Implementation of Full Practice Authority for Nurse Practitioners in Massachusetts: Impact of Organizational Climate on Practice Change.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between nurse practitioner (NP) organizational climate and the implementation of full practice authority (FPA) for NPs. BACKGROUND: In 2021, Massachusetts passed FPA for NPs. Most NPs did not experience changes to their practice. It is unknown whether NP organizational climate impacts implementation of FPA. METHODS: A Web-based survey was distributed to NPs in Massachusetts. RESULTS: Response rate was 50.3% (N = 147). Practice remained unchanged for most. Organizations with more favorable climates experienced more rapid implementation of FPA, resulting in improved efficiency (P = 0.049) and timeliness (P = 0.007) of care. Nurse practitioners outside hospital systems were more likely to report favorable organizational climates and positive change to their practice after FPA. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations that facilitate implementation of FPA are likely to experience improvement in efficiency and timeliness of patient care. Nursing leadership, especially within hospital-based organizations, can help achieve these benefits by improving the organizational climate for NPs.

Continued restrictions on nurse practitioners: A qualitative study of the early implementation of full practice authority in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: In January 2021, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts granted nurse practitioners (NPs) full practice authority (FPA). Little is known about how care delivery changed after FPA legislation. PURPOSE: To understand the NP perception of early implementation of FPA in Massachusetts. METHODS: Qualitative descriptive design using inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses to a web-based survey of NPs in Massachusetts from October to December 2021. FINDINGS: Survey response rate was 50.3% (N = 144). Inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses identified four themes, including: (a) internal and external barriers obstructed FPA implementation, (b) employer communication about scope-of-practice changes was minimal, (c) NPs led initiatives to implement FPA, and (d) some efforts effectively implemented FPA. DISCUSSION: Almost 1 year after FPA was passed, external policies persisted that financially incentivized employers to not change NP scope-of-practice. Concerted efforts are needed to ensure that federal and payer policies, such as incident-to billing, are aligned with state law to encourage the implementation of FPA.

Nurse practitioners' degrees and associations with time use, functional autonomy, and job outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Doctorate of Nursing Practice preparation is recommended for entry to nurse practitioner (NP) practice but there are few comparative studies, and their designs conflate educational pathways. PURPOSE: To investigate time use, functional autonomy, and job outcomes among NPs without a doctorate, NPs whose initial NP preparation and doctorate were separated by 2 or more years, and NPs whose NP preparation and doctorate were concurrent. METHOD: We selected all NPs from the 2018 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses, except those whose doctorates focused on research. We controlled for confounding and applied sample weights to produce nationally representative results. DISCUSSION: NPs' educational pathways are associated with distinct practice roles and, moving forward, policy should be informed by evidence that accounts for their differences. CONCLUSION: Concurrent NPs had higher levels of functional autonomy compared with NPs without a doctorate, but patterns of time use were essentially the same. Separate doctoral education was associated with teaching and administration.

Estimating the Primary Care Workforce for Medicare Beneficiaries Using an Activity-Based Approach.

BACKGROUND: The enumeration of the primary care workforce relies on potentially inaccurate specialty designations sourced from licensure registries and clinician surveys. OBJECTIVE: To use an activity-based measure of primary care to estimate the number of physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) providing primary care to Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Observational study using Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims data. SUBJECTS: All clinicians in the US billing Medicare in 2019 and their fee-for-service Medicare patients. MAIN MEASURES: We construct three measures that together distinguish primary care from specialty clinicians: (1) presence of evaluation and management (E&M) services in a setting consistent with primary care, (2) the dispersion of clinical care across International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) chapters, and (3) the extent of provided services that are atypical of primary care (e.g., surgical procedure). We apply parameters to the measures to identify the clinicians likely providing primary care and compare the resulting classifications across provider type. KEY RESULTS: Of physicians with at least 50 Medicare beneficiaries, 19-22% provide primary care. Of medical generalists (i.e., family medicine, internal medicine) with at least 50 beneficiaries, 61-68% provide primary care. We estimate that 40-45% of NPs and 27-30% of PAs meeting the panel size threshold are primary care providers in FFS Medicare. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that based on a primary care practice style, the number of primary care physicians in FFS Medicare is likely smaller than conventional estimates. However, compared to prior estimates, the number of primary care NPs is larger and the number of PAs is similar.

