State responses to COVID-19: Potential benefits of continuing full practice authority for primary care nurse practitioners.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and state governments removed the scope of practice restrictions on nurse practitioners (NPs), allowing them to deliver care to patients without restrictions. PURPOSE: To support policy makers' efforts to grant full practice authority to NPs beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, this manuscript summarizes the existing evidence on the benefits of permanently removing state-level scope of practice barriers and outline recommendations for policy, practice, and research. METHODS: We have conducted a thorough review of the existing literature. FINDINGS: NP full scope of practice improves access and quality of care and leads to better patient outcomes. It also has the potential to reduce health care cost. DISCUSSION: The changes to support full practice authority enacted to address COVID-19 are temporary. NP full practice authority could be part of a longer-term plan to address healthcare inequities and deficiencies rather than merely a crisis measure.

Perceptions and beliefs about the regulation of advanced nurse practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The role of the advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) is not regulated in the UK, which has led to wide variation in the skills, competencies and academic qualifications of nurses using this title. Urgent treatment centres (UTCs) require a broad and experienced knowledge base to meet the demand of patients presenting with undifferentiated illnesses and injuries, which can be stressful and challenging. AIM: To examine the perceptions and beliefs about ANP regulation, and to explore and discuss any ideas about proposed regulation. METHOD: The author used interpretative phenomenological analysis to uncover valuable insights into the experiences of two ANPs working in an UTC, and their beliefs around regulation of the ANP role. RESULTS: Both ANPs had different backgrounds and qualifications yet still had similar perceptions and beliefs regarding the regulation of ANPs. Five main themes were developed from the interview transcripts. CONCLUSION: This study identified the need to consider the importance of ANPs' identity and the complex regulatory process required to standardise the role.

Nurse Practitioner Scope-of-Practice Laws and Opioid Prescribing.

Policy Points The increased use of nurse practitioners represents a viable policy option to address continuing access-to-care deficiencies across the United States, but state scope-of-practice laws limit the ability of nurse practitioners to deliver health care. Groups in favor of restrictive scope-of-practice laws have argued that relaxing these laws will lead to increases in opioid prescriptions during an already severe opioid crisis, implicating patient safety concerns. An examination of a data set of 1.5 billion opioid prescriptions demonstrates that relaxing nurse practitioner scope-of-practice laws generally reduces opioid prescriptions. This evidence supports eliminating restrictive scope-of-practice laws that currently govern nurse practitioners in many states. CONTEXT: As many parts of the United States continue to face physician shortages, the increased use of nurse practitioners (NPs) can improve access to care. However, state scope-of-practice (SOP) laws limit the ability of NPs to provide care by restricting the services they can provide and often requiring physician supervision of their practices. One important justification for the continuation of these restrictive SOP laws is preventing the overprescription of certain medications, particularly opioids. METHODS: This study examined a data set of approximately 1.5 billion individual opioid prescriptions between 2011 and 2018, which were aggregated to the individual provider-year level. A series of difference-in-differences regression models was estimated to examine the association between laws allowing NPs to practice independently and opioid prescribing patterns among physicians and NPs. Opioid prescriptions were measured in total annual morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed by individual providers. FINDINGS: Across all NPs and physicians, independent NP practice was associated with a statistically significant decline of 6%, 2%, 3%, 7%, and 5% in total annual MMEs prescribed to commercially insured, cash-paying, Medicare, government-assistance, and all patients, respectively. Medicaid patients saw no statistically significant change in annual MMEs. Across all payers, NPs generally increase and physicians generally decrease the number of opioids they prescribe following a grant of NP independence. These counterbalancing changes result in an overall net decline in MMEs. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence supports the contention that allowing NPs to practice independently increases opioid prescriptions. The results support policy changes that allow NPs to practice independently.

Opioid use disorder and COVID-19: Implications for policy and practice.

ABSTRACT: Preliminary data suggest that opioid-related overdose deaths have increased subsequent to COVID-19. Despite national support for expanding the role of physician assistants (PAs) and NPs in serving patients with opioid use disorder, these clinicians are held to complex and stringent regulatory barriers. COVID-19 triggered significant changes from regulatory and federal agencies, yet disparate policies and regulations persist between physicians and PAs and NPs. The dual epidemics of COVID-19 and opioid use disorder highlight the inadequate infrastructure required to support patients, communities, and clinicians, and may serve as the catalyst for eliminating barriers to care.

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

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

COVID 19: An unprecedented opportunity for nurse practitioners to reform healthcare and advocate for permanent full practice authority.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic ushered in a new era for advanced practice registered nurses, as emergency regulatory and policy changes expanded the nurse practitioner (NP) scope of practice. The legislative changes enabled NPs to bolster the national pandemic response by working to the full extent of their education and training. The changes are only temporary, and many have contemplated the permanent impact of COVID-19 when healthcare transitions to a postpandemic normal. NPs now have a unique opportunity to educate others about the merit of their role and advocate for permanent legislative changes. In this creative controversy manuscript, we build a case that national NP full practice authority increases access to care and is vital for a sustainable and resilient healthcare system that can react to future pandemic crises.

33rd Annual APRN Legislative Update: Unprecedented changes to APRN practice authority in unprecedented times.

