terribly harmed by role confusion. There is absolutely a role for nurse practitioners on a physician-lead health care team. With physician supervision available, they can provide exceptional care... but unless they have attended medical school, they are not qualified to be physicians or to practice medicine. Full stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 users
Now this forum is hilarious. I thought the last one I just debated in was funny but this one takes the cake. You guys act like we are out there trying to kill patients and maliciously take out doctors. Why are you guys so threatened by us? We have a foot hold in healthcare now as independent practitioners in nearly half the country - so rather than fighting us and making access to patient care more difficult (with a lot of unnecessary restrictions), learn to work with NPs. Train your student NPs and new hires. Utilize them to help make your life easier. Once your a physician you will see that they are invaluable members to healthcare teams. We're here to stay so lets be civil, huh? Cheers :)
 
Last edited:
Now this forum is hilarious. I thought the last one I just debated in was funny but this one takes the cake. You guys act like we are out there trying to kill patients and maliciously take out doctors. Why are you guys so threatened by us? We have a foot hold in healthcare now as independent practitioners in nearly half the country - so rather than fighting us and making access to patient care more difficult (with a lot of unnecessary restrictions), learn to work with NPs. Train your student NPs and new hires. Utilize them to help make your life easier. Once your a physician you will see that they are invaluable members to healthcare teams. We're here to stay so lets be civil, huh? Cheers :)
I'll probably hire five or six of you to see patients independently while I skim 100k a piece. But I'd rather I didn't even have that option, tbph, it's just bad care. If somebody is going to be providing it anyways, I may as well make money off of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'll probably hire five or six of you to see patients independently while I skim 100k a piece. But I'd rather I didn't even have that option, tbph, it's just bad care. If somebody is going to be providing it anyways, I may as well make money off of it.

It's good care my friend, only good care. You know why? Because if you have a practice, and you're the one hiring the nurse practitioners, YOU will ensure that it's good care. How do you do that, you might ask? Hire only very qualified nurse practitioners! Like we talked about in the previous forum, DO NOT hire NPs right out of school that have zero nursing experience, or some NP from a ridiculous online program where they've never had any interaction with their peers or professors. If you do train or hire NPs like this, then your part of the problem in lowering the standards of care and helping these "nurse-mil" so called universities stay in business. Remember how we talked about the "traditional route"? If you want to elevate standards, then start there and only hire those NPs :) And yes you can have NPs to help you be more productive as a practice as well. Nothing wrong with generating healthy income where everyone wins.
 
Last edited:
It's good care my friend, only good care. You know why? Because if you have a practice, and you're the one hiring the nurse practitioners, YOU will ensure that it's good care. How do you do that, you might ask? Hire only very qualified nurse practitioners! Like we talked about in the previous forum, DO NOT hire NPs right out of school that have zero nursing experience, or some NP from a ridiculous online program where they've never had any interaction with their peers or professors. Remember how we talked about the "traditional route"? If you want to elevate standards, then start there and only hire those NPs :) And yes you can have NPs to help you be more productive as a practice as well. Nothing wrong with generating healthy income where everyone wins.
I plan to only hire grads from a few of my favorite programs (Quinnipiac, Yale, Columbia). I'm great at the business end of things, and most of them want to be employees, so I figure if I run a slim practice, everybody wins. I can offer better salaries than they'd make in most practices and still come out ahead on my end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I plan to only hire grads from a few of my favorite programs (Quinnipiac, Yale, Columbia). I'm great at the business end of things, and most of them want to be employees, so I figure if I run a slim practice, everybody wins. I can offer better salaries than they'd make in most practices and still come out ahead on my end.

Good to hear Mad Jack. When do you finish residency? Maybe I'll come work for you. Haha we already broke the ice in the previous forum so I feel like we're close now!
 
Last edited:
Just hire PA's and AA's. Let the NP's fight among themselves for the crumbs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Just hire PA's and AA's. Let the NP's fight among themselves for the crumbs.
There is a limit to the number of PAs I can hire, while the number of NPs I can bring on-board is unlimited. Until PAs get independent practice rights, there is a significant disincentive to hire PAs.
 
You clearly dislike NPs and have it out for them so I won't try to argue with you or try to convince you. However maybe anesthesiologist Dr. Leng can provide you with some insight...