Eliminate the buprenorphine DEA X waiver: Justification using a policy analysis approach.

INTRODUCTION: Drug overdoses have reached a historic milestone of over 100,000 deaths in a single year, 75,673 related to opioids. The acceleration in opioid-related deaths coupled with stark health inequities demands a close examination of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment barriers and swift consideration of policy changes. DESIGN: The aim of this buprenorphine policy analysis is to summarize existing buprenorphine barriers and present policy solutions to improve access and actualize the contributions of Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs). METHODS: The policy analysis follows five sequential steps: (1) defining the problem, (2) identifying key stakeholders, (3) assessing the landscape of relevant policies, (4) describing viable policy options, and (5) making final recommendations. RESULTS: Although there are laudable efforts to improve buprenorphine access, such as the new buprenorphine guidelines issued in April 2021, without larger-scale changes to federal, state, and scope of practice laws, overdose rates will continue to rise. We recommend a multipronged policy approach to improve buprenorphine treatment access, including eliminating the DEA X waiver, improving OUD education, and adopting full practice authority for APRNs in all states. CONCLUSION: Incremental change is no longer sufficient to address opioid overdose deaths. Bolder and coordinated policy action is possible and necessary to empower the full clinical workforce to apply evidence-based life-saving treatments for OUD. The critical contributions of nurses in advancing equitable access to OUD care are emphasized in the National Academy of Medicine's Report, Future of Nursing: Charting a Path to Achieve Health Equity. Nurses are named as instrumental in improving buprenorphine access. Policy changes that acknowledge and build on evidence-based treatment expansion strategies are sorely needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: One of the most robust tools to combat opioid overdose deaths is buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist, and gold standard medication treatment for OUD, but only 5% of the prescribing workforce possess the required Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) X waiver. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that Advanced Practice Registered Nurses are accelerating the growth in waiver update and buprenorphine use, despite the considerable barriers and limitations described in this policy analysis.

Nurse Performance Metrics: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this scoping review are: 1) to identify instances in the literature that describe measuring individual nurse performance and 2) characterize those metrics. BACKGROUND: The impact of nurses on patient outcomes has been demonstrated at the unit or hospital level, with nurses measured in aggregate. There is an opportunity to evaluate individual nurse performance by creating metrics that capture it. METHODS: A scoping review based on the framework published by the Joanna Briggs Institute was performed. RESULTS: Researchers identified 12 articles. Three themes were trended: the emerging nature of these metrics in the literature, variability in their applications, and performance implications. CONCLUSIONS: Individual nurse performance metrics is an emerging body of research with variability in the types of metrics developed. There is an opportunity for future researchers to work with nurse leaders and staff nurses to optimize these metrics and to use them to support nursing practice and patient care.

Advancement of research on nurse practitioners: Setting a research agenda.

BACKGROUND: Primary care delivered by nurse practitioners (NPs) helps to meet the United States' growing demand for care and improves patient outcomes. Yet, barriers impede NP practice. Knowledge of these barriers is limited, hindering opportunities to eliminate them. PURPOSE: We convened a 1.5-day conference to develop a research agenda to advance evidence on the primary care NP workforce. METHODS: Thirty experts gathered in New York City for a conference in 2022. The conference included plenary sessions, small group discussions, and a prioritization process to identify areas for future research and research questions. DISCUSSION: The research agenda includes top-ranked research questions within five categories: (a) policy regulations and implications for care, quality, and access; (b) systems affecting NP practice; (c) health equity and the NP workforce; (d) NP education and workforce dynamics, and (e) international perspectives. CONCLUSION: The agenda can advance evidence on the NP workforce to guide policy and practice.

State Variation in the Utilization of Nurse Practitioner-Provided Home-Based Primary Care: A Medicare Claims Analysis.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) provide an increasing proportion of home-based primary care, despite restrictive scope of practice laws in approximately one half of states. We examined the relationship between scope of practice laws and state volume of NP-provided home-based primary care by performing an analysis of 2018 to 2019 Medicare claims. For each state we calculated the proportion of total home-based primary care visits by NPs and the proportion of all NPs providing home-based primary care. We used the 2018 American Association of Nurse Practitioners classification of state practice environment. We performed chi-square tests to assess the significance between volume and practice environment. We found that 42% of home-based primary care is delivered by NPs nationally, but substantial variation exists across states. We did not find a discernible or statistically significant pattern of uptake of NP-provided home-based primary care across full, reduced, or restricted states. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 49(5), 11-17.].

