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.

Managing obesity in adults as a chronic condition.

ABSTRACT: Despite extensive evidence-based guidelines, clinicians still face many barriers to reducing the incidence of obesity. Recognizing that obesity is a chronic disease will allow clinicians to properly treat patients and bill for reimbursement. With enhanced education, knowledge of reimbursement, and a push for legislation, physician assistants can pave the way to reducing rates of obesity in adults.

Reexamining the persisting wage gap between male and female PAs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude of any difference in total compensation between male and female physician assistants (PAs) after controlling for personal and workplace factors related to compensation. METHODS: Using data from the 2019 AAPA Salary Survey, the authors conducted a sequential regression analysis to examine the relationship between a variety of personal and practice demographics and total compensation. RESULTS: After controlling for compensation-related factors, a wage gap between male and female PAs persisted: female PAs were paid almost $0.93 for every $1 male PAs were paid in the first year of work ($9,010 less). This wage gap widened by $201 for every year of work experience. CONCLUSIONS: A wage gap between male and female PAs persists even after including all compensation types and controlling for compensation-related factors that may differ between male and female PAs. Proposed policy implications could begin to mitigate the gap.

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.

Out-of-Network Bills for Privately Insured Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery With In-Network Primary Surgeons and Facilities.

Importance: Privately insured patients who receive care from in-network physicians may receive unexpected out-of-network bills ("surprise bills") from out-of-network clinicians they did not choose. In elective surgery, this can occur if patients choose in-network surgeons and hospitals but receive out-of-network bills from other involved clinicians. Objective: To evaluate out-of-network billing across common elective operations performed with in-network primary surgeons and facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of claims data from a large US commercial insurer, representing 347 356 patients who had undergone 1 of 7 common elective operations (arthroscopic meniscal repair [116 749]; laparoscopic cholecystectomy [82 372]; hysterectomy [67 452]; total knee replacement [42 313]; breast lumpectomy [18 018]; colectomy [14 074]; coronary artery bypass graft surgery [6378]) by an in-network primary surgeon at an in-network facility between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2017. Follow-up ended November 8, 2017. Exposure: Patient, clinician, and insurance factors potentially related to out-of-network bills. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes with out-of-network bills. The secondary outcome was the estimated potential balance bill associated with out-of-network bills from each surgical procedure, calculated as total out-of-network charges less the typical in-network price for the same service. Results: Among 347 356 patients (mean age, 48 [SD, 11] years; 66% women) who underwent surgery with in-network primary surgeons and facilities, 20.5% of episodes (95% CI, 19.4%-21.7%) had an out-of-network bill. In these episodes, the mean potential balance bill per episode was $2011 (95% CI, $1866-$2157) when present. Out-of-network bills were associated with surgical assistants in 37% of these episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $3633 (95% CI, $3384-$3883). Out-of-network bills were associated with anesthesiologists in 37% of episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $1219 (95% CI, $1049-$1388). Membership in health insurance exchange plans, compared with nonexchange plans, was associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills (27% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 6% [95% CI, 3.9%-8.9%]; P < .001). Surgical complications were associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills, compared with episodes with no complications (28% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 7% [95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%]; P < .001). Among 83 021 procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers with in-network primary surgeons, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.8%-7.7%) included an out-of-network facility bill and 17.2% (95% CI, 15.7%-18.8%) included an out-of-network professional bill. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective analysis of commercially insured patients who had undergone elective surgery at in-network facilities with in-network primary surgeons, a substantial proportion of operations were associated with out-of-network bills.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[First Insights into Scope of Practice and Salary of Physician Assistants, A New Healthcare Profession, in Germany]. / Eine neue Berufsgruppe kommt in der Praxis an: Erste Erkenntnisse über Einsatzgebiete, Tätigkeiten und Gehalt von Physician Assistants/Arztassistenten in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, the first government-approved physician assistant (PA) program was introduced at the Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University Karlsruhe (DHBW). There are not sufficient data regarding the scope of practice and salary of our graduates. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to obtain information regarding these. METHODS: The survey included all graduates (2 classes, n=27). A specific questionnaire was developed, including 37 questions e. g. on the current employment status, scope of practice, salary and job satisfaction regarding the PA program and career. A descriptive analysis of the data was carried out using SPSS. RESULTS: 25 graduates participated in the survey (96.1%); the average age of participants was 32.2 years (25-53 years). 88% (n=22) were employed as a PA, most of them worked in internal medicine (n=11) or surgery (n=9). Responsibilities that are often or very often assigned to the PAs are preparing final documents, taking over a coordinating role in the therapeutic team, as well as participation in taking patient medical history and conducting physical examinations. In two-thirds of respondents, the gross monthly base salary (full-time position) was about 3000 euros. 77.3% (n=17) of graduates were generally satisfied or very satisfied with their current situation. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that graduates of the DHBW are well integrated into the staff structure of hospitals, as far as the scope of practice and average salary are concerned. Further studies on the integration of this new profession in Germany and on their extended scope of practice in comparison to established healthcare professions will be conducted.

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.

Medicare Program; FY 2019 Hospice Wage Index and Payment Rate Update and Hospice Quality Reporting Requirements. Final rule.

This final rule updates the hospice wage index, payment rates, and cap amount for fiscal year (FY) 2019. The rule also makes conforming regulations text changes to recognize physician assistants as designated hospice attending physicians effective January 1, 2019. Finally, the rule includes changes to the Hospice Quality Reporting Program.

Contribution of physician assistants/associates to secondary care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To appraise and synthesise research on the impact of physician assistants/associates (PA) in secondary care, specifically acute internal medicine, care of the elderly, emergency medicine, trauma and orthopaedics, and mental health. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, ASSIA, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, EconLit and Cochrane), reference lists and related articles. INCLUDED ARTICLES: Peer-reviewed articles of any study design, published in English, 1995-2017. INTERVENTIONS: Blinded parallel processes were used to screen abstracts and full text, data extractions and quality assessments against published guidelines. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. OUTCOME MEASURES: Impact on: patients' experiences and outcomes, service organisation, working practices, other professional groups and costs. RESULTS: 5472 references were identified and 161 read in full; 16 were included-emergency medicine (7), trauma and orthopaedics (6), acute internal medicine (2), mental health (1) and care of the elderly (0). All studies were observational, with variable methodological quality. In emergency medicine and in trauma and orthopaedics, when PAs are added to teams, reduced waiting and process times, lower charges, equivalent readmission rate and good acceptability to staff and patients are reported. Analgesia prescribing, operative complications and mortality outcomes were variable. In internal medicine outcomes of care provided by PAs and doctors were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: PAs have been deployed to increase the capacity of a team, enabling gains in waiting time, throughput, continuity and medical cover. When PAs were compared with medical staff, reassuringly there was little or no negative effect on health outcomes or cost. The difficulty of attributing cause and effect in complex systems where work is organised in teams is highlighted. Further rigorous evaluation is required to address the complexity of the PA role, reporting on more than one setting, and including comparison between PAs and roles for which they are substituting. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016032895.

An alternative ICU staffing model: implementation of the non-physician provider.

INTRODUCTION: Literature in Europe regarding implementation of nurse practitioners or physician assistants in the intensive care unit (ICU) is lacking, while some available studies indicate that this concept can improve the quality of care and overcome physician shortages on ICUs. The aim of this study is to provide insight on how a Dutch ICU implemented non-physician providers (NPP), besides residents, and what this staffing model adds to the care on the ICU. METHODS: This paper defines the training course and job description of NPPs on a Dutch ICU. It describes the number and quality of invasive interventions performed by NPPs, residents, and intensivists during the years 2015 and 2016. Salary scales of NPPs and residents are provided to describe potential cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The tasks of NPPs on the ICU are equal to those of the residents. Analysis of the invasive interventions performed by NPPs showed an incidence of central venous catheter insertion for NPPs of 20 per fulltime equivalent (FTE) and for residents 4.3 per FTE in one year. For arterial catheters the NPP inserted 61.7 per FTE and the residents inserted 11.8 per FTE. The complication rate of both groups was in line with recent literature. Regarding their salary: after five years in service an NPP earns more than a starting resident. CONCLUSION: This is the first European study which describes the role of NPPs on the ICU and shows that practical interventions normally performed by physicians can be performed with equal safety and quality by NPPs.

The Tanzanian assistant medical officer.

Tanzania, in East Africa, has one of the lowest numbers of physician per population in the world, especially in rural areas where most people live. To address this shortage, assistant medical officers (AMOs) were developed in the 1960s. AMOs are trained in an abbreviated medical school program, work independently, remain the highest-trained practitioners in rural practice, and provide most emergency surgical obstetric care in nonurban settings. Although information on AMOs is limited, no evidence has emerged that their patient care outcomes differ from physicians. These healthcare professionals, similar to physician assistants, have expanded access to care in severely underserved areas of the country. With a growing demand for contemporary healthcare and stretched service delivery, more research is needed on the ameliorating effect AMOs have on Tanzanian healthcare, especially as the country considers converting AMO training programs to medical school programs.