The Role of Advanced Practice Providers in Urology.

The nation's undersupply of urology services disproportionately affects Medicare beneficiaries compared to the general population. Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), most commonly nurse practitioners and physician assistants may be a vehicle to meet this need. The increased use of APPs in urology is hampered by physician discomfort with delegating responsibility to APPs. This discomfort may be compounded by complexities with billing issues and interstate variation in scope of practice regulations. To expand access to urological services while simultaneously ensuring service quality, it is imperative that urologists engage with APPs individually and as a specialty.

Role and Growth of Independent Medicare-Billing Otolaryngologic Advanced Practice Providers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role and growth of independently billing otolaryngology (ORL) advanced practice providers (APPs) within a Medicare population. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Data Files, 2012-2017. METHODS: This retrospective review included data and analysis of independent Medicare-billing ORL APPs. Total sums and medians were gathered for Medicare reimbursements, services performed, number of patients, and unique Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes used, along with geographic and sex distributions. RESULTS: There has been near-linear growth in number of ORL APPs (13.7% to 18.4% growth per year), with a 115.4% growth from 2012 to 2017. Similarly, total Medicare-allowed reimbursement (2012: $15,568,850; 2017: $35,548,446.8), total number of services performed (2012: 313,676; 2017: 693,693.7), and total number of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) patients (2012: 108,667; 2017: 238,506) increased. Medians of per APP number of unique CPT codes used, Medicare-allowed reimbursement, number of services performed, and number of Medicare FFS patients have remained constant. There were consistently more female APPs than male APPs (female APP proportion range: 71.3%-76.7%). Compared to ORL physicians, there was a significantly greater proportion of APPs practicing in a rural setting as opposed to urban settings (2017: APP proportion 13.6% vs ORL proportion 8.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although their scope of practice has remained constant, independently billing ORL APPs are rapidly increasing in number, which has led to increased Medicare reimbursements, services, and patients. ORL APPs tend to be female and are used more heavily in regions with fewer ORL physicians.

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.

Characterizing the providers of and reimbursement for chronic migraine chemodenervation among the Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize reimbursement trends and providers for chronic migraine (CM) chemodenervation treatment within the Medicare population since the introduction of the migraine-specific CPT code in 2013. METHODS: We describe trends in procedure volume and total allowed charge on cross-sectional data obtained from 2013 to 2018 Medicare Part B National Summary files. We also utilized the 2017 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data to analyze higher volume providers (>10 procedures) of this treatment modality. RESULTS: The total number of CM chemodenervation treatments rose from 37,863 in 2013 to 135,023 in 2018 in a near-linear pattern (r = 0.999) and total allowed charges rose from ~$5,217,712 to $19,166,160 (r = 0.999). The majority of high-volume providers were neurologists (78.4%; 1060 of 1352), but a substantial proportion were advanced practice providers (APPs) (10.2%; 138 of 1352). Of the physicians, neurologists performed a higher mean number of procedures per physician compared to non-neurologists (59.6 [95% CI: 56.6-62.6] vs. 45.4 [95% CI: 41.0-50.0], p < 0.001). When comparing physicians and APPs, APPs were paid significantly less ($146.5 [95% CI: $145.6-$147.5] vs. $119.7 [95% CI: $117.6-$121.8], p < 0.001). As a percent of the number of total beneficiaries in each state, the percent of Medicare patients receiving ≥1 CM chemodenervation treatment from a high-volume provider in 2017 ranged from 0.024% (24 patients of 98,033 beneficiaries) in Wyoming to 0.135% (997 of 736,521) in Arizona, with six states falling outside of this range. CONCLUSION: Chemodenervation is an increasingly popular treatment for CM among neurologists and other providers, but the reason for this increase is unclear. There is substantial geographic variation in its use.

Utilization and Costs by Primary Care Provider Type: Are There Differences Among Diabetic Patients of Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare health care utilization and costs among diabetes patients with physician, nurse practitioner (NP), or physician assistant (PA) primary care providers (PCPs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cohort study using Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health record data to examine the relationship between PCP type and utilization and costs over 1 year in 368,481 adult, diabetes patients. Relationship between PCP type and utilization and costs in 2013 was examined with extensive adjustment for patient and facility characteristics. Emergency department and outpatient analyses used negative binomial models; hospitalizations used logistic regression. Costs were analyzed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: PCPs were physicians, NPs, and PAs for 74.9% (n=276,009), 18.2% (n=67,120), and 6.9% (n=25,352) of patients respectively. Patients of NPs and PAs have lower odds of inpatient admission [odds ratio for NP vs. physician 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.87-0.93; PA vs. physician 0.92, 95% CI=0.87-0.97], and lower emergency department use (0.67 visits on average for physicians, 95% CI=0.65-0.68; 0.60 for NPs, 95% CI=0.58-0.63; 0.59 for PAs, 95% CI=0.56-0.63). This translates into NPs and PAs having ~$500-$700 less health care costs per patient per year (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Expanded use of NPs and PAs in the PCP role for some patients may be associated with notable cost savings. In our cohort, substituting care patterns and creating similar clinical situations in which they practice, NPs and PAs may have reduced costs of care by up to 150-190 million dollars in 2013.

