Doctoral degree to become an NP???

Published

The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) is calling for the requirement of doctorate in nursing for advanced practice nurses, such as nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, clinical nurse specialists, and nurse anesthetists. This new degree will be called a Doctor of Nursing Practice and, if the AACN has its way, will become the entry level for advanced nursing practice.

AACN Position Statement on the Practice Doctorate in Nursing

I suppose if there were any truth whatsoever to support this lie, you would have cited and referenced.

HERE ya go....

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2260

Introduced in 2007, still in the Subcommittee on Health, and from sources I have...and yes, I have some political sources. Is being revised to address concerns about non-physician (PT, Pharm, PA, NP, et al) doctoral degrees and statements or use of the address of "doctor" in the clinical setting. With the strong federal emphasis on reform currently, is likely to move out of the Subcommittee this year, and possibly voted on this fall. It's there, it's real. The only question, and it is a valid question, is whether my sources are correct on it moving out of the subcommittee.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CT ICU, OR, Orthopedic.

agree to disagree? No other solution?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER; CCT.
here ya go....

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2260

introduced in 2007, still in the subcommittee on health, and from sources i have...and yes, i have some political sources. is being revised to address concerns about non-physician (pt, pharm, pa, np, et al) doctoral degrees and statements or use of the address of "doctor" in the clinical setting. with the strong federal emphasis on reform currently, is likely to move out of the subcommittee this year, and possibly voted on this fall. it's there, it's real. the only question, and it is a valid question, is whether my sources are correct on it moving out of the subcommittee.

again, i'll remind you of what you said, as it might appear you are having a tough time keeping up.

well, the "truth and transparency" act is before congress now, and if it passes, and it looks likely too, than it will be illegal for any np or nurse (recognizing some of the older doctoral degrees in nursing) to call themselves "doctors" in the clinical setting.

first, this was introduced back in 2007 and there is no evidence whatsoever that this will ever see daylight outside of committee, much less actually receive a vote any where in the house or senate. second, within the framework, there are absolutely no provisions that provide any preclusion of dnp's from using the title "doctor" in the clinical setting as you have falsely claimed. again, as you are having a tough time with facts i will post the exact language of your friends' doomed bill:

sec. 3. health care service provider unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

(a) conduct prohibited- it shall be unlawful for any person who is a licensed health care service provider but who is not a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathic medicine to make any deceptive or misleading statement, or engage in any deceptive or misleading act, that deceives or misleads the public or a prospective or current patient that such person is a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathic medicine or has the same or equivalent education, skills, or training. such deceptive or misleading statements or acts shall include advertising in any medium, making false statements regarding the education, skills, training, or licensure of such person, or in any other way describing such person's profession, skills, training, experience, education, or licensure in a fashion that reasonably causes the public, a potential patient, or current patient to believe that such person is a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathic medicine.

(b) requirement to identify license in advertising- any person who is a licensed health care service provider but who is not a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathic medicine shall identify, in any advertisement in any medium for health care services provided by such person, the license under which such person is authorized to provide such services.

© enforcement- a violation of subsection (a) or (b) shall be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 5 of the federal trade commission act (15 u.s.c. 45). the federal trade commission shall enforce this act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the federal trade commission act were incorporated into and made a part of this act.

notice: this is not a law: only a proposed law that due to its lack of congressional support has not advanced beyond committee since its introduction in 2007.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2260

it's kind of curious though that this particular bill was sponsored and motivated by anesthesiologists when professional anesthesia services originated from nursing. i guess some professions just can't see fit to share. perhaps a similar bill, requiring physicians to note the fact they are not nurses might have a better chance of advancing through congress as this bill seems pretty much ready for the coroner to pick up.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ED, Tele, Psych.

after reading the actual text, i'd support it with a minor change - make all providers disclose their profession so that we can end the charade that "Doctor" and "Physician" are somehow synonymous. I'll be happy to say "I'm Dr. M., your Nurse Practitioner" while others say "I'm Dr. X., your physician" and "Dr. Y., your pharmacist" or some reasonable variant that identifies to the public your academic credentials as well as your professional ones. just a thought though - might be too reasonable to get any traction.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CT ICU, OR, Orthopedic.

I really doubt this will pass bc there are DC, DPM, DDS, etc who are neither DO or MD, but have called themselves "Dr" for years... But it doesn't say you can't call yourself Dr, it says you can't mislead the public to believe you are an MD or DO. I personally am over the debate. I don't care what you call me, but I do think that if you have your doctorate, you are a Dr. You should have the right to be called that as long as you properly explain that you are a NP or what ever. I have never heard a DPM come to the BS and explain that they are not medical doctors, and they do sugery, Or a dentist, or oral surgeon etc...I think maybe they would fight this... I do agree however, that the public should not be mislead..

