MD, DO, NP, DC, OD -- Who deserves the title Physician?

Specialties NP

Published

our professional scope of practice asserts that our role is to assess, diagnose, and treat in health and illness.

from assessing, diagnosing, treating - diabetes, thrombosis, heart disease, infection, emphysema, hep c, hiv, etc, to rendering prenatal care, and preventative care - we are primary care providers. we make life and death decisions each day with our patients in managing disease - thrombosis management and prevention; hep c management; hiv management, heart disease and cva management; women's health - yet we are given less legitimacy in the social security act and cms section 410.20 than a chiropractor or optometrist.

i have nothing against chiropractic physicians mind you, but take a look at chiropractic.

cannot prescribe - not even an aspirin

procedures? - scant more than "moist heat";

assessment - can't even look into your ear according to their scope of practice

educational requirements? - a bachelors degree?, nope - about a year and a half of college study (90 credits), a 2.5 gpa, and 3 yrs of study at a chiropractic school.

how do chiropractors see themselves? go to http://schools.naturalhealers.com/lifewest/

chiropractic is a total-body healthcare system, and not a method of pain management. as a gatekeeper for direct access to the health delivery system, the responsibilities of the doctor of chiropractic as a primary care clinician include wellness promotion, health assessment, diagnosis, and the chiropractic management of the patient's health care needs. when indicated, the doctor of chiropractic may also co-manage, consult with, or refer to other health care providers

optometry - about the same. 65 college credit hours (a year and change), 2.5 gpa, a 4 yr program. -- then - slit lamp, snellen, better or worse, eyeglasses or contacts? see you in two years.

that's all fine. but, here's the rub. the chiropractor and optometrist - according to section 1861®(1) of the ssa,and cms sec. 410.20 -- are designated a physician with all of the privileges and honors of that professional designation.

the apn? nope. even though our scope of practice is much, much broader; our responsibility and liability - far greater. yet we are still treated as hand-maids, and put in our place as second class providers - the extenders, the mid-levels. none of us treat mid-way; perform half of a procedure; help the patient heal only half the way through a disease.

does any other primary care provider treat heart disease more or differently than you as a provider treat heart disease? does the physician carry more responsibility or liability? no. a pcp is a pcp. and god bless all of us, md, do, apn.

there is no comparison.the nurse practitioner's contribution to the health of our nation is every bit as important as the md, or do, and far above that of the dc or od. in the clinic we shoulder the responsibilities and liabilities - every one of our actions or inactions as a provider -- every moment we spend with a patient is legally ours to bear alone....

yet how many times have you been told - sorry, we need a physicians signature on that... you can't order that - it has to be ordered by a physician. we can't send that to you - we have to send it to the physician. sorry, we only credential physicians.

am i the only apn that feels a little bewildered and disgusted by this?

i have no innate yearning or desire to be called a physician mind you, its not an ego thing. but what i do have is a desire for, is to be respected for my role as a primary care provider by hospitals, insurers, labs, etc, so that i can do my job.

why i'm writing this.

as health care and our roles evolve, i believe that it is our responsibility to lobby for the advancement of our professional role, and with that updates to the ssa and cms sec. 410.20, two of the main documents that define the apn to other professionals. this is critical so that other professionals will not be confused about our role, our education, our abilities, and our responsibilities to our patients.

we regularly talk about fighting battles in my home state of tennessee, but are we only treating the symptoms of our professional legislative, political, and administrative woes? - shouldn't we also be addressing the root problems from which most of these arise - such as our absence from ssa 1861®(1)and cms sec. 410.20.

it may be time for each individual apn to write, call, or otherwise encourage other apn's as well as our advocates at ana, and our legislators to argue in favor of apn pcp's inclusion in cms sec. 410.20 and ssa 1861®(1).

because as the role of the nurse practitioner continues to evolve in response to changing societal and health care needs, so should the ssa and other government acts that define us to the nation.

social security act 1861

http://www.ssa.gov/op_home/ssact/title18/1861.htm

so. if you agree, take a moment and write someone. don't sit back and do nothing. :rotfl:change happens because of you. :) write a short note to your local chapter of ana, the national ana, george bush, your senators and your representatives and voice your desire for an updated cms sec. 410.20 and ssa 1861®(1) to help apn's across the nation do their job. thanks gang. http://www.firstgov.gov/contact/elected.shtml

respectfully,

r. martin

family nurse practitioner, chief manager and primary care provider

campbell station primary care associates

11541 kingston pike, ste 101

knoxville, tn 37922

user_online.gif

Specializes in Cardiac, Pulmonary, Anesthesia.
The way I look at it, the NP is a shortcut degree (I am not trying to be nasty). It was made so that nurses could treat the easier cases that did not require a physician and could extend the reach of physicians. So instead of a strong foundation in basic sciences, then years of rotations and then even more years of residency and then more years of fellowship, an NP gets a specialized education. Why not just go to med school then?

