Nurse Practitioners Are In -- and Why You May Be
Seeing More of Them
Published: February 13, 2013 in Knowledge@Wharton
Despite
continuing protests from some physician groups, the role of nurse practitioners
(NPs) in U.S. health care is expanding and will likely change both the costs and
type of care experienced by millions of Americans.
Partly driving this change is The Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare,
which will extend health care coverage to approximately 30 million more
individuals, most of whom have not been able to afford health insurance in the
past.
Predictions for a shortage of family practice doctors are adding to the
impetus for a broader role for nurse practitioners, who are already the main
non-physician providers of primary care. NPs have more advanced training than
registered nurses (RNs), typically acquired through completion of a Master of
Nursing or other graduate degree.
The effort to expand the scope of nurse practitioners' authority to treat
patients, however, has been opposed by a number of physician groups, including
the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family
Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Osteopathic
Association, all of which support direct supervision of NPs by physicians. Some
doctors -- concerned about the ability of NPs to diagnose complex illnesses --
have fought legislation on the state level that would allow these changes. Those
in favor of giving NPs more authority say physicians are also worried about the
loss of income they will face if too many patients opt to see an NP rather than
an MD.
Physicians may be facing a losing battle. "That horse has already left the
barn," says Linda Aiken, professor of nursing at the University of Pennsylvania
School of Nursing and director of the Center for Health Outcomes and Policy
Research. "With Obamacare coming in and millions of people getting insurance,
there is no other way to provide them with reasonable access in the short term
except to expand the role of NPs and physician assistants (PAs). It takes 20
years to train a doctor, so there isn't any alternative." According to an
article titled, "Broadening the Scope of Nursing Practice," published in 2011 in
The New England Journal of Medicine, "between three and 12 nurse
practitioners can be educated for the price of educating one physician, and more
quickly."
"Doctors have always been wary of others poaching on their turf," says Lawton R. Burns, Wharton
professor of health care management. "And highly trained nurses are always
looking for more recognition, responsibility and autonomy rather than being
under a physician's thumb. It's these types of dynamics that pose a challenge to
health care reform."
Comparable Care
In the U.S., each state is responsible for deciding and regulating what
services health care practitioners are qualified to provide. According to a
National Governors Association report in December, 16 states and the District of
Columbia allow NPs to practice "completely independently of a doctor and to the
full extent of their training -- i.e., diagnosing, treating and referring
patients as well as prescribing medications." The remaining states require NPs
to have some level of involvement with, or supervision by, a physician.
Wharton professor of health care management Robert
J. Town, among others, questions the patchwork state regulatory system,
including its restrictions on nurse practitioners' scope of practice. Giving NPs
the right to treat patients and prescribe mediations without a doctor's
supervision "doesn't seem to have any negative consequences, and it provides a
lot of people with more access to primary care, whether it's in a retail clinic
or whether it means patients can see their primary care provider without having
to see the physician," he says.
Rules governing the scope of nurse practitioners' authority, he adds, "are
determined by state legislatures, not by rational cost benefit analysis," and
some of those legislatures have ruled against an expanded role for NPs "because
of physician opposition. If doctors can keep nurses off their territory, it
increases the number of patients these doctors can see and how much they get
paid." But change may be on the way, he notes, "either because insurers are
pushing to have more alternative providers available, or the alternative
providers are getting greater clout with legislators. Or perhaps physicians know
they are at capacity" and simply will not be able to take on all the new
patients expected to be covered by Obamacare.
One health research group estimates that the country can expect a shortage of
90,000 doctors by 2020. Many of those shortages will be in the primary care
field, in part because primary care physicians are typically paid significantly
less than specialists.
Given predictions like these, Obamacare includes a number of incentives,
including financial, that it hopes will encourage more physicians to specialize
in family medicine. "We will have to see how that plays out in practice," says
Ashley Swanson,
Wharton professor of health care management, adding that "each side has a valid
perspective. Physician groups may be concerned that changing the position of
nurses, especially in primary care, will change doctors' reimbursement rates and
their ability to continue practicing. Doctors are also concerned that NPs won't
be able to provide the same kind of diagnostic quality of care."