Certification alignment of nurse practitioners in acute care.

BACKGROUND: The Consensus Model specifies distinct education preparations for acute care and primary care nurse practitioners (NP), but incomplete implementation and employer hiring practices risk misalignment of certification and practice. PURPOSE: Report the prevalence of acute care certification among NPs working in acute care, investigate the factors associated with alignment, and explore the impact of alignment on nurse outcomes. METHODS: Using the 2018 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses, we selected NPs practicing acute care and compared employment, education, and nurse outcomes by certification alignment. FINDINGS: A minority of NPs (44.5%) held acute care certification. Controlling for NP characteristics, those practicing in states that restrict a NP's practice to their area of certification had 47% higher odds of acute care certification. DISCUSSION: Understanding patterns of alignment in the NP workforce and the factors that produce them is critical to an appropriate regulatory framework for advanced practice nursing.

The Effect of Supervision Waivers on Practice: A Survey of Massachusetts Nurse Practitioners During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: While optimal utilization of the nurse practitioner (NP) workforce is an increasingly popular proposal to alleviate the growing primary care shortage, federal, state, and organizational scope of practice policies inhibit NPs from practicing to the full extent of their license and training. In March of 2020, NP state-specific supervisory requirements were temporarily waived to meet the demands of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Massachusetts. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the impact of temporarily waived state practice restrictions on NP perception of care delivery during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts. RESEARCH DESIGN: Mixed methods descriptive analysis of a web-based survey of Massachusetts NPs (N=391), conducted in May and June 2020. RESULTS: The vast majority (75%) of NPs believed the temporary removal of practice restriction did not perceptibly improve clinical work. Psychiatric mental health NPs were significantly more likely than other NP specialties to believe the waiver improved clinical work (odds ratio=6.68, P=0.001). NPs that experienced an increase in working hours during the pandemic surge were also more likely to report a positive effect of the waiver (odds ratio=2.56, P=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Temporary removal of state-level practice barriers alone is not sufficient to achieve immediate full scope of practice for NPs. The successful implementation of modernized scope of practice laws may require a collective effort to revise organizational and payer policies accordingly.

Drivers of Cost Differences Between Nurse Practitioner and Physician Attributed Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Although recent research suggests that primary care provided by nurse practitioners costs less than primary care provided by physicians, little is known about underlying drivers of these cost differences. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Identify the drivers of cost differences between Medicare beneficiaries attributed to primary care nurse practitioners (PCNPs) and primary care physicians (PCMDs). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cost decomposition analysis using 2009-2010 Medicare administrative claims for beneficiaries attributed to PCNPs and PCMDs with risk stratification to control for beneficiary severity. Cost differences between PCNPs and PCMDs were decomposed into payment, service volume, and service mix within low-risk, moderate-risk and high-risk strata. RESULTS: Overall, the average PCMD cost of care is 34% higher than PCNP care in the low-risk stratum, and 28% and 21% higher in the medium-risk and high-risk stratum. In the low-risk stratum, the difference is comprised of 24% service volume, 6% payment, and 4% service mix. In the high-risk stratum, the difference is composed of 7% service volume, 9% payment, and 4% service mix. The cost difference between PCNP and PCMD attributed beneficiaries is persistent and significant, but narrows as risk increases. Across the strata, PCNPs use fewer and less expensive services than PCMDs. In the low-risk stratum, PCNPs use markedly fewer services than PCMDs. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the costs of primary care of Medicare beneficiaries provided by nurse practitioners and MDs. Especially in low-risk populations, the lower cost of PCNP provided care is primarily driven by lower service volume.

Comparing the rates of low-value back images ordered by physicians and nurse practitioners for Medicare beneficiaries in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the extent of ordering low-value services by. PURPOSE: To compare the rates of low-value back images ordered by primary care physicians (PCMDs) and primary care nurse practitioners (PCNPs). METHOD: We used 2012 and 2013 Medicare Part B claims for all beneficiaries in 18 hospital referral ̱regions (HRRs) and a measure of low-value back imaging from Choosing Wisely. Models included random clinician effect and fixed effects for beneficiary age, disability, Elixhauser comorbidities, clinician sex, the emergency department setting, back pain visit volume, organization, and region (HRR). FINDINGS: PCNPs (N = 231) and PCMDs (N = 4,779) order low-value back images at similar rates (NP: all images: 26.5%; MRI/CT: 8.4%; MD: all images: 24.5%; MRI/CT: 7.7%), with no detectable significant difference when controlling for covariates. DISCUSSION: PCNPs and PCMDs order low-value back images at an effectively similar rate.