Up Vote Up Vote ×
again, i'll remind you of what you said, as it might appear you are having a tough time keeping up.

first, this was introduced back in 2007 and there is no evidence whatsoever that this will ever see daylight outside of committee, much less actually receive a vote any where in the house or senate. second, within the framework, there are absolutely no provisions that provide any preclusion of dnp's from using the title "doctor" in the clinical setting as you have falsely claimed. again, as you are having a tough time with facts i will post the exact language of your friends' doomed bill:

sec. 3. health care service provider unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

(a) conduct prohibited- it shall be unlawful for any person who is a licensed health care service provider but who is not a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathic medicine to make any deceptive or misleading statement, or engage in any deceptive or misleading act, that deceives or misleads the public or a prospective or current patient that such person is a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathic medicine or has the same or equivalent education, skills, or training. such deceptive or misleading statements or acts shall include advertising in any medium, making false statements regarding the education, skills, training, or licensure of such person, or in any other way describing such person's profession, skills, training, experience, education, or licensure in a fashion that reasonably causes the public, a potential patient, or current patient to believe that such person is a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathic medicine.

(b) requirement to identify license in advertising- any person who is a licensed health care service provider but who is not a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathic medicine shall identify, in any advertisement in any medium for health care services provided by such person, the license under which such person is authorized to provide such services.

© enforcement- a violation of subsection (a) or (b) shall be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 5 of the federal trade commission act (15 u.s.c. 45). the federal trade commission shall enforce this act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the federal trade commission act were incorporated into and made a part of this act.

notice: this is not a law: only a proposed law that due to its lack of congressional support has not advanced beyond committee since its introduction in 2007.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2260

it's kind of curious though that this particular bill was sponsored and motivated by anesthesiologists when professional anesthesia services originated from nursing. i guess some professions just can't see fit to share. perhaps a similar bill, requiring physicians to note the fact they are not nurses might have a better chance of advancing through congress as this bill seems pretty much ready for the coroner to pick up.

i appreciate your comments, but if you read mine, you'll see that i never claimed that it was law. it is likely to come out of committee this spring/summer, albeit re-introduced with a new hr number......obama has stirred the pot with talk of health reform. mayo clinic, where i work, among others are lobbying for this to be passed, with a change in language. mayo has already taken steps to ensure that no one here will be able to use that title. cleveland clinic and hopkins, as well as several other institutions are taking similar internal steps. one of my neighbors is a lobbyist, and he happens to love my collection of single malt, and the nice custom bar i put in my basement when i finished it last year. i trust him, and he has said that the language is being changed in the subcommittee, and it is probably going to be re-introduced. it is likely to come out of committee this summer, and be voted on in the fall. the mayo health policy center, of which i am involved with, is pushing heavily for this legislation to pass with the language changes. and there is congressional support.

if you don't think it will ever come out of subcommittee, or be reintroduced than you might be in for a shock. it might not ever have. but obama's push for health reform has caused all health related bills to be looked at again, and debated. politics is a beautiful world isn't it?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CT ICU, OR, Orthopedic.
after reading the actual text, i'd support it with a minor change - make all providers disclose their profession so that we can end the charade that "Doctor" and "Physician" are somehow synonymous. I'll be happy to say "I'm Dr. M., your Nurse Practitioner" while others say "I'm Dr. X., your physician" and "Dr. Y., your pharmacist" or some reasonable variant that identifies to the public your academic credentials as well as your professional ones. just a thought though - might be too reasonable to get any traction.

I agree! I do not think it is misleading to refer to yourself as Dr so and so unless you are purposely doing so! Many patients, especially the older ones, think all the men are Drs, and women are nurses...is that false advertising? Or any one in a white lab coat is a physician? All APNs, PAs, management, educators etc wear white lab coats. I would not go into a room in a white lab coat and introduce myself as "Dr Amy" without further explanation. I am an RN first and formost, and proud of it. This is one reason I chose NP over PA. I think if you properly introduce yourself, and educate the public, then it shouldn't be a problem. Like I said, DPMs DDS etc are all Drs. I would think Chiropractors would cause confusion, but they to not seem to...

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER; CCT.
You actually want to see a study showing that physicians can provide care that compares to an NP?....wow, that sort of arrogance is rarely ever seen.

So I guess you don't know of any such studies. I do agree with you, however, in that it is quite arrogant for physicians to claim comparable care to NP's when no such studies exist to support this claim.

Let me know if they ever get around to doing those. Also, good work on separating the title "doctor" and "physician" as one does not imply the other. I'm glad to see that allnurses.com, a site dedicated to nursing, nurses and professional nursing development, is helping with your education.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER; CCT.
after reading the actual text, i'd support it with a minor change - make all providers disclose their profession so that we can end the charade that "Doctor" and "Physician" are somehow synonymous. I'll be happy to say "I'm Dr. M., your Nurse Practitioner" while others say "I'm Dr. X., your physician" and "Dr. Y., your pharmacist" or some reasonable variant that identifies to the public your academic credentials as well as your professional ones. just a thought though - might be too reasonable to get any traction.