That is the main argument put forth by the AMA and other physician groups. A
spokesperson at the AMA did not provide the name of a physician to speak with,
but did offer several policy statements with regard to physician assistants and
nurse practitioners. These guidelines state, for example, that "the physician is
responsible for managing the health care of patients in all settings" and "the
physician is responsible for the supervision of the physician assistant in all
settings."
Various press interviews with doctors indicate that they are not opposed to
letting NPs handle such routine matters as earaches and immunizations, but
object to giving them authority to treat more chronic diseases like diabetes, or
conditions that involve more complicated diagnoses such as possible broken bones
or concussions. One paper from a physician association suggested that allowing
NPs to practice independently "would create two classes of care: one run by a
physician-led team and one run by less-qualified health professionals....
Everyone deserves to be under the care of a doctor."
The move to expand nurse practitioners' authority has its supporters as well,
ranging from the AARP to the American College of Physicians to the Institute of
Medicine. In addition, "There are literally hundreds of studies showing that the
care offered by NPs is comparable -- and in some cases, better, in terms of
patient satisfaction -- than the care offered by doctors," says Aiken. "In other
outcomes, like teaching patients how to take care of themselves, NPs do better
as well."
According to a 2012 Health Policy Brief in Health Affairs, "a
systematic review of 26 studies published since 2000 found that health status,
treatment practices and prescribing behavior were consistent between NPs and
physicians." And the authors of the New England Journal of Medicine
article cited earlier write that while some physician groups suggest that their
longer and more in-depth training means NPs "cannot deliver primary care
services that are as high quality or safe as those of physicians ... there is no
measureable difference in the quality of basic care services" when compared to
the quality of care provided by NPs.
Good for Business
Heather Helle is COO and divisional vice president of Walgreens' Take Care
Health Systems Consumer Solutions Group. Walgreens, headquartered in Deerfield,
Ill., is the largest drug retailing chain in the U.S., with sales last year of
$72 billion. The company has more than 370 "Take Care" clinics in 19 states, and
more are on the way. NPs are typically the single provider on site, and in the
clinic model, they often practice independently, providing care that "equals,
and in some cases exceeds, what you find in a physician's office. They are a
clinical resource that, for many years, has been underutilized," says Helle,
adding that the company has contracts with most national and regional insurers.
Walgreens' position, she states, is that "NPs are uniquely positioned to deliver
high quality, affordable and convenient care. That has been the hallmark of the
retail clinic industry."
The dynamics of health care have changed since the first retail clinics
opened 12 years ago, Helle says, noting concerns back then about the autonomy of
NPs and the quality of care they offered. But now, "with the advent of the
Affordable Care Act and all the health challenges we are facing -- including a
physician shortage, an aging population, the prevalence of chronic disease and
more than 30 million more patients [eligible for coverage under Obamacare] --
you are seeing a real shift. Everyone used to say that we don't have enough
primary care physicians to serve these patient populations. The conversation has
now [moved] to, 'How do we think about ... leveraging NPs so that we are
complementing doctors, health systems and communities?'"
Along those lines, the company's Take Care Health Systems Group is
collaborating with Ochsner Health System in New Orleans to improve patient
access to health care -- including, for example, after-hours care in their
clinics so that "instead of clogging already overburdened emergency rooms (ERs),
patients can be triaged in a more appropriate setting to get less expensive care
with equal quality," says Helle. The collaboration will also facilitate and
promote medical information sharing with patients and with patients' health care
providers.
Other companies, as well, have seen the value of in-house clinics. CVS
operates more than 600 drug store Minute Clinics in 24 states, while Walmart and
Target offer clinics in their retail stores. That business model is expected to
save companies -- and state health care budgets -- significant sums of money. A
Rand Corporation study published 15 months ago in the American Journal of
Managed Care reported that health care at retail clinics is 30% to 40% less
expensive than similar care at a physician's office, and 80% less expensive than
care provided in an ER. Research published in 2010 in Health Affairs
calculates it another way: Between 13.7% and 27.1% of ER visits could have taken
place at retail clinics or urgent care centers; in addition, some patients who
go to retail clinics have saved $279 to $460 per visit compared to the cost of
going to an ER.
