Why The Future of NP Practice Maybe A Two Edged Sword

Specialties Advanced

Updated:   Published

I was recently speaking with another master's prepared nurse who works in informatics about becoming an Acute Care NP and my experience as an NP student. Her immediate response was "why would you want to do exactly what the physician does for a dramatically reduced salary"? At first I was offended and was really peeved that a nurse would be so unsupportive of advanced practice nursing and gave her the long winded "why advanced practice nursing is awesome speech" but after a few days I gave thought to what she said.

In my area (NYC metro) NPs start as low as high $90k (RN start out at the same salary) and may hit maybe $160k at the top of the range, with a few outliers here and there. As a student I have witnessed how much work the acute care NP may contribute to a medical service and have seen the MD being the ''overseer'' on some units with the NP & PA managing quite sick patients and responsible for many emergent procedures such as intubation, central line placements.... Although I love the thought of being so involved in patient care I have wondered if NPs (specifically acute care) will be compensated more by facilities for our ever increasing scope of practice? I was surprised to see some services where the so called "midlevels" entirely manage extremely sick patients and the attending only appears when the patient is deteriorating.

I was also at a conference recently where some rural and highly experienced NPs stated that at times they were the only provider in a hospital overnight with maybe an ER doc, or that they managed emergencies on their own or as part of a team of NPs.

I'm wondering if this is part of a whole push by hospital executives to use advanced practice nurses as cheaper medical provider for cost savings.

This has dramatically altered my outlook as a soon to be graduate. I question if I want to be a ''forever resident'' performing all the scut work on the unit while only being payed a small fraction of what the attending (who seem to have the last say in regards to patient management) makes.

Acute care NPs diagnosing, managing, and running emergencies, also having to have the knowledge of a full fledged physician to only make 30-40% of what the attending makes sounds a bit troublesome to me. I still love the nursing profession, it's been my career home for 15 years but I do wonder if this is setting up to be a catch 22 with the corporate hospital system reaping massive benefits off of cheaper labor?

With the push for more autonomy and scope, will our salaries commensurate?

Just me theory.... what do you think?

Specializes in ICU, trauma, neuro.
On 1/29/2020 at 3:20 PM, Tegridy said:

Primary care doc salaries are on the rise. You make it sound like doctors are doing evil bidding sitting in the corners getting rich. This is not the case. Most people go into specialties out of interest and yes more pay but not out of fear of mid level encroachment.

The AMA doesn’t do much for doctors much less “protect” them from encroachment.

It’s also illegal to get kickbacks from pharm companies as a physician so I’m not sure what kind of fact that comment is based on

It's based upon my personal experience in clinical of being subjected to pharm. representative pushing the latest and greatest (and very expensive) medicines all day long and physicians like Dr. Stahl who accepts millions from companies like Takeda pharmaceuticals.

https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/doctors/pid/77110

According to the Carlat Report makes claims in his "Prescribers Guide" about medications like Trintellix being effective for anxiety when there is little to no evidence for this. Pro Publica has listed the many, many millions paid to MD's by pharmaceutical companies around the nation.

https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

I dare say very few NP's would make this list. I'm not alleging that most MD's are getting rich or doing evil. However, I do assert that nurse practitioners should be allowed to practice to the "full extent of their training" in accordance with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations. Competition breeds excellence, increased access to care, and better cost containment. On average FNP's have proven they can do an effective job in managing patients in a primary care settings. Also, having worked at a for profit facility for the last decade I have personally witnessed how virtually every decision (extra tests, patients rushed out of ICU and then readmitted a day later only to perish and a thousand other lessor transgressions) was based upon maximizing profit and how nurses, patients (and even MD's) were sacrificed upon the alter of profit maximization.

2 Votes

I had a question about the full scope of practice changes that are slowly occuring in certain areas. If this is enforced and NP's have full scope of practice, are they still able to work under MD's or will they just work in their own clinics and under companies?

1 Votes
Specializes in ICU, trauma, neuro.
27 minutes ago, socal1 said:

I had a question about the full scope of practice changes that are slowly occuring in certain areas. If this is enforced and NP's have full scope of practice, are they still able to work under MD's or will they just work in their own clinics and under companies?

