- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 2
KentW said:
Very true. But, this is also why midlevels should be midlevels.
Sorry for another "FNP vs. MD GP" threads, but...
- Thread starter Josh L.Ac.
- Start date
Very true. But, this is also why midlevels should be midlevels.
D
deleted4401
How embarrassing. I'm now a PGY-2 (after a year of medicine at a decent program), and my answer to the ACE-I question wouldn't have been much more detailed. I definitely wouldn't have had paragraphs of benefits. Damn 240s on both Steps, and turns out I know as much as an FNP ... Note sarcasm ...
I think the difference between the two is a bit more nuanced than larger differential diagnoses and knowing mechanisms of drugs. It's a little more complicated, b/c one could say a similar thing about FPs that treat children vs. pediatricians. "FPs haven't had the same in-depth training, they haven't seen nearly as many children, and many of them have not had specialty electives such as hem-onc, GI, and cardiology. They are going to miss a lot, because their differentials will not be as broad." Well, fact is, most FPs have 3 months - 6 months of pediatrics and they end up doing just fine, and not massacring the children in the community.
I think NPs trained to treat certain diseases - URIs, UTIs, ankle sprains, STDs, gastroenteritis, etc. can do the job. The cost of medicine is incredible. Any way to lower cost and maintain quality is sorely needed. Although medicine isn't a perfect market, the market is beautiful because she corrects. If outcomes are poor, NPs will end up either 1) losing customers 2) losing scope of practice or 3) face increased regulation.
There are many "Minute Clinics" with NPs opening up in supermarkets. These will be excellent test cases. My gut feeling is that they will quietly provide efficient care for low acuity disease, at a low cost. However, there are beady-eyed (and regular-eyed) lawyers out there that I'm sure are already collecting data on the industry and will sue the bejeezus out of these clinics if there are poor outcomes.
As far as the OP, acupuncture is cool, man. Personally, I'd rather go to a physician who has it as part of his armament against disease. But, there isn't that many out there.
-S
I think the difference between the two is a bit more nuanced than larger differential diagnoses and knowing mechanisms of drugs. It's a little more complicated, b/c one could say a similar thing about FPs that treat children vs. pediatricians. "FPs haven't had the same in-depth training, they haven't seen nearly as many children, and many of them have not had specialty electives such as hem-onc, GI, and cardiology. They are going to miss a lot, because their differentials will not be as broad." Well, fact is, most FPs have 3 months - 6 months of pediatrics and they end up doing just fine, and not massacring the children in the community.
I think NPs trained to treat certain diseases - URIs, UTIs, ankle sprains, STDs, gastroenteritis, etc. can do the job. The cost of medicine is incredible. Any way to lower cost and maintain quality is sorely needed. Although medicine isn't a perfect market, the market is beautiful because she corrects. If outcomes are poor, NPs will end up either 1) losing customers 2) losing scope of practice or 3) face increased regulation.
There are many "Minute Clinics" with NPs opening up in supermarkets. These will be excellent test cases. My gut feeling is that they will quietly provide efficient care for low acuity disease, at a low cost. However, there are beady-eyed (and regular-eyed) lawyers out there that I'm sure are already collecting data on the industry and will sue the bejeezus out of these clinics if there are poor outcomes.
As far as the OP, acupuncture is cool, man. Personally, I'd rather go to a physician who has it as part of his armament against disease. But, there isn't that many out there.
-S
Similar threads
