Prescriptive Authority for Nurse Practitioners

The physician shortage in primary care, plus the growth of nurse practitioners and increasing need for access to health care, creates a necessity for more autonomous nurse practitioners. However, current restrictions on nurse practitioners, particularly prescription regulations for controlled substances, limit what practitioners can do for patients. These restrictions also increase wait times for patients and have the potential to increase liability claims as physicians prescribe medications for patients they have not adequately evaluated. Specialties Advanced Article

Nurse practitioners have proven to be a safe, quality, and cost saving approach to primary care. To meet the growing needs for patients, nurse practitioners must have the ability to prescribe controlled substances in all 50 states.

The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will provide many more Americans access to health care. The ACA will reduce the cost of receiving health care, while also enabling uninsured Americans access to insurance and more affordable healthcare. The Act will "promote prevention, wellness, and the public health" (Legislative Counsel, 2010, p. 463). Although the ACA will increase accessibility to primary care and prevention of diseases, there must be an adequate number of healthcare providers who can see these patients. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates a shortage of 46,000 primary care physicians by the year 2025 (Rouston, 2010). Nurse Practitioners can easily step into the role of primary care. There are currently 150,000 nurse practitioners in the United States, and 5,500 practitioners graduate every year (Rouston, 2010). State legislatures, however, regulate Advance Practice Registered Nurses (APRN), and only 12 states currently have no restrictions for APRN prescriptive rights (Future of Nursing, 2011). For APRNs to fully care for patients at the primary care level, state legislatures must remove prescriptive restrictions throughout the United States.

Nurse practitioners can and should help fill a void in providing primary care. As mentioned earlier, only 12 states currently allow nurse practitioners to prescribe medications without restriction; whereas the other 38 states require physician collaboration or restrictions on controlled substances (Future of Nursing, 2011). Patients routinely visit their family practice providers with concerns such as a sore throat, backache, or anxiety. The nurse practitioner is adequately trained, has completed a national certification examination, and possesses a license to care for these issues. However, only in certain states can these APRNs prescribe the necessary treatment for these patients. The practitioner may not be able to fulfill the need of the patient in states with stringent regulations limiting APRN prescription rights. In these states, the APRN must refer the patient to or consult with a physician to meet the patient's medical needs, thus delaying medical treatment. For example, a nurse practitioner in Florida caring for a patient with a persistent cough and sore throat cannot prescribe cough medicine with codeine for the patient's comfort (Nursing License Map, 2012). Therefore, the patient must see a physician to obtain a prescription for relief from a sore throat and cough, which both delays treatment and increases health care costs associated with a second visit.

Patients will benefit from minimizing restrictions on prescription authority. Not only will patients have greater access to health care with less wait times; but patients will also benefit from continuity of care. This benefit is especially true in rural areas of the United States, where an even greater shortage of primary care physicians exist (Anguita, 2011). Another problem with the prescription restrictions for controlled substances is that nurse practitioners can care for patients receiving these medications but cannot adjust or prescribe the medications. For example, a patient with generalized anxiety disorder takes Xanax, a controlled substance, and visits her nurse practitioner for a physical examination. The nurse practitioner must take into account the effects Xanax has on her patient; however, she is not allowed to write for or adjust this medication. Furthermore, nurse practitioners have authority to prescribe significantly more dangerous medications. In the state of Florida, for instance, a nurse practitioner may prescribe a potassium replacement or Coreg, a cardiac medication. These medications, if taken inappropriately, can have fatal effects on the patient, such as lowering the patient's blood pressure or causing a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. To allow the ARNP the right to prescribe such dangerous medications but limit the use of controlled substances is not logical or appropriate (The Florida Senate, 2008).

Nurse Managed Care Centers (NMCC) are prime examples of medical clinics that would benefit from lifting prescriptive authority constraints for APRNs. An NMCC offers primary care services, particularly in underserved and unemployed populations across the United States. These clinics promote wellness, disease prevention, and education for their patients. Three NMCCs exist in the state of Florida. Although most care centers have a collaborating physician who prescribes controlled substances, the physician's purpose at these clinics is also to collaborate with the nurse practitioners to maintain high quality care. This physician should not be hindered with his care because he prescribes medications the nurse practitioner cannot prescribe (Turkeltaub, 2004). Nurse Practitioners have consistently demonstrated they provide the same quality of care as physicians, but at a lower cost. In fact, in 2009, the average cost of a nurse practitioner visit was 20% less than a physician visit. The state of Massachusetts conducted a study to determine it could save 8.4 billion dollars over a 10-year period by increasing use of nurse practitioners. Patients who have greater primary care access to nurse practitioners will also benefit from cost savings associated with a reduced number of emergency room and hospital visits (The Cost Effectiveness, 2011). Unfortunately, this data does not account for the cost benefit of providing nurse practitioners full prescriptive authority. As it stands now, many nurse practitioners refer their patients to a physician for certain prescriptive needs.