Go fund a physician rather than fight nurse practitioners
Only 18% of NPs practice in rural environments, the meme that they're some massive force halting the lack of care in rural areas is overblown. They provide less than half of the care in rural areas, with family physicians and general internists providing the majority (family physicians alone provide 42% of all rural care despite being a very small workforce). 52% of NPs enter primary care, a number that has declined substantially as nurses mirror the physician scramble to enter specialties and shun primary care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Hey Mad Jack while you are right that 18% may only be practicing in rural areas, that is still some 43,200 NPs answering the call to meet the demands out in these areas. Considering there are about 240,000 NPs overall, that is a large proportion of us especially when you consider that 52% of NPs are actually practicing in primary care. I think its important to point out that nearly 90% of NPs hold certifications in some area of primary care as well, making us that much more likely to go into rural areas or primary care and practice. But I do agree with you Mad Jack that people now adays are chasing the money and I personally feel more (physicians and NPs) should be going to these regions to practice. The problem is student debt, lifestyle sacrifices, and maybe a lack of overall incentive. BTW just so you know, I got my data from AHRQ and AANP.
 
Hey Mad Jack while you are right that 18% may only be practicing in rural areas, that is still some 43,200 NPs answering the call to meet the demands out in these areas. Considering there are about 240,000 NPs overall, that is a large proportion of us especially when you consider that 52% of NPs are actually practicing in primary care. I think its important to point out that nearly 90% of NPs hold certifications in some area of primary care as well, making us that much more likely to go into rural areas or primary care and practice. But I do agree with you Mad Jack that people now adays are chasing the money and I personally feel more (physicians and NPs) should be going to these regions to practice. The problem is student debt, lifestyle sacrifices, and maybe a lack of overall incentive. BTW just so you know, I got my data from AHRQ and AANP.
Compare that to the 89,000 rural practicing physicians and you're still not the primary force in rural care, the majority of which are primary care physicians and general surgeons. Source AAFP
 
There is a limit to the number of PAs I can hire, while the number of NPs I can bring on-board is unlimited. Until PAs get independent practice rights, there is a significant disincentive to hire PAs.

Do you think PAs will ever get independent practicing rights? Not being pointed but just dont think that will happen. NPs will however continue to gain practice authority throughout the country. For better or for worse (I believe for better) 2016-2017 was a big year for NPs in Florida as they now can prescribe narcotics and no longer have to submit collaboration agreements forms to the board. Its now just a formality in that state.

Compare that to the 89,000 rural practicing physicians and you're still not the primary force in rural care, the majority of which are primary care physicians and general surgeons. Source AAFP

Thats good, and considering there are about 210,000 GPs thats a big proportion of them in rural America. Can't say that isn't a good thing. Overall however, there are about 700,000 practicing physicians, making that number in rural America seem small in comparison (12-13%). Will be interesting to see how things play out by 2025 with a new wave of physician graduates and the steady stream of NPs entering the job market. We can only speculate...I know for myself, once my debts are paid off (or if they are not paid off in 3 years) I plan to move out there and do my time in rural America. In some areas they pay extremely well (e.g., Alaska, Oregon), so the incentive is there.
 
Last edited:
Do you think PAs will ever get independent practicing rights? Not being pointed but just dont think that will happen. NPs will however continue to gain practice authority throughout the country. For better or for worse (I believe for better) 2016-2017 was a big year for NPs in Florida as they now can prescribe narcotics and no longer have to submit collaboration agreements forms to the board. Its now just a formality in that state.