In a time when we need more providers, making it longer to be an NP (especially without adding more clinical competence) is obsurd.

Yes, you are trying to be "nasty," or you would have stated you comments in such a way as to not seem nasty. I'm not talking about getting rid of the MSN tracks we have now. I'm talking about adding another generalist for those who desire it. It would still be less time than MD. Make it 3 years for the generalist MSN NP (1 year didatics, 2 year clinicals) then you can practice or do a 12-24 month (depending on specialty) for a residency completing the doctorate. Shortage is still relieved, students are given another option, competence IS added, and all are happy. There is no problem with this plan except there might not be student demand for it, but only the students can decide that. I know I would do it and I know many others would as well.

That is still a proposal, not a requirement. The only advanced practice group that has actually embraced the mandatory-DNP idea is the CRNAs, and I believe their target date is 2025 (and it remains to be seen whether that will actually happen).

It's no surprise CRNA's want to upgrade their titles. However, the level of ed/training doesn't compare with that of an MD. BTW, it seems a lot of anesthesiologists are running skin clinics these days. Apparently, they got a little too rambunctious hiring CRNA's. I would suggest other MD's be a little more careful re hiring NP's lest they suffer the fate of anesthesiologists. It may be more lucrative in the short term, but it'll come back to bite you in the proverbial ass. Obamacare will, of course, accelerate that. BTW, since when does a DO even begin to compare to an MD education regarding *quality* of education, residency, and, if applicable, fellowship? DO's, of course, will argue the point. If only I had a penny for every time I've heard, "We do the same residencies." For the most part, DO's certainly don't get the cream of the crop residencies. It's also interesting how DO's downplay the chiropractic aspect of their "specialties." It seems a certain sector created the title DO to accommodate those who didn't quite qualify for acceptance into an MD program. In my book, the only people who deserve the title of "Doctor" are DVM's & MD's. Probably moot with Democrats running the show now. Get ready for Euro style medicine.

I'm still trying to figure out how the DNP is a doctoral program since it looks like master's level business courses have been added. When I get time I might apply to a DNP program and see just how much credit I get for my MBA and capstone project!:yeah:

It's no surprise CRNA's want to upgrade their titles. However, the level of ed/training doesn't compare with that of an MD. BTW, it seems a lot of anesthesiologists are running skin clinics these days. Apparently, they got a little too rambunctious hiring CRNA's. I would suggest other MD's be a little more careful re hiring NP's lest they suffer the fate of anesthesiologists. It may be more lucrative in the short term, but it'll come back to bite you in the proverbial ass. Obamacare will, of course, accelerate that. BTW, since when does a DO even begin to compare to an MD education regarding *quality* of education, residency, and, if applicable, fellowship? DO's, of course, will argue the point. If only I had a penny for every time I've heard, "We do the same residencies." For the most part, DO's certainly don't get the cream of the crop residencies. It's also interesting how DO's downplay the chiropractic aspect of their "specialties." It seems a certain sector created the title DO to accommodate those who didn't quite qualify for acceptance into an MD program. In my book, the only people who deserve the title of "Doctor" are DVM's & MD's. Probably moot with Democrats running the show now. Get ready for Euro style medicine.

Wow, as the spouse of an osteopathic family practitioner, let me just correct you on a few points: to imply that a D.O. program "doesn't even begin to compare" to M.D. education is absolutely ludricous. You are correct in stating that there are slightly lower admission standards in D.O. programs (just as there are lower admission standards for public state university allopathic schools in comparison to Ivy League allopathic schools), although the gap in GPA/MCAT has been narrowing considerably every year for the past decade and at this point there are several top osteopathic schools with average MCAT scores higher than some of the "lowest" LCME allopathic schools- look it up.

However, once through the med school admissions bottleneck, the education of osteopathic and allopathic medical students today is indistinguishable with the exception of the addition of OMM instruction in the D.O. programs. Please, I challenge you to name one core piece of the M.D. curriculum that is not covered in osteopathic schools. Hint- you can't. More than 50% of osteopathic students sit for both their own licensing exam (the COMLEX) as well as the allopathic exam (USMLE) and as of two or three years ago the majority of graduating D.O.'s do in fact train in ACGME residencies which means that, yes, they do in fact complete the "same" residency. Many more are training in AOA residency positions that are actually part of a dually accredited AOA/ACGME program.