Physicians are among the majorities that disagree with releasing the restrictions for controlled substances prescribed by nurse practitioners. In fact, according to an article by the Sunshine State News, The Florida Medical Association stated that, "the ability to prescribe controlled substances is limited to medical doctors for a reason: to protect patient safety. Physicians go to medical school to learn how to prescribe controlled substances safely and without interacting with other medications. ARNPs do not" (Derby, 2010, para. 9). A Fort Worth, Texas physician, Dr. Gary Floyd states that nurse practitioners should attend medical school and receive additional training if they wish to have more responsibility and function independently (Ramshaw, 2010). A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association; however, proves the assumption that nurse practitioners cannot provide adequate care and prescribe controlled substances false. This randomized study was conducted among medical clinics in states where nurse practitioners and physicians have the same prescriptive authority. The study determines if the outcomes of patients receiving nurse practitioner care or physician care differs. At the end of one year, the study proved that patient outcomes were comparable and no significant difference existed between the care provided by nurse practitioners and physicians (Mundinger, Kane, & Lentz, 2000).

Another notable objection to granting nurse practitioners full prescriptive authority in all 50 states is the fear that doing so will increase liability claims. In a study done at the University of Central Florida, a researcher compared malpractice claims among physicians and nurse practitioners in states that allow full prescriptive authority and in those that have restrictions. The study researched malpractice claims from the National Practitioner Data Bank. In states where nurse practitioners have full prescriptive authority, including the ability to prescribe controlled substances, this study revealed that per 1000 nurse practitioners and physicians, the average rate of malpractice claims was seven claims per 1000 nurse practitioners and 234 claims per 1000 physicians (Chandler, 2010). Therefore, according to this study, the argument that increasing prescriptive rights for nurse practitioners would increase malpractice claims is not legitimate. In fact, according to an article by Kaplan and Brown (2004), liabilities may actually increase for physicians in states where the nurse practitioner does not have full prescriptive authority. Because of the restrictions, the nurse practitioner is not able to write for such medications as Ritalin for a child with Attention Deficit Disorder. Therefore, the physician may write prescriptions for patients with whom he may not be adequately familiar. (Kaplan & Brown, 2004).

In conclusion, with the expectation for nurse practitioners to appease the primary care shortage, these practitioners must be able to meet the needs of patients. Regulating the APRNs ability to order such controlled substances as Xanax or Ritalin will not only inconvenience the patient, but will also diminish continuity of care. Nurse practitioners are more cost-effective than physicians, while continuing to provide the same quality of care. Time and time again, patient satisfaction and respect for nurse practitioners is extraordinary. The appropriate action for state legislatures is to remove prescriptive restrictions permitting nurse practitioners to provide the care they were trained to provide.

Work-Cited / References

Anguita, M. (2011, November 9). Leading the Way in Nurse Prescribing. Nurse Prescribing, 9(11), 526 529. Retrieved July 23, 2012, from CINAHL database

Chandler, D. (2010). Comparison of ARNP and Physician Malpractice in States with and without Controlled Substance Prescribing Authority (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved July 25,
2012, from http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0003212/Chandler_Deborah_C_201008_DNP.pdf

Derby, K. (2010, March 24). Nurse Practitioners Rally, Hoping to Write Prescriptions. Sunshine State News. Retrieved July 23, 2012

Future of Nursing: Campaign for Action. (2011). Advanced Practice Registered Nurses. Retrieved July 23, 2012, from http://thefutureofnursing.org/resource/detail/advanced-practice-registered-nurses

Kaplan, L. & Brown, M. (2004). Prescriptive Authority and Barriers to NP Practice. The Nurse
Practitioner, 29(3), 28-35

Legislative Counsel. (2010, May 1). Compilation of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Retrieved July 23, 2012, from http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

Mundinger, M., Kane, R., & Lentz, E. (2000, January 5). Primary Care Outcomes in Patients treated by Nurse Practitioners or Physicians: A Randomized Trial. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(1), 59-68. Retrieved July 23, 2012, from CINAHL database.

Nursing License Map. (2012). Nurse Practitioner Prescriptive Authority.