Economics also is playing an increasing role in individual states' decisions
on nurse practitioners' scope of practice. Companies like Walgreens and CVS that
favor more autonomy for NPs "are exerting themselves on some of these policy
decisions," notes Aiken. "If a state has restrictive practice requirements for
nurses, it costs these companies a lot more to locate their [clinics] there. So
you have a coalition opposing the AMA that wasn't there in the past."
The amount of money at issue isn't trivial. In its evaluation of the
Massachusetts health reform legislation, first enacted in 2006 and later
amended, the Rand Corporation concluded that if the state -- which has more
restrictive rules governing NPs than some other states -- broadened the scope of
practice for these NPs, it could save $8 billion over 10 years, in part by
offering an option for health care besides expensive ERs. Convenient care
centers can't operate in states like Massachusetts "without losing money," says
Aiken.
Pennsylvania offers a different outcome. In January 2007, then-governor
Edward Rendell announced Prescription for Pennsylvania (Rx for PA), a
comprehensive blueprint for reforming the state's health care system. One of its
major initiatives was to expand the legal scope of practice for NPs and other
advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). Within three years, 51 retail
clinics using APRNs were set up through the state, providing care to 60% of the
state's uninsured. It is estimated that about half of the 300,000 visits to
these clinics would otherwise have been to ERs.
Insurers and big health systems, as well, have a role to play in what looks
to be an ongoing restructuring of health care. "They are very supportive of NPs
by, for example, using them to do utilization reviews and to act as case
managers whose goal is to keep people out of hospitals," says Aiken. "And the
federal government uses them to expand federally qualified health centers. NPs
are everywhere."
Modified Reimbursements
The experience level of health care practitioners is a relevant issue in this
debate, says David
Asch, a physician, Wharton health care management professor and former
executive director of the Leonard Davis
Institute of Health Economics. "The value of education attenuates very
rapidly. I will take a very experienced NP over an inexperienced doctor any day
because so much of what people learn that will be of particular use comes after
they have completed their degree program.... There is some optimal point of
experience that is somewhere between right out of training and ready to
retire."
He also notes that when he was chief of general medicine 20 years ago at the
Philadelphia VA Medical Center, where he still practices, he hired NPs and PAs
whose scope of practice was "virtually identical to doctors'. So this is nothing
new. We are at a time when there is widespread recognition of shortages in some
areas of health care, especially primary care, which can be substantially served
by NPs and PAs."
Others agree. A report from the National Governors Association released two
months ago recommends that states ease restrictions on NPs and modify their
reimbursement policies to increase the role of nurse practitioners in providing
primary care. As it is, NPs are typically paid less than physicians for
providing the same service. For example, according to research published in
Health Affairs, Medicare currently pays NPs at a rate that is 85% of
what physicians receive; in Medicaid fee-for-service programs, more than half
the states pay NPs a smaller percentage of the rates charged by physicians.
A report in 2010 from The Institute of Medicine titled, "The Future of
Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health," recommended action "at the state and
federal levels to allow NPs to practice to the full extent of their education,"
and suggested that Congress amend the Medicare law "to make coverage of NP
services consistent with coverage of physician services."
For Wharton's Swanson, it gets down to making sure health care practitioners
are fairly paid for their expertise and experience. "Both physicians and nurses
have invested a lot in their education," she says. "They have a lot to lose, and
they want to make sure their careers are safe going forward. We all want to make
sure people are getting something for investing in their education. But at the
same time, we are in a period of great flux. A lot of changes are happening
because the current system no longer works."
Doctors and nurses, she adds, "are concerned about the uncertainty
surrounding the Affordable Care Act. But in the long run, anything that makes
our system more sustainable will be good for both groups."