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

Specialties NP

Published

our professional scope of practice asserts that our role is to assess, diagnose, and treat in health and illness - head to toe, physical and behavioral.

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

It seems (to me anyway) that this discussion may have become more about the "status" and "recognition" versus quality of care. There are a couple of points I'd like to make.

1.) I somewhat agree with the first post. However, as a nurse practitioner, I've never been caught up in the "recognition game" (for lack of a better term). I don't view NPs as being better or lesser qualified than any other health care provider. I do agree that it can be frustrating to have to acquire a physician's signature in order for certain services to be provided to the patient. Yet, it's only frustrating from the viewpoint that efficiency in providing care is compromised by unnecessary steps. For instance, to order supplemental oxygen (considered a medication) for a patient with severe COPD, a physician's signature is required. Yet, in most cases, the patient (often times with cardiomyopathy) should have been placed on O2 long ago. Many times it was an oversight by the physician who didn't take the time to order pulmonary function tests or even a SaO2 at rest and with exertion. This is only one example, which brings me to my next point.

2. Regarding the issue of NPs acquiring expanded privileges and/or being considered "a wanna-be doctor", I suggest that much of the public (and many physicians) are grossly informed and/or unaware of the scope of practice of NPs. Additionally, far too many people "pigeon hole" a person based on their credentials and educational background. For example, let's say you have numerous comorbidities (i.e., cardiomyopathy, NIDDM, HTN, COPD, renal insufficiency, and major depression). You are given the choice of seeing a general practitioner versus a nurse practitioner within the same practice. Each person has roughly15 years of experience. The knee jerk reaction for those not very familiar with NPs would be to choose the physician simply because he has a degree in medicine. Yet, the fact remains that there are tens of thousands of physicians within this country who have been deemed grossly incompetent. I have manytimes corrected physicians who inadvertently prescribed potentially lethal medicines to patients. Additionally, I have many times discontinued and/or changed medicines and even cancelled potentially dangerous diagnostic tests because of their poor judgment. Thus, while there need to be certain standards, a "degree" certainly doesn't define the quality of care you will receive. With that, NPs should indeed share most of the same privileges of primary care physicians. Yet, they clearly should not have the same privileges as a surgeon, cardiologist, neurologist, etc. (and the first post didn't suggest they should either). However, an internist certainly should not be attempting to perform a cholecystectomy or even a cardiac catheterization.

I've enjoyed the other posts. Great comments.

Specializes in ICU.

The difference between Australian and American Health care delivery is no where more evident than between the roles of Nurse Practitioner and MD.

See we don't need MD signature to order oxygen - so in some ways we the average nurse are more independent in our practice - however we don't have CRNA's or even very many NP - we certainly don't have FNP's.

It is like comparing apples to oranges.

cardiacNP01 - your post is mildly misleading... no matter how much experience an NP has, they will NOT be equivalent to an MD trained in a primary specialty.... (except maybe for family practice - that is debatable)

I remember even as an intern (just a few months out of med school) having to correct NPs who had 15-20 years of experience, just because they didn't have the breadth of knowledge that I did. I think it is interesting how NPs try to extend their scope of practice because they have become comfortable with their surroundings and their patient population, only to come screaming for help when something is out of their range (usually after they try to manage the problem under the false belief that they can do everything a primary care practitioner can do).

As far as studies go: there are only a few (and poorly done I might add)... and those primarily revolve around patient satisfaction. A few have shown similar long-term outcomes in the management of primary/straightfoward medically-responsive hypertension, and mild to mild intermittent asthma...

but that is it.

so back to the original poster: yes NPs (in my eyes) are primary care providers - they aren't physicians... but that is okay, because they provide a valuable service to patients. That is what we should be worrying about: what can we do to improve the health/care of our patient? Instead of worrying about titles... as far as i am concerned the only Dr. who doesn't deserve the title Dr. is a Naturopath (but that is my own biased opinion - and since that is my own biased opinions, flame-wars won't change my opinion)

The bottomline is EP71 is neither a NP/OD/MD/DO/RN/PC/PA. Sorry ep71. You make some valid points but I think first and foremost you have very little exp seeing any type of patient(s). For what I can tell, you have done your research and know ON PAPER what each professin does. I am guessing you are looking for the right profession. I hope that last few posts haven't turn you off from becoming an NP. The fact is all the above profession seek more autonomy and security in their respective field (MDs included). If you don't cont. to lobby for yourself (as a profession) no one will. NPs see a huge range of patients... and just occasionaly step on the toes of others (sometimes). I find it odd that any time some writes about NPs expanding the scope of practice somebody really gets offended. However, the range of where NPs practice and the care they perform will only expand as our health care system change. Neither you nor I can change that. Soooo if you really want to do eye examines all day maybe becoming an OD is your thing. If you want a cool job become an MD/DO/PA/NP Good Luck.

Well, my worthy NP colleagues, continue to fight the good fight. Educate, Educate, Educate. There are lots of misconceptions about APN's just like there are about P.A.'s. Most people think P.A. is still a certificate program for old army medics, and that you can't do anything except examine a patient and then run to the doc to report. Its actually a three year Masters program, I have full hospital privileges and my own prescription pad, thank you.

Even though I am not a PCP right now, I have been (work in an ER now, so I guess it is sort of PCP with the way things are going these days). However, I am NOT a physician. I have virtually the same supervisory requirements as NPs in my state, but I know my limit. It doesn't mean that PA's or NP's must have physicians hovering over them at every waking moment, it just means that we know when to refer.

When I was in family practice, I had patients that I saw exclusively- I was their primary care provider. I was the one who got the calls when they had to be seen in the ER, etc.

So continue the crusade! One of these days you will be recognized for what you can do and not the letters behind your name.

BTW, I am going to be starting medical school this summer, so you will have an advocate on the dark side. ;)

Well, my worthy NP colleagues, continue to fight the good fight. Educate, Educate, Educate. There are lots of misconceptions about APN's just like there are about P.A.'s. Most people think P.A. is still a certificate program for old army medics, and that you can't do anything except examine a patient and then run to the doc to report. Its actually a three year Masters program, I have full hospital privileges and my own prescription pad, thank you.

Even though I am not a PCP right now, I have been (work in an ER now, so I guess it is sort of PCP with the way things are going these days). However, I am NOT a physician. I have virtually the same supervisory requirements as NPs in my state, but I know my limit. It doesn't mean that PA's or NP's must have physicians hovering over them at every waking moment, it just means that we know when to refer.

When I was in family practice, I had patients that I saw exclusively- I was their primary care provider. I was the one who got the calls when they had to be seen in the ER, etc.

So continue the crusade! One of these days you will be recognized for what you can do and not the letters behind your name.

BTW, I am going to be starting medical school this summer, so you will have an advocate on the dark side. ;)

If it's so dark why are you going over there...Do you want to be evil? Do you want to trade your soul for some money? Do tell us your attraction to the "dark side".

No, actually I want to be a surgeon.

No, actually I want to be a surgeon.

What does that have to do with going over to the "dark side"

It's nice to see a spirited debate around this subject. I need to ask PA-C, when you said, "we need to know when to refer" to whom did you mean? For example, when you worked in a Primary Care Practice, and worked up a patient who had Cholelithiasis or biliary dyskinesia, who did you refer to? Another PCP in your practice? Or a Surgeon?

I refer to a Surgeon.

Who would an MD refer to? A Surgeon.

So are you saying that my referral to a surgeon is somehow different than an MD's referral to a surgeon? Or are you saying something different. I'm not sure I understand.

PA-C thanks for your insight and good luck in Medical School.

Rob

This is a really big topic, but you can bypass a lot of wasted bandwith by skipping the arrogance and false assumptions. A big threat to our patients is the assumption you know what you're talking about when you really don't. I've seen some huge knowledge vacancies filled with incorrect information in this thread. If you can do that, you can make big medical mistakes and think you're doing the right thing.

NP's often catch MD mistakes and vice versa. Has much less to do with training, a lot to do with how good you want to be and how much attention you're paying. If you have specialty experience even as a staff RN, you're going to run circles around a newly minted family practice MD in your area of expertise. And don't forget, everyone makes mistakes.