In IP states NP's can still work with MD's and even for MD's (when a doctor happens to own the clinic), However, MD's can and do work for NP's and sometimes both PMHNP and MD's work for Psy D's or even Master's level counseling clinicians. However, their license is not dependent upon the MD maintaining a relationship with them as it is in someplace like Florida.

1 Votes
On 1/27/2020 at 12:25 AM, Thanksforthedonuts said:

In a true emergency I want a MD, for routine care I see a NP.

Whats funny about that, if you come to a primary care clinic ...... your probably more likely to see your MD for the routine care and the PA/NP for your emergency. I consistently see chest pain/acute heart failures/ Afib. I see my a decent amount of physicals .........but that is bulk of my physician colleague days.

I don't think NP's should be compensated the same as Drs. Nobody would argue that an LPN should make the same as the RN. And honestly, I have the expectation that if I have a question or a complex patient I am concerned about, those physicians will offer guidance(and they usually do)

That being said. I am unhappy with how I am compensated. I am a high producer and I make the same as everybody else in my role. If my organization does not move to an RVU pay structure for advanced practice providers in the next few years, I will seek employment elsewhere

3 Votes
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.

Until physicians are permitted to train on line and find their own preceptors, we will never be equal:)

3 Votes
Specializes in ICU, trauma, neuro.
7 hours ago, subee said:

Until physicians are permitted to train on line and find their own preceptors, we will never be equal:)

So as a CRNA do you feel that you shouldn't have IP practice? If not what form should the "supervision" take? IF said supervision only involves the current "Medicare rule" requiring and MD attending, why shouldn't the Acute care NP still be allowed to have state level IP (meaning in the hospital setting there would still be an Attending MD on the case in accordance with the Medicare rule)? In many cases the "supervised" practice of CRNA's and Acute Care NP's means that they simply have to work for 20 to 60% less than physicians while at the same time the excess insurance percentage goes to MD (practice owners or collaborative physicians who the NP must have to maintain their state license) who are not even physically present to provide oversight. Even in the most restrictive states like Alabama (non IP) MD's need only be present in the clinic something like 20% of the days of the month and review a minority of the cases (which in almost every case only occurs on paper or during a brief meeting). In Florida I've had several psychiatrists tell me "we just want your check for 10% of revenues and you will never hear from us unless you call". So really if you are against independent practice for NP's (FNP or otherwise) because you feel that NP's are insufficiently educated you should be calling for radically increased supervision of NP's even in the most restrictive practice states. Again no one is saying that the education or training of NP's is equal to MD's only that in essentially every study done to date on almost every measure of patient outcomes that NP's either equal or outperform MD's.

1 Votes
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.

CRNA's can never work independently in the full sense of the word because we depend on physicians to be in the room while we are anesthetizing. So in every state, we are allowed to work without an anesthesiologist because we are still conforming to the NPA's of the states. We just can't bill every insurer in some states. Every study I've read re: NP's involved primary care which is a totally different beast than acute care. Now, it's been a loooong time since I was in grad school where ACNP students attended, but the acute care students have to get their clinicals in the hospital setting. When they paid their very expensive tuition, they knew that they had to conform to the standards of the university providing educations to nurses, doctors and others. So they never had to pay for that expensive education AND go out and get preceptors who have jumped through no hurdles to be educators. I think FNP students should have the same opportunity to get instruction from the school to which they are paying tuition....or the school should give them a drastic reduction in tuition (call it a residency) because the school is doing NOTHING to earn their fee. Show me some studies comparing results comparing hospitalists and ACNP's. I think the outcomes will be similar, but the delineation of privileges will me smaller for the ACNP's than the MD's .

1 Votes

I have a few comments:

1. CRNAs, even in 100% independent CRNA groups in independent practice states, don't make the same as MD anesthesiologists. MDAs AVERAGE 350-400k. CRNAs can only make that if they work double the hours of the MDA.