That's the entire point guised in consumer protection. The point of this refuse is not to ensure that consumers are aware of the role--not title of every health care provider, but to make a legislative anchored statement that physicians are the true gatekeeper of the title "doctor"

Through regulatory oversight, the authors want the public to know that only physicians are doctors and every other doctor is a non-physician. The whole point of this bill provides physician groups another slimy piece of garbage to point to and say, "See doctors are physicians"

This is equivalent to Budweiser lobbiests trying to get legislators to adopt a regulation regarding beer. "If a beer is produced for consumer conusumption and that product is not Budweiser, than the product must be labeled as 'other than Budweiser' unless the product is Budweiser. In this case there are no standards of disclosure."

I think once the issue is clear to both consumer and nurse alike that physicians represent one brand and NP's represent another brand--all of which provide goods and services for the health care industry, I think most will be able to see through the slamming of our nursing brand that certain posters on this board are doing.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
So I guess you don't know of any such studies. I do agree with you, however, in that it is quite arrogant for physicians to claim comparable care to NP's when no such studies exist to support this claim.

Let me know if they ever get around to doing those. Also, good work on separating the title "doctor" and "physician" as one does not imply the other. I'm glad to see that allnurses.com, a site dedicated to nursing, nurses and professional nursing development, is helping with your education.

Thanks for the concern for "my education", but you should be more worried about the patients you are going to treat in the future, I know I am. As to your other comment, it is not up to physicians to produce studies. Physicians for the most part could care less about NP's or PA's. The care that they provide is still considered the "Gold Standard", if we want more autonomy and independence, than it is up to US as PA's and NP's to produce and provide solid credible peer reviewed data. Agreed that physicians co-opted the title doctor from PhD's, however, it is what it is, and when you say doctor in the clinical setting MOST patients will think that you are referring to an MD. The line for NP's and PA's is blurred even further, in contrast to PsyD's, D.C.'s, and O.D.'s, even D.P.M's, in the fact that our job so closely mirrors that of a physician, this is the concern of the AMA, and other groups, including Mayo. You don't have to like that factoid, but you do need to recognize their concern.

Cheers.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER; CCT.
I appreciate your comments, but if you read mine, you'll see that I never claimed that it WAS law.

No, it is I who appreciates your comments.

You are correct, which of course was never an issue. What you did represent is that if the bill passesses, it would be illegal for DNP's to use the title doctor, which per this bill, you and I both know (as well as the rest on this board) is a complete fabrication of the truth. I know you are really trying, so I will help refresh your memory:

Well, the "truth and transparency" act is before congress now, and if it passes, and it looks likely too, than it will be illegal for ANY NP or nurse (recognizing some of the older doctoral degrees in nursing) to call themselves "doctors" in the clinical setting.

Again, this statement was completely false and misleading, as you are now aware that there are no prohibitions whatsoever as to the utility of the title "doctor" by DNP's. As another poster corectly noted:

... But it doesn't say you can't call yourself Dr, it says you can't mislead the public to believe you are an MD or DO.

Now, apparently confronted with the facts you now admit the very bill you claimed will soon pass, thereby making it "illegal" for DNP's to use the title 'doctor' is really dead.

It is likely to come out of committee this spring/summer, albeit re-introduced with a new HR number...... It is likely to come out of committee this summer, and be voted on in the fall.

Perhaps you should have had a few drinks with your lobbyist friend before misrepresenting such to this community.

If you don't think it will ever come out of subcommittee, or be reintroduced than you might be in for a shock. It might not ever have. But Obama's push for health reform has caused ALL health related bills to be looked at again, and debated. Politics is a beautiful world isn't it?

I don't think I'll be too shocked. You also say that your drinking lobbyist buddy says that it will pass. Sorry if your credibility is a bit shot at this point, but I'm having a tough time trying to figure out which of what you are saying, if anything, is actually truthful.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
No, it is I who appreciates your comments.

You are correct, which of course was never an issue. What you did represent is that if the bill passesses, it would be illegal for DNP's to use the title doctor, which per this bill, you and I both know (as well as the rest on this board) is a complete fabrication of the truth. I know you are really trying, so I will help refresh your memory:

Again, this statement was completely false and misleading, as you are now aware that there are no prohibitions whatsoever as to the utility of the title "doctor" by DNP's. As another poster corectly noted:

Now, apparently confronted with the facts you now admit the very bill you claimed will soon pass, thereby making it "illegal" for DNP's to use the title 'doctor' is really dead.

Perhaps you should have had a few drinks with your lobbyist friend before misrepresenting such to this community.

I don't think I'll be too shocked. You also say that your drinking lobbyist buddy says that it will pass. Sorry if your credibility is a bit shot at this point, but I'm having a tough time trying to figure out which of what you are saying, if anything, is actually truthful.

Well, perhaps I should use small words than. The language is currently being revised...at the urging of several rather powerful entities. It is likely to be re-introduced, and has some support. Whether or not it passes is of some debate. As far as my credibility, I could really care less what you think. I never misrepresented ANYTHING to this community. As I recall saying that the bill "was before congress", it still is. Merely buried in the subcommittee at the moment, that does not mean dead. The original language would make it only necessary to clarify, but again, at the urging of several lobbying groups, this issue is being re-visited, and the language is being changed. But nice attempt at a spin. I love how you first implied I'm a liar, and then implied that I "misrepresented" information. You would do well in political circles.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion