Acute Care Use Among Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions Receiving Care From Nurse Practitioner Practices in Health Professional Shortage Areas.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple chronic conditions often have many care plans, polypharmacy, and unrelieved symptoms that contribute to high emergency department and hospital use. High-quality primary care delivered in practices that employ nurse practitioners can help prevent the need for such acute care services. However, such practices located in primary care health professional shortage areas face challenges caring for these patients because of higher workloads and fewer resources. OBJECTIVE: We examined differences in hospitalization and emergency department use among patients with multiple chronic conditions who receive care from practices that employ nurse practitioners in health professional shortage areas compared to practices that employ nurse practitioners in non-health professional shortage areas. METHODS: We performed an analysis of Medicare claims, merged with Health Resources and Services Administration data on health professional shortage area status in five states. Our sample included 394,424 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, with at least two of 15 common chronic conditions who received care in 779 practices that employ nurse practitioners. We used logistic regression to assess the relationship between health professional shortage area status and emergency department visits or hospitalizations. RESULTS: We found a higher likelihood of emergency department visits among patients in health professional shortage areas compared to those in non-health professional shortage areas and no difference in the likelihood of hospitalization. DISCUSSION: Emergency department use differences exist among older adults with multiple chronic conditions receiving care in practices that employ nurse practitioners in health professional shortage areas, compared to those in non-health professional shortage areas. To address this disparity, the health professional shortage area program should invest in recruiting and retaining nurse practitioners to health professional shortage areas to ease workforce shortages.

Construct Validity Testing of the Provider Co-Management Index to Measure Shared Care in Provider Dyads.

BACKGROUND: Co-management encompasses the dyadic process between two healthcare providers. The Provider Co-Management Index (PCMI) was initially developed as a 20-item instrument across three theory-informed subscales. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish construct validity of the PCMI with a sample of primary care providers through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants randomly selected from the IQVIA database across New York State. Mail surveys were used to acquire a minimum of 300 responses for split sample factor analyses. The first subsample (derivation sample) was used to explore factorial structure by conducting an exploratory factor analysis. A second (validation) sample was used to confirm the emerged factorial structure using confirmatory factor analysis. We performed iterative analysis and calculated good fit indices to determine the best-fit model. RESULTS: There were 333 responses included in the analysis. Cronbach's alpha was high for a three-item per dimension scale within a one-factor model. The instrument was named PCMI-9 to indicate the shorter version length. DISCUSSION: This study established the construct validity of an instrument that scales the co-management of patients by two providers. The final instrument includes nine items on a single factor using a 4-point, Likert-type scale. Additional research is needed to establish discriminant validity.

Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Composition Among Neonatal Nurse Practitioner Faculty Ranks.

BACKGROUND: Despite increases in nursing faculty diversity, representation is lacking in positions of higher faculty rank. Challenges for minority faculty include decreased awareness of promotion standards, less mentoring, and increased stress from being the sole representative of their respective underrepresented population. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to determine the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of neonatal nurse practitioner (NNP) faculty in the United States. A nonexperimental survey was sent to all accredited NNP programs to describe demographics of NNP faculty in the United State. RESULTS: Of the 128 survey participants, 84% self-identified as White. Forty-eight of the participants ranked Professor or Associate professor were White. In contrast, all other races only had 8 respondents who were of the higher faculty ranks. There were only 2 male participants; one identified as full professor and one as associate professor. CONCLUSION: Limitations of this project included a small sample size leading to an inability to determine statistical significance. Previous evidence supports decreased diversity in higher faculty rank in other healthcare providers and the results of this study add to that body of literature. Barriers to increased diversification need to be rectified to ensure health equity to all patients.

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.

Burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention among primary care nurse practitioners with their own patient panels.

BACKGROUND: Nurse practitioners (NPs) can enhance NP care and improve access to care by autonomously managing their patient panels. Yet, its impact on workforce outcomes such as burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention remains unexplored. PURPOSE: To estimate the impact of NP panel management on workforce outcomes. METHODS: Structural equation modeling was conducted using survey data from 1,244 primary care NPs. NP panel management was categorized into co-managing patients with other providers, both co-managing and autonomously managing, and fully autonomous management. DISCUSSION: Fully autonomous management led to more burnout than co-managing (B = 0.089, bias-corrected 95% bootstrap confidence interval [0.028, 0.151]). Work hours partially (27%) mediated this relationship. This findings indicate that greater autonomy in panel management among NPs may lead to increased burnout, partially due to longer work hours. CONCLUSION: Interventions to reduce work hours could help NPs deliver quality care without burnout.

Drivers of hospital nurse practitioner turnover: A national sample survey analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital nurse practitioner (NP) turnover is costly and complex. PURPOSE: Provide a pre-COVID-19 pandemic baseline of hospital NP turnover. METHODS: A secondary analysis of NSSRN18 data on 6,558 (67,863 weighted) NPs employed in hospitals on 12/31/2017. We describe rates of turnover, intention to leave, and reasons for leaving or staying. Using multivariate logistic regression, we examine the association between individual and organizational characteristics and turnover. Survey weights and jackknife standard errors were applied to analyses. DISCUSSION: Approximately 10% of NPs left their job the following year, and 53% of NPs that remained considered leaving at some point. The top reasons cited for leaving or staying were largely organizational factors. Regression analysis revealed not practicing to one's fullest scope, lower income, lack team-based care, and non-white race were associated with an increased likelihood to leave. CONCLUSION: We find several modifiable factors associated with hospital NP turnover that can be used to tailor recruitment and retention strategies.

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.

Mapping the Location of Health Centers in Relation to "Maternity Care Deserts": Associations With Utilization of Women's Health Providers and Services.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim was to explore the association between community health centers' (CHC) distance to a "maternity care desert" (MCD) and utilization of maternity-related health care services, controlling for CHC and county-level factors. MEASURES: Utilization as: total number of CHC visits to obstetrician-gynecologists, certified nurse midwives, family physicians (FP), and nurse practitioners (NP); total number of prenatal care visits and deliveries performed by CHC staff. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional design comparing utilization between CHCs close to MCDs and those that were not, using linked 2017 data from the Uniform Data System (UDS), American Hospital Association Survey, and Area Health Resource Files. On the basis of prior research, CHCs close to a "desert" were hypothesized to provide higher numbers of FP and NP visits than obstetrician-gynecologists and certified nurse midwives visits. The sample included 1261 CHCs and all counties in the United States and Puerto Rico (n=3234). RESULTS: Results confirm the hypothesis regarding NP visits but are mixed for FP visits. CHCs close to "deserts" had more NP visits than those that were not. There was also a dose-response effect by MCD classification, with NP visits 3 times higher at CHCs located near areas without any outpatient and inpatient access to maternity care. CONCLUSIONS: CHCs located closer to "deserts" and NPs working at these comprehensive, primary care clinics have an important role to play in providing access to maternity care. More research is needed to determine how best to target resources to these limited access areas.

Exploring the impact of a decision support algorithm to improve clinicians' chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy assessment and management practices: a two-phase, longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) negatively affects physical function and chemotherapy dosing, yet, clinicians infrequently document CIPN assessment and/or adhere to evidence-based CIPN management in practice. The primary aims of this two-phase, pre-posttest study were to explore the impact of a CIPN clinician decision support algorithm on clinicians' frequency of CIPN assessment documentation and adherence to evidence-based management. METHODS: One hundred sixty-two patients receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy (e.g., taxanes, platinums, or bortezomib) answered patient-reported outcome measures on CIPN severity and interference prior to three clinic visits at breast, gastrointestinal, or multiple myeloma outpatient clinics (n = 81 usual care phase [UCP], n = 81 algorithm phase [AP]). During the AP, study staff delivered a copy of the CIPN assessment and management algorithm to clinicians (N = 53) prior to each clinic visit. Changes in clinicians' CIPN assessment documentation (i.e., index of numbness, tingling, and/or CIPN pain documentation) and adherence to evidence-based management at the third clinic visit were compared between the AP and UCP using Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: Clinicians' frequency of adherence to evidence-based CIPN management was higher in the AP (29/52 [56%]) than the UCP (20/46 [43%]), but the change was not statistically significant (p = 0.31). There were no improvements in clinicians' CIPN assessment frequency during the AP (assessment index = 0.5440) in comparison to during the UCP (assessment index = 0.6468). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a clinician-decision support algorithm did not significantly improve clinicians' CIPN assessment documentation or adherence to evidence-based management. Further research is needed to develop theory-based implementation interventions to bolster the frequency of CIPN assessment and use of evidence-based management strategies in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03514680 . Registered 21 April 2018.

Primary Care's Historic Role in Vaccination and Potential Role in COVID-19 Immunization Programs.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic recovery will require a broad and coordinated effort for infection testing, immunity determination, and vaccination. With the advent of several COVID-19 vaccines, the dissemination and delivery of COVID-19 immunization across the nation is of concern. Previous immunization delivery patterns may reveal important components of a comprehensive and sustainable effort to immunize everyone in the nation. METHODS: The delivery of vaccinations were enumerated by provider type using 2017 Medicare Part B Fee-For-Service data and the 2013-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The delivery of these services was examined at the service, physician, and visit level. RESULTS: In 2017 Medicare Part B Fee-For-Service, primary care physicians provided the largest share of services for vaccinations (46%), followed closely by mass immunizers (45%), then nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NP/PAs) (5%). The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that primary care physicians provided most clinical visits for vaccination (54% of all visits). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians have played a crucial role in delivery of vaccinations to the US population, including the elderly, between 2012-2017. These findings indicate primary care practices may be a crucial element of vaccine counseling and delivery in the upcoming COVID-19 recovery and immunization efforts in the United States.

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.

National Estimates of the Reserve Capacity of Registered Nurses Not Currently Employed in Nursing and Emergency Nursing Job Mobility in the United States.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In a large-scale disaster, recruiting from all retired and nonworking registered nurses is one strategy to address surge demands in the emergency nursing workforce. The purpose of this research was to estimate the workforce capacity of all registered nurses who are not currently working in the nursing field in the United States by state of residence and to describe the job mobility of emergency nurses. METHODS: Weighted population estimates were calculated using the 2018 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses. Estimates of all registered nurses, including nurse practitioners who were not actively working in nursing as well as only those who were retired, based on demographics, place of residence, and per 1,000 state population, were visualized on choropleth maps. Workforce mobility into and out of the emergency nursing specialty between 2016 and 2017 was quantified. RESULTS: Of the survey participants, 61% (weighted n=2,413,382) worked full time as registered nurses at the end of both 2016 and 2017. At the end of 2017, 17.3% (weighted n=684,675) were not working in nursing. The Great Lakes states and Maine demonstrated the highest per capita rate of those not working in nursing, including those who had retired. The largest proportion of those entering the emergency nursing specialty were newly licensed nurses (15%; weighted n=33,979). CONCLUSION: There is an additional and reserve capacity available for recruitment that may help to meet the workforce needs for nursing, specifically emergency nurses and nurse practitioners, across the United States under conditions of a large-scale disaster. The results from this study may be used by the emergency care sector leaders to inform policies, workforce recruitment, workforce geographic mobility, new graduate nurse training, and job accommodation strategies to fully leverage the potential productive human capacity in emergency department care for registered nurses who are not currently working.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between nurse practitioner and registrar-led medical emergency teams: a propensity-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Medical emergency teams (MET) are mostly led by physicians. Some hospitals are currently using nurse practitioners (NP) to lead MET calls. These are no studies comparing clinical outcomes between these two care models. To determine whether NP-led MET calls are associated with lower risk of acute patient deterioration, when compared to intensive care (ICU) registrar (ICUR)-led MET calls. METHODS: The composite primary outcome included recurrence of MET call, occurrence of code blue or ICU admission within 24 h. Secondary outcomes were mortality within 24 h of MET call, length of hospital stay, hospital mortality and proportion of patients discharged home. Propensity score matching was used to reduce selection bias from confounding factors between the ICUR and NP group. RESULTS: A total of 1343 MET calls were included (1070 NP, 273 ICUR led). On Univariable analysis, the incidence of the primary outcome was higher in ICUR-led MET calls (26.7% vs. 20.6%, p = 0.03). Of the secondary outcome measures, mortality within 24 h (3.4% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.002) and hospital mortality (12.7% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.001) were higher in ICUR-led MET calls. Propensity score-matched analysis of 263 pairs revealed the composite primary outcome was comparable between both groups, but NP-led group was associated with reduced risk of hospital mortality (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.91, p = 0.02) and higher likelihood of discharge home (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.09-2.2, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Acute patient deterioration was comparable between ICUR- and NP-led MET calls. NP-led MET calls were associated with lower hospital mortality and higher likelihood of discharge home.

Midlevel Injectable Practice Patterns in Dermatology and Plastic Surgery Offices.

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge on the extent physicians delegate cosmetic procedures to midlevel providers. OBJECTIVE: To assess dermatology and plastic surgery practice patterns for the injections of neurotoxins and dermal fillers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred ninety-two dermatology and plastic surgery practices were identified from 10 major US metropolitan areas. These practices were contacted, and staff were asked a series of questions to best characterize the practice patterns in regard to who performs the injectables in the office. RESULTS: Although most dermatology and plastic surgery practices had physicians as the only provider who gives injectables, 18.35% of dermatology and 25.4% of plastic surgery practices had nurse practioners and physician assistants giving injectables both with and without oversight of the supervising physician onsite. CONCLUSION: In a large majority of both plastic surgery and dermatology practices, physicians exclusively perform injections of neurotoxins and fillers. For practices that allow midlevel providers to perform injectables, the level of physician supervision is variable. In a small percentage of plastic surgery practices, surveyed midlevel providers exclusively performed injectables.

Characterization of Biopsies by Dermatologists and Nonphysician Providers in the Medicare Population: A Rapidly Changing Landscape.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies show that nonphysician providers may require a higher number of biopsies to identify skin malignancies than dermatologists. Therefore, understanding the trends behind the types of providers performing biopsies may help analyze their impact on this vulnerable population. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study analyzes changes in nationwide, regional, and state-level data on the number and proportion of biopsies performed by dermatologists compared with nonphysician providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biopsy cases were isolated in the Medicare database from 2012 to 2018 using the HCPCS codes 11,100 and 11,101. Cases were limited to biopsies performed by a dermatologist, nurse practitioner (NP), or physician assistant (PA). RESULTS: From 2012 to 2018, national biopsy rates per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries for dermatologists decreased by 6%, whereas those for NPs and PAs increased by 97% and 82%, respectively. Each state showed variation in both the proportion of biopsies by provider type and the net change in biopsies rates over time. All states saw increases in the number of biopsies per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries by nonphysician providers. CONCLUSION: As the number of Medicare beneficiaries continues to grow, nonphysician providers are performing an increasing proportion of biopsies, with specific states and regions being affected more than others.

Methodology for a six-state survey of primary care nurse practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practices employing nurse practitioners (NPs) can play an important role in improving access to high quality health care services. However, most studies on the NP role in health care use administrative data, which have many limitations. PURPOSE: In this paper, we report the methods of the largest survey of primary care NPs to date. METHODS: To overcome the limitations of administrative data, we fielded a cross-sectional, mixed-mode (mail/online) survey of primary care NPs in six states to collect data directly from NPs on their clinical roles and practice environments. FINDINGS: While we were able to collect data from over 1,200 NPs, we encountered several challenges with our sampling frame, including provider turnover and challenges with identification of NP specialty. DISCUSSION: In future surveys, researchers can employ strategies to avoid the issues we encountered with the sampling frame and enhance large scale survey data collection from NPs.

The roles and clinical activities of registered nurses and nurse practitioners in practices caring for older adults.

BACKGROUND: Population aging and physician shortages have motivated recommendations of increased use of registered nurses in care provision; little is known about RN and NP employment in primary care and geriatric practices or service types each provide. PURPOSE: Determine current RN and NP employment frequency in practices in the U.S., identify services provided by RNs, and whether NP presence in practice is associated with the types and frequency of services provided by RNs. METHODS: National survey of 410 primary care and geriatric clinicians. FINDINGS: Only half of practices employed RNs. RNs most frequently provide teaching or education for chronic disease management. RNs provide significantly more primary care and geriatric services when practices employed a NP. DISCUSSION: Reasons for RN underuse in practices should be identified, clinical placements in such practices should increase, and NP education programs should include care models using RNs to their full scope of practice.

Modernizing the PA and NP workforce: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT: The COVID-19 pandemic has been exceptionally disruptive to healthcare delivery, exposing the strengths and weaknesses of our healthcare system. Though systems will continue to improvise in the short term to provide essential patient care, thoughtful consideration should be given to a long-term approach to improve healthcare delivery. Policy makers, legislators, and healthcare system leaders have the opportunity to reflect on lessons learned during this time and update outdated and detrimental restrictions affecting healthcare providers who have been vital to the pandemic response. This article focuses on lessons learned about the use of physician assistants and NPs, who have been readily deployed during this time.

Practice Patterns of Physicians and Nurse Practitioners in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practices increasingly include nurse practitioners (NPs), in addition to physicians. Little is known about how the patient mix and clinical activities of colocated physicians and NPs compare. OBJECTIVES: To describe the clinical activities of NPs, compared with physicians. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used claims and electronic health record data from athenahealth Inc., on primary care practices in 2017 and a cross-sectional analysis with practice fixed effects. SUBJECTS: Patients receiving treatment from physicians and NPs within primary care practices. MEASURES: First, we measured patient characteristics (payer, age, sex, race, chronic condition count) and visit characteristics (new patient, scheduled duration, same-day visit, after-hours visit). Second, we measured procedures performed and diagnoses recorded during each visit. Finally, we measured daily quantity (visit volume, minutes scheduled for patient care, total work relative value units billed) of care. RESULTS: Relative to physicians, NPs treated younger and healthier patients. NPs also had a larger share of patients who were female, non-White, and covered by Medicaid, commercial insurance, or no insurance. NPs scheduled longer appointments and treated more patients on a same-day or after-hours basis. On average, "overlapping" services-those performed by NPs and physicians within the same practice-represented 92% of all service volume. The small share of services performed exclusively by physicians reflected greater clinical intensity. On a daily basis, NPs provided fewer and less intense visits than physicians within the same practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest considerable overlap between the clinical activities of colocated NPs and physicians, with some differentiation based on intensity of services provided.

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.