2. I need to see some evidence that NPs in IP states earn more than NPs in non-IP states. I've worked in both groups -- NP pay rates have more to do with rural vs urban than whether or not they are in an IP state. In other words, an NP in a saturated urban area in an IP state makes less than an NP in a rural area in a non-IP state.

3. There are some rumors that the national nursing organizations are going to sue to get NPs paid the same as doctors based on E&M billing codes. If that happens, it will hurt NPs in urban areas, because hospitals will just take the MDs instead if you have to pay the same. The rural areas will always take NPs no matter what because no MDs want to live there.

1 Votes
Specializes in ICU, trauma, neuro.
  1. Who knows what the market will look like when this is over, but even as a new grad psych NP’s I was on my way towards 200k in Seattle. Also, I wasn’t saying that NP in IP states would earn as much as MD’s only that they would earn more and have better practice conditions than in non IP states (for example I would sometimes spend two hours on intakes in Seattle in Orlando I would be lucky to get 45 minutes.)Also I was arguing that NP’s should compete for market share to further improve working conditions.
2 Votes
Specializes in Cardiology and Family Medicine.

I think if we are to advance the role of NPs we need to look at our educational training as students. There needs to be a move for standardizing NP education and curriculum, albeit providing a certain degree of leeway to allow for innovative practices. As much as one wants to argue that NPs work from a nursing model while MDs from a medical model, a solid medical knowledge in the treatment of acute medical conditions is what saves lives. This requires medical knowledge, not nursing theory. Theories are more helpful in the long-term, health promotion and preventive aspects.

Just as MDs have standardized their training over 100 years ago, the same ought to be done for NP education. While others may point to outcomes in care delivered by NPs as being equal, if not better, than the care delivered by MDs, the conditions assessed have been limited. The breadth of medicine is wide enough that it would serve the NP profession well to standardize what is taught. One cannot easily qualify experience as a nurse, which is variable, plus graduate level training, also variable, into solid clinical acumen, unless all clinical and educational experiences are standardized.

I think addressing this concern will lead to positive outcomes for the advancement of the profession.

3 Votes
Specializes in ICU, trauma, neuro.

I would argue that the "consensus model" provides a significant degree of doing just that. All NP programs must for example have an advanced pharmacology and and advanced pathophysiology, and advanced assessment course as part of the curriculum. In addition, all programs must provide a specified number of clinical hours. Of course these standards could always be increased, but make no mistake the AMA and their proxies will never be satisfied with any level of improvement short of a medical school education for IP. At it's most fundamental level this is a battle for market share and it will be waged in legislative bodies around the nation (and in back rooms by lobbyists and by public opinion). However, keep in mind that one of the reasons that many clients prefer NP's is because with are more holistic and to the degree that greater traditional education diminishes this tendency we may be decreasing one of our appeals and advantages. I argue that NP's (especially FNP's, and Psych NP's) can provide at least equal and often superior outcomes precisely because they tend to practice differently.

2 Votes
Specializes in Cardiology and Family Medicine.

I think the consensus model helps provide credibility to our training, but it is not enough in my view. One thing many students struggle with is clinical placements. If it were truly standardized, student A would have equal chance of securing a preceptor from whom they will learn a set of clinical skills as student B, even if both attend different schools in different states. The current scenario, unfortunately, is some students have had to transfer schools due to failure to secure a preceptor. I think if there was government funding at a greater scale for NP education or even financial incentives for institutions to take on students, there may be more preceptors willing to teach.

I view myself as adopting holism in my approach. But even that can be subjective. Some doctors will also say they are holistic in their approach by their ability to synthesize and integrate psycho-social aspects of a person with their biomedical state to improve care. I have trained in clinical botanical therapeutics under MDs/NDs and I incorporate evidence-based phytotherapeutics in practice. Would I be more holistic than some? One can argue that no I am not if I don't incorporate vitamin infusion therapy and chiropractic manipulations while addressing past traumas to better manage a patient's chronic insomnia.

While legislation will eventually allow IP for the remaining states, it won't confer greater clinical knowledge to the practitioner, only authority to practice what they were taught and trained to do, which differ by educational institutions.

3 Votes
+ Add a Comment