Rouston, J. (2010, November 2). The Future of Primary Care: Nurse-managed Health Centers.
HealtheCarreers.com.

Specializes in Cardiac.

I had wondered the same thing. I thought maybe this person meant clonidine (catapres), however that is a cardiac med not a psych med. Still makes you wonder.

deleted

Specializes in ED, Telemetry,Hospice, ICU, Supervisor.

The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates a shortage of 46,000 primary care physicians by the year 2025 (Rouston, 2010). Nurse Practitioners can easily step into the role of primary care.

There are currently 150,000 nurse practitioners in the United States, and 5,500 practitioners graduate every year (Rouston, 2010).

Nurse practitioners are more cost-effective than physicians, while continuing to provide the same quality of care. Time and time again, patient satisfaction and respect for nurse practitioners is extraordinary. The appropriate action for state legislatures is to remove prescriptive restrictions permitting nurse practitioners to provide the care they were trained to provide.

So because of the Affordable Care Act we will have a shortage of primary care physicians estimated at roughly 46,000. The idea is to increase the Nurse Practitioners scope of practice to better handle the massive shortage. The prescriptive authority of the Nurse Practitioner would be the primary focus as. We reorganize and reallocate the 150,000 plus 5,500 graduates yearly to better fill the need.

It is a brilliant idea to reallocate the NPs to an area with a deficit in man power. Makes absolutely perfect sense to do so.

However, there is an alternative route. Rather than change the scope of practice in several states in the US, society can just reallocate Physicians Assistants to fill the 46,000 expected deficit. According to the Bureau of Labor ans Statistics there are currently 83,600 PAs from the last census. There are also more graduating every year.

From a practical stand point I do not see the need to advance the scope of practice for NPs when the alternative will work just as well without any extra work. There is no legal issues about practicing nursing vs practicing medicine. PAs work form the same medical model as MDs so prescription are easily carried out. You pay them significantly less than an MD so they are very cost effective.

My question is why go through the state to state battle to enhance the NPs scope of practice when there is a viable alternative that also fills the 46,000 deficit?

This is an honest question and not being sarcastic.

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
So because of the Affordable Care Act we will have a shortage of primary care physicians estimated at roughly 46,000. The idea is to increase the Nurse Practitioners scope of practice to better handle the massive shortage. The prescriptive authority of the Nurse Practitioner would be the primary focus as. We reorganize and reallocate the 150,000 plus 5,500 graduates yearly to better fill the need.

It is a brilliant idea to reallocate the NPs to an area with a deficit in man power. Makes absolutely perfect sense to do so.

However, there is an alternative route. Rather than change the scope of practice in several states in the US, society can just reallocate Physicians Assistants to fill the 46,000 expected deficit. According to the Bureau of Labor ans Statistics there are currently 83,600 PAs from the last census. There are also more graduating every year.

From a practical stand point I do not see the need to advance the scope of practice for NPs when the alternative will work just as well without any extra work. There is no legal issues about practicing nursing vs practicing medicine. PAs work form the same medical model as MDs so prescription are easily carried out. You pay them significantly less than an MD so they are very cost effective.

My question is why go through the state to state battle to enhance the NPs scope of practice when there is a viable alternative that also fills the 46,000 deficit?

This is an honest question and not being sarcastic.

This is exactly why I stated on my previous post about putting the article in perspective. NP's and PA's ARE practicing primary care now in all the 50 states. Scope of practice restrictions aside, federal law allows for NP's and PA's to see their own panel of patients and be reimbursed as long as provisions for collaboration or supervision is in place in states that require them. The article is about prescriptive authority. Both professions prescribe medications in all 50 states except for controlled substances in some states. The OP is in Florida where both PA's and NP's are not allowed to write prescriptions for any controlled substance. Does that make sense at all for PA's and NP's to be able to write any other medication that has just as many deleterious effect on a patient and not be able to write for controlled substances? You decide.

Specializes in ED, Telemetry,Hospice, ICU, Supervisor.

Specifically, when do they begin to practice medicine and not nursing? Lets say the NPs and PAs get what they asked for. They get prescriptive authority as requested in all 50 states. Now at what point would the NPs be practicing medicine and not nursing. I am interested in how that would be handled on a court room debate level.

I still see the PAs with an edge over the NPs regarding their practice. Only is reason being is that as nurses you can get sued for practicing medicine. Where as PAs are are built on the medical model so there is less resistance there.

Specifically, when do they begin to practice medicine and not nursing?

As long as NPs and other advanced practice nurses are practicing within their scope of practice established by the state in which they're practicing, they are practicing nursing, not medicine.