Outcomes of primary care delivery by nurse practitioners: Utilization, cost, and quality of care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether nurse practitioner (NP)-assigned patients exhibited differences in utilization, costs, and clinical outcomes compared to medical doctor (MD)-assigned patients. DATA SOURCES: Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data capturing characteristics, outcomes, and provider assignments of 806 434 VA patients assigned to an MD primary care provider (PCP) who left VA practice between 2010 and 2012. STUDY DESIGN: We applied a difference-in-difference approach comparing outcomes between patients reassigned to MD and NP PCPs, respectively. We examined measures of outpatient (primary care, specialty care, and mental health) and inpatient (total and ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations) utilization, costs (outpatient, inpatient and total), and clinical outcomes (control of hemoglobin A1c, LDL, and blood pressure) in the year following reassignment. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared to MD-assigned patients, NP-assigned patients were less likely to use primary care and specialty care services and incurred fewer total and ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations. Differences in costs, clinical outcomes, and receipt of diagnostic tests between groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reassigned to NPs experienced similar outcomes and incurred less utilization at comparable cost relative to MD patients. NPs may offer a cost-effective approach to addressing anticipated shortages of primary care physicians.

Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to the Uptake of Best Practices for the Treatment of Co-Occurring Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder.

Objective: Patients with a combination of chronic pain and opioid use disorder have unique needs and may present a challenge for clinicians and health care systems. The objective of the present study was to use qualitative methods to explore factors influencing the uptake of best practices for co-occurring chronic pain and opioid use disorder in order to inform a quantitative survey assessing primary care provider capacity to appropriately treat this dual diagnosis. Methods: Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 primary care providers (PCPs) to inform the development of a questionnaire. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Fifteen comments from an open-ended question on the questionnaire were added to the analyses as they described factors that were not elucidated in the interviews. Barriers and facilitators were identified and categorized using the CFIR codebook. Results: The most frequently described barriers were cost and inadequate access to appropriate treatments, external policies, and available resources (e.g., risk assessment tools). The most frequently described facilitators were the presence of a network or team, patient-specific needs, and the learning climate. Knowledge and beliefs were frequently described as both barriers and facilitators. Conclusions: While substantial funding has been allocated to initiatives aimed at increasing PCP capacity to treat this population, numerous barriers to adopting appropriate practices still exist. Future research should focus on developing and testing implementation strategies that leverage the facilitators and overcome the barriers illustrated here to improve the uptake of evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of co-occurring chronic pain and opioid use disorder.

Establishing nurse practitioner clinical practicums: Addressing fiscal realities.

As demand expands for nurse practitioner clinical practicum sites, the supply of preceptors is decreasing. The traditional model of in-kind clinical training is losing its foothold for a variety of reasons. A looming question is how quickly a "pay to precept" norm will grow and what will be the costs. The pay for precepting movement is discussed including current trends, costs, and emerging compensation models. To adapt to this trend, alternative ways of drawing the precepting value proposition are suggested, particularly decreasing preceptor and site demands while increasing students' readiness to enter clinical practicum and tapping into faculty expertise to add value to the partnership. The authors provide suggestions on building a strategy for rethinking the structure of student precepting arrangements and compensation models.

Diagnostic Imaging Examinations Interpreted by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants: A National and State-Level Medicare Claims Analysis.