When you say that D.O.'s don't get "cream of the crop" residencies what you really mean is that they don't land the most competitive residencies in lucrative specialties like derm and ortho. More D.O.'s do go into primary care which is reflective of the missions of most D.O. schools, however the fact that family practice or pediatrics are less competitive specialties to enter does not mean that the residencies themselves are of inferior quality. In reality all that reflects, is that peds doesn't pay as much as derm, plain and simple.

Finally as for this statement:"It seems a certain sector created the title DO to accommodate those who didn't quite qualify for acceptance into an MD program."... you do realize that the osteopathic profession and many of its schools were established way back in the 1800's right? Which makes your claim laughable. In fact, it sounds like what you are describing is actually the glut of offshore (Caribbean) medical schools that began opening in the 1970's/1980's on... schools with indisputably looser admission standards and poorer residency placement track records but schools which award upon their graduates the degree M.D., ironically making them "real"-er doctors in your book than American-educated D.O.'s. Ridiculous.

Specializes in Ante-Intra-Postpartum, Post Gyne.
2.5 gpa, 65 college credit hours? Those are the bare minimum requirements any prospective optometry student need to even be considered for admission. The average gpa to get into optometry school is a 3.3 (same gpa to get into DO school) with a 330 out of 400 on their entrance exam (almost the same test pre-dental students take). Nearly 90% of all optometry students have a 4 year degree or higher. You are looking at 8 years of college to become an optometrist.

.

One could argue the same fore the RN..."Only a 2.5 GPA is required to get in. Only an ASN is required (in some state they do not even have to have a degree at all, just a diploma). Licensing? One test only a few hours long. These people can assess, write nursing DX, administer all forms of medication from narcotics to chemo, they can inject, give blood, and so much more; all with out even having to have a degree in some states, a ASN at minimum in most. An ASN???? Even a Bachelors degree is a dime a dozen these days!"

Just some thoughts: ODs CAN prescribe medications in all 50 states (even narcotics, which the last time I checked NPs couldn't do in all 50 states ;0), most have college degrees (and at the very least have to have numerous pre-req courses including two semesters of gen chem and two semesters of organic chemistry, calculus, statistics, at least a year of biology, etc), and nobody in their right mind sees a chiropractor for anything other than back issues (even then it's iffy, you'd be better off seeing a DO that actively utilizes OMM in their practice).

Also, the NP scope of responsibility is not larger than that of an MD/DO, OD, DDS/DMD, or DPM. All of them, in all 50 states, are solely responsible for their medical decisions because they have no other official oversight on their day-to-day medical decisions while in many states, NPs have a physician that bears the bulk of any mistakes they make. Particularly for MDs/DOs, this translates into high rates, while NPs face relatively low rates. If you want autonomy and equality, in all 50 states, pay the same rates.

Additionally, what are the pass-rates on the optional, experimental DNP certification exam that is loosely-based on the USMLE Step 3 exam (minimal overlap between the two exams includes stuff both SHOULD know while the bulk is stuff specific to each profession) taken by and must be passed by ALL MDs? Somewhere in the ballpark of 50% in 2008 and in 2009, an impressive 57% (American Board of Comprehensive Care FAQs). That seems to demonstrate that the "wet-behind-the-ears" MDs are more competent for their role than the "wet-behind-the-ears" DNPs that were bold enough to take the exam are for theirs.

I don't believe that all "physicians" as recognized by the U.S. government are competent, nor do I believe that all advanced-practice nurses are incompetent, however I do believe a number of the arguments presented in this article are ludicrous at best.

Specializes in Consultation Liaison Psychiatry.

Not all physicians pass the USMLE exams on the first attempt and I am uncertain as to what the pass rate presented really represents.

I am NOT a supporter of the current DNP as an entry level for NP's. I do not believe that the curricula which I have seen adds to clinical expertise.

I am an NP. I don't pretend to be a physician or that my education is equivalent to that of a physician. I am, however, well-educated, experienced, and competent in my specialty. I, like the resident and attending physicians with whom I work, call consultants from other specialties because they have expertise that we do not. They, on the other hand, call US when they need our expertise. Our Psychiatry Consultation Liaison Service is comprised of 3 NP's and 2 MD's. Together we serve a busy academic medical center. We consult each other on a regular basis. Our patients and those consulting us are well served by all of us precisely because we respect each other's education and experience as well as that of our consultees.