Thats good, and considering there are about 210,000 GPs thats a big proportion of them in rural America. Can't say that isn't a good thing. Overall however, there are about 700,000 practicing physicians, making that number in rural America seem small in comparison (12-13%). Will be interesting to see how things play out by 2025 with a new wave of physician graduates and the steady stream of NPs entering the job market. We can only speculate...I know for myself, once my debts are paid off (or if they are not paid off in 3 years) I plan to move out there and do my time in rural America. In some areas they pay extremely well (e.g., Alaska, Oregon), so the incentive is there.
PAs just made independent practice a goal last year. They have gotten rid of oversight requirements and cosignature legislation in a great number of states, and are permitted to own practices in about a dozen now. I'm betting they're going to look like NPs on the legislative front, just ten to fifteen years behind. As to rural incentives, of the graduating FPs from the residency program I'm closest with, about a third went rural because it provides a greater scope of practice and the pay can be 50-100% higher.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Really though, if I want to get rich I think my best avenue would be getting a law degree and going after NP malpractice cases. Generally doctors trip up in medmal and lose because they step outside their area of expertise, so it would basically be like printing money to go after a NP that has a bad outcome. "Did you go to medical school?" "No." "Did you complete specialty training in the area of (patient diagnosis)?" "No." "Then what makes you think you were qualified to treat the patient?" Threw a couple of expert witnesses in the stand that you ask the same questions as the NP but which they can answer appropriately and no NP could ever do so and the jury will be like "wow, this person was out of their depth..." A lawyer I'm friends with thinks it's going to be the next frontier in malpractice cases, because the malpractice insurance market for NPs is so nascent that it's ripe for the picking since the insurance companies will panic and force settlements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Really though, if I want to get rich I think my best avenue would be getting a law degree and going after NP malpractice cases. Generally doctors trip up in medmal and lose because they step outside their area of expertise, so it would basically be like printing money to go after a NP that has a bad outcome. "Did you go to medical school?" "No." "Did you complete specialty training in the area of (patient diagnosis)?" "No." "Then what makes you think you were qualified to treat the patient?" Threw a couple of expert witnesses in the stand that you ask the same questions as the NP but which they can answer appropriately and no NP could ever do so and the jury will be like "wow, this person was out of their depth..." A lawyer I'm friends with thinks it's going to be the next frontier in malpractice cases, because the malpractice insurance market for NPs is so nascent that it's ripe for the picking since the insurance companies will panic and force settlements.

Thats why its so important to practice within our scope (whether physician, NP, RN or whatever). I was actually looking into law school as a possible next degre. They have 3 year online law degrees, and just need to study for LSAT and do well if I wanted to get in. My grandmother is a lawyer/nurse and did med mal
 
Thats why its so important to practice within our scope (whether physician, NP, RN or whatever). I was actually looking into law school as a possible next degre. They have 3 year online law degrees, and just need to study for LSAT and do well if I wanted to get in. My grandmother is a lawyer/nurse and did med mal
The problem is that your scope doesn't protect you from bad outcomes, since it can easily be argued that you are unqualified to do most things in a court of law. Then tie stuck in the bind of either saying you aren't qualified or arguing that you were and had a bad outcome, both of which lose you the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The problem is that your scope doesn't protect you from bad outcomes, since it can easily be argued that you are unqualified to do most things in a court of law. Then tie stuck in the bind of either saying you aren't qualified or arguing that you were and had a bad outcome, both of which lose you the case.

Yea if bad outcomes was actually an issue for NPs, but NPs have good outcomes so not sure what your trying to say. Even where NPs have been independent, they have been safe and effective. And ummm scope actually does protect you in the court of law. If anything, its the most important thing that protects you in cases where there is question. If you have a bad outcome, then as long as you stayed within your scope and practiced by standard then you should be fine.
 
... Threw a couple of expert witnesses in the stand that you ask the same questions as the NP but which they can answer appropriately and no NP could ever do...

You don't think a NP can defend themselves or provide rationals? lol its funny, sometimes you say things that make me happy (like how you'll actually hire NPs) but then you say jerk things like this. Mad Jack, if your gonna work with NPs and hire them you may have to learn to change your outlook.
 
Yea if bad outcomes was actually an issue for NPs, but NPs have good outcomes so not sure what your trying to say. Even where NPs have been independent, they have been safe and effective. And ummm scope actually does protect you in the court of law. If anything, its the most important thing that protects you in cases where there is question. If you have a bad outcome, then as long as you stayed within your scope and practiced by standard then you should be fine.
That's not how it works though. Courts in my state do not let you off for practicing standard of care, they judge cases based on net harm. Negligence or recklessness are not factors. Saying you practiced within your scope and to the standard doesn't win with a jury (laymen decide these cases, not experts), because all a lawyer has to respond with is, "oh, so this patient was just a number to you? You admit you are incapable of thinking outside of guidelines?" These are almost verbatim statements by malpractice lawyers here, but made towards physicians. The same arguments apply to midlevels. If you want to practice independently, you take on the legal burdens of independence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You don't think a NP can defend themselves or provide rationals? lol its funny, sometimes you say things that make me happy (like how you'll actually hire NPs) but then you say jerk things like this. Mad Jack, if your gonna work with NPs and hire them you may have to learn to change your outlook.
You miss that it's easy to trip up anyone on the stand. They just all you something niche within primary care that all physicians learn for boards but that NPs scratch the surface of and then grill you as to why you believe you could handle the client's case if you can't answer such basic questions. To a jury of idiots, you appear incompetent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You miss that it's easy to trip up anyone on the stand. They just all you something niche within primary care that all physicians learn for boards but that NPs scratch the surface of and then grill you as to why you believe you could handle the client's case if you can't answer such basic questions. To a jury of idiots, you appear incompetent.