OBJECTIVE. Nonphysician providers (NPPs) increasingly perform imaging-guided procedures, but their roles interpreting imaging have received little attention. We characterize diagnostic imaging services rendered by NPPs (i.e., nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in the Medicare population. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using 1994-2015 Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files, we identified all diagnostic imaging services, including those billed by NPPs, and categorized these by modality and body region. Using 2004-2015 Medicare Part B 5% Research Identifiable File Carrier Files, we separately assessed state-level variation in imaging services rendered by NPPs. Total and relative utilization rates were calculated annually. RESULTS. Between 1994 and 2015 nationally, diagnostic imaging services increased from 339,168 to 420,172 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries (an increase of 24%). During this same period, diagnostic imaging services rendered by NPPs increased 14,711% (from 36 to 5332 per 100,000 beneficiaries) but still represented only 0.01% and 1.27% of all imaging in 1994 and 2015, respectively. Across all years, radiography and fluoroscopy constituted most of the NPP-billed imaging services and remained constant over time (e.g., 94% of all services billed in 1994 and 2015), representing only 0.01% and 2.1% of all Medicare radiography and fluoroscopy services. However, absolute annual service counts for NPP-billed radiography and fluoroscopy services increased from 10,899 to 1,665,929 services between 1994 and 2015. NPP-billed imaging was most common in South Dakota (7987 services per 100,000 beneficiaries) and Alaska (6842 services per 100,000 beneficiaries) and was least common in Hawaii (231 services per 100,000 beneficiaries) and Pennsylvania (478 services per 100,000 beneficiaries). CONCLUSION. Despite increasing roles of NPPs in health care across the United States, NPPs still rarely interpret diagnostic imaging studies. When they do, it is overwhelmingly radiography and fluoroscopy. Considerable state-to-state variation exists and may relate to local care patterns and scope-of-practice laws.

Job satisfaction and associated factors among nurses in Bahir Dar city administrative, North West Ethiopia, 2017.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of job satisfaction and associated factors among nurses in Bahir Dar city, Northwest Ethiopia, 2017. RESULTS: The overall proportion of nurses' job satisfaction was 43.6%. From motivational factors, advancement (AOR = 2.64; 95% CI [1.17, 5.96]) and recognition (AOR = 2.56; 95% CI [1.08, 6.08]) were the main determinants of nurses' job satisfaction. Among hygienic factors, work security (AOR = 4.88; 95% CI [1.13, 21.03]) was positively associated with nurses' job satisfaction. In conclusion, the nurses' job satisfaction was low in this study setting. Modifiable factors such as advancement, recognition and work security positively affect job satisfaction of nurses. Therefore, the current study recommended that the health care system administers should work on improvement of advancement, security, and recognition in the facilities.

Impact Of Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, And Physician Assistants On Utilization And Costs For Complex Patients.

Because of workforce needs and demographic and chronic disease trends, nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) are taking a larger role in the primary care of medically complex patients with chronic conditions. Research shows good quality outcomes, but concerns persist that NPs' and PAs' care of vulnerable populations could increase care costs compared to the traditional physician-dominated system. We used 2012-13 Veterans Affairs data on a cohort of medically complex patients with diabetes to compare health services use and costs depending on whether the primary care provider was a physician, NP, or PA. Case-mix-adjusted total care costs were 6-7 percent lower for NP and PA patients than for physician patients, driven by more use of emergency and inpatient services by the latter. We found that use of NPs and PAs as primary care providers for complex patients with diabetes was associated with less use of acute care services and lower total costs.

Rethinking the cost of care: Nurse practitioners as stewards of clinical and patient resources.

Clinicians are the building blocks of value-based care, yet the cumulative human and financial cost of daily care decisions are mostly hidden from them. As essential primary care providers, nurse practitioners play a role in driving efficiency and resourcefulness in care. The growth and expanded capabilities of the specialty give nurse practitioners a powerful voice in setting standards for clinical stewardship. Yet to be successful in this effort, nurse practitioners must have a better understanding of cost containment and cost reduction to make better decisions. This means synthesizing cost and risk data, efficacy, and patient advocacy to propagate value-based decision making and standardized quality care across our organizations. Clinicians need to understand that caring about patients means being good stewards while caring for patients.

Demonstrating advanced practice provider value: Implementing a new advanced practice provider billing algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Rapid changes in healthcare are driving the adjustment of work flow by which providers serve patients in team-based care. Specifically, there is a need to develop more effective and efficient utilization with accurate attribution of advanced practice providers' (APPs) productivity. LOCAL PROBLEM: The directors of the APP-Best Practice Center conducted assessments of each clinical area at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Health, a large academic medical center. A knowledge gap was identified, not only regarding billing practices of the APPs (NPs and physician assistants) but also in the use of APPs to practice to the fullest extent of their license, education, and experience. METHODS: By substantiating APPs' contribution margin through the process of implementing a new standardized APP billing algorithm, a change in practice was accepted by senior leadership and a new APP billing algorithm was built that follows updated practice laws, compliance/legal standards, and hospital bylaws and regulations. INTERVENTIONS: A new billing algorithm was implemented on July 1, 2017, and outcomes were evaluated 12 months after implementation. RESULTS: This project uncovered the work already performed by APPs while increasing relative value units, collections, and overall patient encounters by the APP/physician team. Findings suggest improved utilization and appropriate attribution of productivity. CONCLUSIONS: With the APP workforce growing, the implementation of electronic medical record systems, and today's healthcare financial constraints, healthcare systems must standardize their billing practices. The APP billing algorithm is a critical tool that will help to meet this demand.