Quality of Primary Care Provided to Medicare Beneficiaries by Nurse Practitioners and Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in the quality of care provided by primary care nurse practitioners (PCNPs), primary care physicians (PCMDs), or both clinicians. DATA SOURCES: Medicare part A and part B claims during 2012-2013. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort design using standard risk-adjustment methodologies and propensity score weighting assessing 16 claims-based quality measures grouped into 4 domains of primary care: chronic disease management, preventable hospitalizations, adverse outcomes, and cancer screening. EXTRACTION METHODS: Continuously enrolled aged, disabled, and dual eligible beneficiaries who received at least 25% of their primary care services from a random sample of PCMDs, PCNPs, or both clinicians. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Beneficiaries attributed to PCNPs had lower hospital admissions, readmissions, inappropriate emergency department use, and low-value imaging for low back pain. Beneficiaries attributed to PCMDs were more likely than those attributed to PCNPs to receive chronic disease management and cancer screenings. Quality of care for beneficiaries jointly attributed to both clinicians generally scored in the middle of the PCNP and PCMD attributed beneficiaries with the exception of cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of primary care varies by clinician type, with different strengths for PCNPs and PCMDs. These comparative advantages should be considered when determining how to organize primary care to Medicare beneficiaries.

The quality of primary care provided by nurse practitioners to vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest nurse practitioners are heavily represented among primary care providers for vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare quality indicators among three groups of vulnerable beneficiaries managed by MDs and nurse practitioners (NPs). METHODS: The methods include retrospective cohort design examining 2012 and 2013 Medicare claims for three beneficiary groups: (a) initially qualified for the program due to disability, (b) dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, and (c) both disabled and dually eligible. Validated quality indicators in four domains were analyzed. DISCUSSION: Gaps in outcomes suggest better performance for primary care nurse practitioners (PCNPs) in preventable hospitalizations and adverse outcomes. Outcome gaps suggesting better performance for primary care physicians in chronic disease management were diminished for beneficiaries who were both disabled and dually eligible suggesting improved performance for PCNPs within this subpopulation. CONCLUSION: These findings add new evidence indicating the quality of primary care provided to vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries by PCNPs is generally consistent with clinical guidelines and the less intensive use of costly health care services.

The quality of home-based primary care delivered by nurse practitioners: A national Medicare claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: As the US population ages, there is an increasing demand for home-based primary care (HBPC) by those with Alzheimer's/dementia, multiple chronic conditions, severe physical limitations, or those facing end-of life. Nurse practitioners (NPs) are increasingly providing HBPC, yet little is known about their quality of care in this unique setting. METHODS: This observational study uses Medicare claims data from 2018 to assess the quality of care for high-intensity HBPC users (5 or more visits/year) based on provider type (NP-only, physician (MD)-only, or both NP and MDs). We employ 12 quality measures from 3 care domains: access and prevention, acute care utilization, and end-of-life. Analysis includes bivariate comparisons and logistic regression models that adjust for demographic, clinical, and geographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among the 574,567 beneficiaries with 5 or more HBPC visits, 37% saw an NP, 37% saw a MD, and 27% saw both NPs and MDs. In multivariate models, those receiving HBPC from an NP or both NP-MD are significantly more likely to receive a flu shot than the MD-only group, but less likely to access preventive care. NP-only care is associated with more acute care hospitalizations, avoidable ED visits, and fall-related injuries, but significantly fewer avoidable admissions. For end-of-life care, those with NP-only or both NP-MD care are significantly more likely to have an advanced directive, be in hospice in the last 3 days of life, and more likely to die in hospice. The NP group is also more likely to die in the next year. CONCLUSIONS: HBPC patients are complex, with both palliative and curative needs. NPs provide almost half of HBPC in the Medicare program, to patients who are possibly sicker than those treated by physicians, with similar quality to MDs.