On top of that, to arrogantly assume that any training protects you from being outdiagnosed is incorrect. There's not enough room in your brain for everything you really need to know to do this job right all the time. Somebody always knows something you don't, sometimes it's the orderly.

After a few years in practice the field levels out and whatever you've learned in the past becomes less important that the character of your practice, how hard your working to keep up on the new stuff, and how hard you try not to forget the old stuff. There are many more mistakes made by lack of attention than lack of training. That's why NPs and PAs do so well in head to head comparisons with MDs. AND by the way the literature has some REALLY good studies that measure objective medical endpoints in RANDOMIZED, controlled trials that have been published in well respected peer-review magazine including the REAL medical journals.

I remember one local doc that picked up a Erythema Nodosum that I missed as a new grad (I thought it was bug bites), the next week I picked up a Ramsay-Hunt Syndrome that he missed (he was treating for simple otitis). That was in the old days when there were more of us around. Now I hardly ever talk to anyone who's not a specialist. I haven't worked side by side with an MD in the office or the ER in over 5 years. Fact of the matter is, out in the jungle it doesn't matter what you call yourself. If the system sets you up to be a primary provider, you either do it or you don't. There are good and bad PCPs and the title doesn't tell you which is which. But make no mistake, NPs and PAs are real, autonomous PCPs all over this country.

As far as Optometrists go, in my fine state, they don't prescribe so there's a real wall to their practice. You could hardly call them comprehensive providers. They examine, diagnose (some things), and make glasses. Any medical problems they send to a Opthomologist. If they could prescribe, I bet many would be just as good as Opthomologists in office practice. Just like NPs and PAs showed that they could be just as good as family practice docs.

Wanted to respond but the idea has already been expressed. I wanted to second this though. YOU CAN GET POOR CARE FROM ANYONE AT ANY TIME ON ANY GIVEN DAY REGARDLESS OF THE INTITIALS. IMHO, this is the bottom line.

Tenesma,

Thanks for your post. Each of us can probably recall a personal experience where we knew more (or less) than another provider. For example I can recall asking a veteran internist how he teaches his patients to do Kegel exercises. He said that he tells them to get a suzanne summers thigh master, and that will do the trick. Just because I had to correct him, and he had 15-20 years of experience as an MD and I was a new NP, I don't feel that he is any more or less of a PCP than I am. I certainly wouldn't say that I had a greater breadth of knowledge than he did. By the same token, I'm not sure it was fair for you to say that you had a greater breadth of knowledge than those NP's -- maybe you did, but acknowledge, well... maybe you didn't. Please don't assume that because someone has MD after their name, they automatically have a greater breadth of knowledge than someone who has APRN, BC after their name. I'm sure we can agree on that.

Thanks for your post and your interest in this topic.

Rob

Primary Care Physician

Definition: Physician responsible for a person's general health care (General Practitioner, or Family Doctor).

cardiacNP01 - your post is mildly misleading... no matter how much experience an NP has, they will NOT be equivalent to an MD trained in a primary specialty.... (except maybe for family practice - that is debatable)

I remember even as an intern (just a few months out of med school) having to correct NPs who had 15-20 years of experience, just because they didn't have the breadth of knowledge that I did. I think it is interesting how NPs try to extend their scope of practice because they have become comfortable with their surroundings and their patient population, only to come screaming for help when something is out of their range (usually after they try to manage the problem under the false belief that they can do everything a primary care practitioner can do).

As far as studies go: there are only a few (and poorly done I might add)... and those primarily revolve around patient satisfaction. A few have shown similar long-term outcomes in the management of primary/straightfoward medically-responsive hypertension, and mild to mild intermittent asthma...

but that is it.

so back to the original poster: yes NPs (in my eyes) are primary care providers - they aren't physicians... but that is okay, because they provide a valuable service to patients. That is what we should be worrying about_: what can we do to improve the health/care of our patient? Instead of worrying about titles... as far as i am concerned the only Dr. who doesn't deserve the title Dr. is a Naturopath (but that is my own biased opinion - and since that is my own biased opinions, flame-wars won't change my opinion)

+ Add a Comment