Medication adherence, costs, and ER visits of nurse practitioner and primary care physician patients: Evidence from three cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare medication adherence, cost, and utilization in Medicare beneficiaries attributed to nurse practitioners (NP) and primary care physicians (PCP). DATA: Medicare Part A, B, and D claims and beneficiary summary file data, years 2009-2013. STUDY DESIGN: We used propensity score-weighted analyses combined with logistic regression and generalized estimating equations to test differences in good medication adherence (proportion of days covered (PDC >0.8); office-based and specialty care costs; and ER visits. DATA EXTRACTION: Beneficiaries with prescription claims for anti-diabetics, renin-angiotensin system antagonists (RASA), or statins. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There were no differences in good medication adherence (PDC >0.8) between NP and PCP attributed beneficiaries taking anti-diabetics or RASA. Beneficiaries taking statins had a slightly higher probability of good adherence when attributed to PCPs (74.6% vs 75.5%; P < 0.05). NP attributed beneficiaries had lower office-based and specialty care costs and were less likely to experience an ER visit across all three medication cohorts (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Examining the impact of NP and PCP provided care on outcomes beyond the primary care setting is important to the Medicare program in general but will also help practices seeking to meet benchmarks under alternative payment models that incentivize higher quality and lower costs.

Privately practising nurse practitioners' provision of care subsidised through the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in Australia: results from a national survey.

Objective Since legislative changes in 2010, certain health care services provided by privately practising nurse practitioners (PPNPs) in Australia have been eligible for reimbursement under the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). The aim of the present study was to describe survey results relating to the care provided by PPNPs subsidised through the MBS and PBS. Methods PPNPs in Australia were invited to complete an electronic survey exploring their practice activities. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for percentages where relevant. Free text data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Seventy-three PPNPs completed the survey. The most common form of payment reported (34%; n=25) was payment by direct fee for service (MBS rebate only, also known as bulk billing). Seventy-five per cent of participants (n=55) identified that there were aspects of care delivery not adequately described and compensated by the current nurse practitioner (NP) MBS item numbers. 87.7% (n=64) reported having a PBS prescriber authorisation number. Themes identified within the free text data that related to the constraints of the MBS and PBS included 'duplication of services' and 'level of reimbursement'. Conclusion The findings of the present study suggest that PPNPs are providing subsidised care through the MBS and PBS. The PPNPs in the present study reported challenges with the current structure and breadth of the NP MBS and PBS items, which restrict them from providing complete episodes of patient care. What is known about the topic? Since the introduction of legislative changes in 2010, services provided by PPNPs in Australia have been eligible for subsidisation through the MBS and PBS. What does this paper add? This paper provides data on PPNPs' provision of care subsidised through the MBS and PBS. What are the implications for practitioners? Eligibility to provide care subsidised through the MBS and PBS has enabled the establishment of PPNP services. The current breadth and structure of the NP MBS and PBS item numbers have restricted the capacity of PPNPs to provide complete episodes of patient care.

Systematic review addressing nurse practitioner reimbursement policy: Part one of a four-part series on critical topics identified by the 2015 nurse practitioner research agenda.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The growth and sustainability of nurse practitioners (NPs) requires transparent, fair and equitable reimbursement policies. Complicating this issue is variation in reimbursement policy within and across federal, state, and other payers. Even with explicit regulations, there remain questions on how reimbursement policies are covertly operationalized in practice. This systematic review aims to identify knowledge gaps related to reimbursement policy issues and outlines recommendations for further research. METHODS: Eight major databases were searched using terms including "nurse practitioner," "reimbursement," "policy," and "research," limited to the United States and inclusive of December 2006-September 2017. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed for themes and gaps. CONCLUSION: The final review includes 17 articles identifying themes including state-determined Medicaid reimbursement and scope of practice legislation shapes NP clinical practice; NPs as identified primary care providers: credentialing and contracting; reimbursement parity; and "incident to" billing. Moreover, there is evidence of discriminatory policies that disadvantage NPs and limit their access to patients, direct billing, and direct reimbursement. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Future research needs to focus on outcomes of discriminatory, as well as supportive, reimbursement policies in organizations, and their influence on patient access and quality care.

Understanding the role of advanced practice providers in oncology in the United States.

PURPOSE: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include NPs and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims first to identify all APPs in oncology and, second, to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. METHODS: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. RESULTS: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577 out of 3,055, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as white (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs, 94%; PAs, 98%), prescribing (NPs, 93%; PAs, 97%), treatment management (NPs, 89%; PAs, 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs, 81%; PAs, 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is about $10,000 higher than average pay for APPs not in oncology. CONCLUSION: We identified 5,350 APPs in oncology and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Survey results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care now and in the future.