Specializes in Psychiatric Nursing.

My understanding is that medicine got control of everything related to health care a long time ago in every state and made it illegal for any other professions to practice anything related to medicine or surgery. All non MD's have had to have laws enacted so they can have a profession--and the support of MD's are needed to pass any health care legislation!!

Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.

So because of the Affordable Care Act we will have a shortage of primary care physicians estimated at roughly 46,000. The idea is to increase the Nurse Practitioners scope of practice to better handle the massive shortage. The prescriptive authority of the Nurse Practitioner would be the primary focus as. We reorganize and reallocate the 150,000 plus 5,500 graduates yearly to better fill the need.

It is a brilliant idea to reallocate the NPs to an area with a deficit in man power. Makes absolutely perfect sense to do so.

However, there is an alternative route. Rather than change the scope of practice in several states in the US, society can just reallocate Physicians Assistants to fill the 46,000 expected deficit. According to the Bureau of Labor ans Statistics there are currently 83,600 PAs from the last census. There are also more graduating every year.

From a practical stand point I do not see the need to advance the scope of practice for NPs when the alternative will work just as well without any extra work. There is no legal issues about practicing nursing vs practicing medicine. PAs work form the same medical model as MDs so prescription are easily carried out. You pay them significantly less than an MD so they are very cost effective.

My question is why go through the state to state battle to enhance the NPs scope of practice when there is a viable alternative that also fills the 46,000 deficit?

This is an honest question and not being sarcastic.

PAs require a MD supervisor and are not individually licensed, so how does moving them address the shortage of PCPs in rural areas if a MD must move with them, and there is an increasing deficit of PCP physicians.

Specializes in ED, Telemetry,Hospice, ICU, Supervisor.
As long as NPs and other advanced practice nurses are practicing within their scope of practice established by the state in which they're practicing, they are practicing nursing, not medicine.

OK so if you advance the prescriptive authority of an NP so that it in their scope of practice, then they will still be practicing nursing. Even though they are treating the underlying cause and not the symptom.

Specializes in ED, Telemetry,Hospice, ICU, Supervisor.
PAs require a MD supervisor and are not individually licensed, so how does moving them address the shortage of PCPs in rural areas if a MD must move with them, and there is an increasing deficit of PCP physicians.

The reason I bring them up is two fold.

First is that there are legal issues regarding practiced medicine vs practicing nursing. I thought there was a fine line that an NP was treading.

Second is that PAs were designed from the round up as PCPs during the 1960s by Dr. Eugene Stead at Duke University in NC. Their very existence was due to a need of primary care physicians. The idea wad to use them as "combat multipliers". In essence thought they do practice with physician supervision, they have enough autonomy to treat the run of the mill complaints on their level. In other words the Physicians is not looking over your shoulder as you practice, you work as their agent. In essance as long as you have a direct line of communication with them such as a phone, your good to go. PAs are licensed with extensive education.

Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.

The reason I bring them up is two fold.

First is that there are legal issues regarding practiced medicine vs practicing nursing. I thought there was a fine line that an NP was treading.

Second is that PAs were designed from the round up as PCPs during the 1960s by Dr. Eugene Stead at Duke University in NC. Their very existence was due to a need of primary care physicians. The idea wad to use them as "combat multipliers". In essence thought they do practice with physician supervision, they have enough autonomy to treat the run of the mill complaints on their level. In other words the Physicians is not looking over your shoulder as you practice, you work as their agent. In essance as long as you have a direct line of communication with them such as a phone, your good to go. PAs are licensed with extensive education.

I don't argue that many PAs can/do/could function autonomously with minimal supervision from a physician; this is no different for NPs that function in the same capacity (my practice employs a physician to review charts once per month because our state requires that - even the physician jokes about how it's the easiest money he could imagine making).

You mention that PAs were designed to be PCPs. Have PAs ever been educated and licensed to be independent practitioners? I don't doubt that they could be, but to my knowledge, they never have been.

It's not my argument that PAs can't function as independent PCPs, I believe they can, simply that they are at no advantage over NPs. NPs have been educated as independent practitioners. And NPs have functioned in this capacity in many states with good outcomes.

Specializes in ED, Telemetry,Hospice, ICU, Supervisor.

Why is it so important that the PCP (in this case NP or PA), be an independent practitioner?

As a PCP you deal with run of the mill problems that the patient comes to you with in your office. Then if their problem requires a specialist, you are going to refer them to someone else anyway. Your not running an ER with GSW coming in at 3 am. My PCP keeps regular hours.

I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone , I am actually curios about this topic.