I understand that you take on that burden as independent provider, you don't have to tell me that. Practice within your scope, be safe, and have a relationship with your patients and you should not get sued. All my professors and physician instructors discussed this with us and none of them that I know of have ever been sued. So whats your point? You trying to scare me away from independent practice?
 
I understand that you take on that burden as independent provider, you don't have to tell me that. Practice within your scope, be safe, and have a relationship with your patients and you should not get sued. All my professors and physician instructors discussed this with us and none of them that I know of have ever been sued. So whats your point? You trying to scare me away from independent practice?
Not at all. I'm just saying there's gold in them there hills, and that the hills are made of inevitable bad outcomes from family nurse practitioners. On a long enough time scale, every practitioner makes mistakes. It's much easier to sway a jury in the case of mistakes made by NPs because you can pull cards you can't with physicians when NPs are essentially taking on the responsibilities of family medicine physicians.
 
Not at all. I'm just saying there's gold in them there hills, and that the hills are made of inevitable bad outcomes from family nurse practitioners. On a long enough time scale, every practitioner makes mistakes. It's much easier to sway a jury in the case of mistakes made by NPs because you can pull cards you can't with physicians when NPs are essentially taking on the responsibilities of family medicine physicians.

I appreciate your genuine concern but I'll worry about my performance as you will worry about yours. Physicians have a worse track record of being sued and arrested for negligence, so worry about yourself instead of giving me advice.
 
I appreciate your genuine concern but I'll worry about my performance as you will worry about yours. Physicians have a worse track record of being sued and arrested for negligence, so worry about yourself instead of giving me advice.
I'm not giving you advice or concerned. I'm saying it's a good way for me to make some money in the future.

And the reason that NPs typically don't end up with payouts is because the vast majority work for large organizations or are still in states where physicians oversee their work, and thus they have the most shallow pockets in a given case. Big-time lawyers don't care about people with small pockets, but I think a shotgun approach could net some serious returns in the NP arena, as a hard press will likely result in easy settlements with little time invested. Doesn't make sense for a big-time attorney, but for a guy with too much free time and a practice of NPs sending money his way and real estate paying the rest, it certainly wouldn't be a bad side job and hobby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm not giving you advice or concerned. I'm saying it's a good way for me to make some money in the future.

And the reason that NPs typically don't end up with payouts is because the vast majority work for large organizations or are still in states where physicians oversee their work, and thus they have the most shallow pockets in a given case. Big-time lawyers don't care about people with small pockets, but I think a shotgun approach could net some serious returns in the NP arena, as a hard press will likely result in easy settlements with little time invested. Doesn't make sense for a big-time attorney, but for a guy with too much free time and a practice of NPs sending money his way and real estate paying the rest, it certainly wouldn't be a bad side job and hobby.

Lol okay well good luck with that. If I ever get my law degree then I think an easy arena of med mal law will be to strike down hard on negligent pain management physicians. Florida is good business for that. Would be quick and easy, and a great way to score bucks.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's not how it works though. Courts in my state do not let you off for practicing standard of care, they judge cases based on net harm..

And that is absolutely NOT how it works- try saying that to my stepfather's first wife who died of malignant breast cancer because her physician wouldn't order a pet scan. He got away with it of course because he was practicing with in "standard of care" despite her having multiple "cysts" under her left arm. She already had chemo and had a mastectomy So she was high-risk. They did MRIs and said "nothing wrong here!" and didnt do the PET.
 
And that is absolutely NOT how it works- try saying that to my stepfather's first wife who died of malignant breast cancer because her physician wouldn't order a pet scan. He got away with it of course because he was practicing with in "standard of care" despite her having multiple "cysts" under her left arm. She already had chemo and had a mastectomy So she was high-risk. They did MRIs and said "nothing wrong here!" and didnt do the PET.
Medscape: Medscape Access

Links are showing rather weird today. Clicky the link my NP frand.
 
Last edited:
Top