As health reform moves along, concern has been expressed about whether there is adequate capacity in the medical community to meet the needs of the newly insured, whether commercial or Medicaid members. Particularly in regard to primary care, physicians are not the only method for meeting health care needs, physician assistants and nurse practitioners have the training and skill to provide many of the same services. But historically physicians have advocated for and largely obtained scope of practice laws that protect their turf and limit the activities of these alternative providers, unless they are supervised by a physician. Some states have relaxed restrictions in recent years, many other states have not. A brief from the National Institute for Health Care Reform examines the effect of scope of practice restrictions. (NIHCR Brief) About 18 states now allow nurse practitioners full freedom to practice without physician supervision. Another 7 require doctor supervision only for prescribing, while the remaining 25 continue to require full supervision. The brief looked at 6 states with a range of laws to ascertain the practical effects. These effects tend to interact with payer policies, which may independently cause issues because if you can’t get paid for providing a service you are unlikely to want to deliver it. Both Medicare and Medicaid may require physician involvement for billing of some services, and private payers may also have restrictions. Many of these payer restrictions may derive back to the era when these alternative providers could rarely practice alone and they are likely undated. The brief demonstrates that there are problems caused in the states with supervisory requirements. These laws exacerbate access difficulties in rural and other underserved areas because a nurse practitioner can’t be far from a doctor and there aren’t many physicians in these areas. They also affect the efficiency and productivity of these practitioners, because of the interaction required. Although not extensively dealt with in the brief, nurse practitioners are far more cost-effective on a unit-of-service basis and the research does not indicate any more quality concerns in regard to their work than the work of doctors. If we are concerned about costs, and if increasing unit prices is a major driver of costs, then all scope of practice restrictions should be removed as soon as possible and the use of nurse practitioners should be strongly encouraged.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
Research
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Headlines
Tags
Access
ACO
Care Management
Chronic Disease
Comparative Effectiveness
Consumer Directed Health
Consumers
Devices
Disease Management
Drugs
EHRs
Elder Care
End-of-Life Care
FDA
Financings
Genomics
Government
Health Care Costs
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Insurance
Health Insurance Exchange
HIT
HomeCare
Hospital
Hospital Readmissions
Legislation
M&A
Malpractice
Meaningful Use
Medicaid
Medical Care
Medicare
Medicare Advantage
Mobile
Pay For Performance
Pharmaceutical
Physicians
Providers
Regulation
Repealing Reform
Telehealth
Telemedicine
Wellness and Prevention
Workplace
Related Posts
Commentary
March 25, 2023
Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 201
Tired of March Madness? A boringly refreshing dip into some CV-19 research summaries is recommended.
Commentary
March 24, 2023
The CDC Is a Font of Methodological and Statistical Error
Several times in the last three years I and others have pointed out serious flaws…
Commentary
March 24, 2023
A Couple of Health Care Notes
A couple of pieces of health care research focus on high health care spending and…