Racial and ethnic disparities in ED use among older adults with asthma and primary care nurse practitioner work environments.

Background: Nurse practitioners (NPs) increasingly deliver primary care in the United States. Yet, poor working conditions strain NP care. We examined whether racial/ethnic health disparities in ED visits among older adults with asthma are moderated by primary care NP work environments. Methods: Survey data on NP work environments in six states were collected from 1,244 NPs in 2018-2019. 2018 Medicare claims data from 46,658 patients with asthma was merged with survey data to assess the associations of all-cause and ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) ED visits with NP work environment and race/ethnicity using logistic regression. Results: NP work environment moderated the association of race (Black patients versus White patients) with all-cause (odds ratio [OR]: 0.91; p-value = 0.045) and ACSC (OR: 0.90; p-value = 0.033) ED visits. Conclusions: Disparities in ED visits between Black and White patients with asthma decrease when these patients receive care in care clinics with favorable NP work environments.

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.].

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.

Digital health & low-value care.

Digital health advances offer a multitude of possibilities to improve public health and individual wellbeing. Little attention has been paid, however, to digital health's potential to create low-value care - the reduction of which is increasingly appreciated as a policy priority. This commentary provides a framework to illustrate the potential for consumer-facing digital health to generate three distinct categories of low-value care; 1) ineffective care because it is underdeveloped, 2) inefficient care because it supplements rather than substitutes, or 3) unwanted care because it is not aligned with clinician and patient preferences. We offer specific policy recommendations to reduce each type of low-value care.

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.

Low-Value Back Imaging in the Care of Medicare Beneficiaries: A Comparison of Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants.

Little is known about practice pattern differences between nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). We compared the rates of low-value back images ordered by NPs and PAs. For this comparison, we used 2012-2013 Medicare Part B claims for all beneficiaries in 18 hospital referral regions and a measure of low-value back imaging from the Choosing Wisely recommendations. Models included a random clinician effect and fixed effects for beneficiary age, disability, Elixhauser comorbidities, clinician type, the emergency department setting, and region. NPs (N = 234) order low-value back images significantly less than PAs (N = 204) (NPs 25.5% vs. PAs 39.2%, p < .0001). Controlling for relevant factors, NPs are 10.0 percentage points (p < .0001) less likely to order a low-value back image than PAs. NPs and PAs have distinct patterns of low-value back imaging, which is likely a reflection of their different practice settings.

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.

Association of State-Level Restrictions in Nurse Practitioner Scope of Practice With the Quality of Primary Care Provided to Medicare Beneficiaries.

Context: State scope of practice (SoP) laws impose significant restrictions on the services that a nurse practitioner (NP) may provide in some states, yet evidence about SoP limitations on the quality of primary care is very limited. Method: This study uses six different classifications of state regulations and bivariate and multivariate analyses to compare beneficiaries attributed to primary care nurse practitioners and primary care physicians in 2013 testing two hypotheses: (1) chronic disease management, cancer screening, preventable hospitalizations, and adverse outcomes of care provided by primary care nurse practitioners are better in reduced and restricted practice states compared to states without restrictions and (2) by decreasing access to care, SoP restrictions negatively affect the quality of primary care. Findings: Results show a lack of consistent association between quality of primary care provided by NPs and state SoP restrictions. Conclusion: State regulations restricting NP SoP do not improve the quality of care.

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.