I do not understand the continuing need for the different disciplines to argue and degrade each other. We have overlapping as well as unique skills. We need each other and our patients need us to work together. Let's look at what we do that works and try to to optimize our education and working relationships.

Specializes in Consultation Liaison Psychiatry.

I completely agree with you. Osteopathic and allopathic medical school curricula are virtually indistinguishable with the exception that osteopathic physcians are also trained in OMM and, in general, seem to be more wholistic in their approach. All the residency programs in our academic, major medical center accept both MD and DO education.

I do not understand the continuing need for the different disciplines to argue and degrade each other. We have overlapping as well as unique skills. We need each other and our patients need us to work together. Let's look at what we do that works and try to to optimize our education and working relationships.

Ellen - there are arguements because people disagree. Maybe you don't consider a DNP calling him/herself a "Doctor" enough of a problem to instigate an argument from you...but let me give you an analagous scenario which likely would: What if a LPN/LVN, who has roughly one-quarter of your education, decided she should be called a nurse practitioner because she is, indeed, practicing nursing? Or, what if a CNA decided he/she should be called a nurse because, well, they are performing nursing duties??

The role of the nurse practitioner is of vital importance to our healthcare system. But the captain of the healthcare team is, and should be, a (real) DOCTOR. For anyone other than a Physician to present themselves as a Doctor in a healthcare setting is wrong.

Ellen - there are arguements because people disagree. Maybe you don't consider a DNP calling him/herself a "Doctor" enough of a problem to instigate an argument from you...but let me give you an analagous scenario which likely would: What if a LPN/LVN, who has roughly one-quarter of your education, decided she should be called a nurse practitioner because she is, indeed, practicing nursing? Or, what if a CNA decided he/she should be called a nurse because, well, they are performing nursing duties??

The role of the nurse practitioner is of vital importance to our healthcare system. But the captain of the healthcare team is, and should be, a (real) DOCTOR. For anyone other than a Physician to present themselves as a Doctor in a healthcare setting is wrong.

"Doctor" is a honorific for anyone who has earned a doctoral degree, not a job description. None of this would be an issue if physicians hadn't decided long ago that they own the exclusive rights to the term "doctor," which they do not, in healthcare settings or anywhere else. Your "analagous scenario" is not analagous because, in this case, we are discussing groups of people who have all earned doctoral degrees. You are comparing that to people simply choosing to call themselves a title they haven't earned.

I've worked for decades in mental health settings (inpatient and outpatient) in which psychologists have introduced themselves as "I'm Dr. XYZ, the psychologist," without anyone, including the clients, being confused about the situation and who was what, and without anyone, including the physicians, suggesting that that was inappropriate or problematic. I fail to see how the situation with doctorally-prepared NPs is any different.

For hundreds of years sick or injured patients have sought the care of a "doctor". This is not because physicians have inappropriately claimed sole use of the moniker, it is because patients GAVE it to them. Yes, there are some other professions who somewhat muddy the water - psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists, chiropractors, etc....but those practitioners don't generally find themselves in the position of walking into a patient's room in a MEDICAL clinic/ED/ICU/etc and inroducing themselves as Doctor. If a pt goes to the "eye doctor" they know s/he's not a "real doctor". Same with a chiro...they're not a "real doctor" either and the lay person knows it.

Now, there are not many formal restrictions on using the term "Doctor" in these settings (yet!!), so DNPs can introduce themselves to patients as Doctor Smith if they want. The same goes with the janitor who has a PhD in creative writing. With the exception of a few places this is legal. Fortunately, in these same places it is legal for everyone else in the room to openly laugh at you if you choose to do so.

Oh, and one more thought on the "honorific" title that some DNPs all-of-a-sudden want to use. For those of you who think it is appropriate to introduce yourself as "Doctor Smith, Nurse Practitioner" to patients...why didn't they introduce themselves as "Master Smith, Nurse Practitioner" before they got their doctorates?

Maybe that "honorific" thing doesn't have anything to do with it. Maybe you just want the stature of being called Doctor in a medical setting without earning it?

I've worked for decades in mental health settings (inpatient and outpatient) in which psychologists have introduced themselves as "I'm Dr. XYZ, the psychologist," without anyone, including the clients, being confused about the situation and who was what, and without anyone, including the physicians, suggesting that that was inappropriate or problematic. I fail to see how the situation with doctorally-prepared NPs is any different.

Same for me, and in physical medicine and rehab and never a problem. A physician has earned a clinical doctorate, some say not a real doctorate as they mostly have no formal research training other than mentorship, at least all the ones I've asked.

+ Add a Comment