ABSTRACT: In a year unlike any other in recent history, healthcare workers, including advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), faced challenges and triumphs as the frontline in the battle against COVID-19. This 33rd Annual Legislative Update covers the scope of practice changes and legislative decisions that most impacted APRNs across the US in 2020.

Nurse prescribing in New Zealand-the difference in levels of prescribing explained.

This article discusses the three types of nurse prescriber currently registered in New Zealand (nurse practitioners, registered nurse prescribers (RNP) in primary health and specialty teams and registered nurse prescribers (RNPCH) in community health). It also provides an overview of the evolution of each group, as well as a summary of the current legislation, prescribing restrictions and models of supervision required for each type of prescriber.

Effect of state regulatory environments on advanced psychiatric nursing practice.

The first key message in the landmark Future of Nursing report is that "Nurses should practice to the full extent of their education and training" (Institute of Medicine, 2011). Although there has been significant progress across states to remove or diminish barriers to the exercise of full scope of practice by advanced practice registered nurses (APRN), state regulations continue to unnecessarily restrict APRN practice in most of the United States. This article integrates data from studies that examine how state and local regulation affects psychiatric mental health APRN practice with the literature on how state scope of practice regulation affects the size and distribution of the broader APRN workforce, access to care, health care costs and prices, and innovation in health care service delivery. Common themes include confusion about regulatory requirements and mixed experiences of mandated physician supervision.

The Pursuit of Nurse Practitioner Practice Legislation: A Case Study.

Across the United States, nursing practice acts (NPAs) have been revised to include provisions that promote full practice authority (FPA) for nurse practitioners (NPs). Such revisions provide a mechanism to better utilize the full scope of NP services to address growing demands for access to health care. Modernized NPAs that facilitate FPA for NPs are imperative, especially now with the unprecedented health care crisis that the world now faces: Coronavirus Disease 2019. This is the first known study to use an embedded single-case study design, guided by the Kingdon policy stream model, to provide a detailed account of how stakeholders for NP FPA determine the appropriate time to pursue legislative changes to NP scope of practice regulations. Qualitative data analysis revealed four themes which comprised the components considered by stakeholders during their decision-making processes related to NP FPA: participants, problem, policy development, and politics. Themes were further collapsed within concepts from the Kingdon model to form the case description. Study findings can be used to increase the competency among NP FPA stakeholders in determining the timing of legislative pursuits for regulatory change.

How State Scope-of-Practice Policies Impact NP Care.

Three projects examine the effect of NP practice acts on access to health care.

How collaborative practice agreements impede the provision of vital behavioral health services.

BACKGROUND: The critical shortage of behavioral health professionals impairs the ability of the U.S. health care system to respond to the growing demand for services to address mental illness and substance use disorders. PURPOSE: To identify how restrictive state regulations act as barriers to full utilization of psychiatric mental health advanced practice registered nurses (PMH-APRN), whose scope of practice enables them to provide a full range of behavioral health services. METHODS: A sequential mixed methods study combining interview data (n = 94) from a qualitative study of PMH-APRN practice with a subset of quantitative data (n = 699) from a national APRN survey examining the impact of state-mandated APRN/MD collaborative practice agreements. DISCUSSION: Data sources converged to portray challenges to optimal use of APRNs providing psychiatric/mental health services, including high out-of-pocket fees, irregular communication with supervisors, mandated chart reviews, and supervisor turnover. CONCLUSION: Inconsistent and burdensome supervision requirements contribute to cost inflation and may limit patient access.

How Collaborative Practice Agreements Impede the Administration of Vital Women's Health Services.

INTRODUCTION: Women's health services delivered by nurse practitioners (NP) and certified nurse-midwives (CNM) are safe and effective, often providing a crucial point of access in underserved regions. However, restrictive and unnecessary regulatory requirements, such as collaborative practice agreements, create artificial barriers to practice. METHODS: This analysis used a subsample of respondents from a large national study focused on the common challenges and practice restrictions introduced by collaborative practice agreements. This cohort included respondents licensed in all 22 states that place some level of restriction on one or both roles. This study used univariable and multivariable logistic regression to examine the financial and administrative constraints collaborative practice agreements place on NPs and CNMs. RESULTS: The median fee to establish a collaborative agreement was $500 (n = 25; interquartile range [IQR], $175-$1200; range, $30-$3000). The monthly median fee to maintain a collaborative agreement was $500 (n = 29; IQR, $250-$1200; range, $100-$2000). NPs and CNMs working in rural areas and remotely are more likely to encounter barriers to practice. Similarly, the loss or lack of supervising physicians and fees were also identified as impediments to care. DISCUSSION: Removing unnecessary regulatory requirements permits NPs and CNMs to be full market participants, thereby allowing them to address health care disparities in women's health and primary care settings. Targeted legislative efforts should seek to improve access to these vital services and re-establish evidence-based patient care and safety best practices as the drivers of health care regulation.

The relationship of nursing practice laws to suicide and homicide rates: a longitudinal analysis of US states from 2012 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Nursing resources can have a protective effect on patient outcomes, but nurses and nursing scope of practice have not been studied in relation to injury outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine whether scope of practice and ease of practice laws for nurse practitioners and registered nurses are associated with suicide and homicide rates in the United States. METHODS: This state-level analysis used data from 2012 to 2016. The outcome variables were age-adjusted suicide and homicide rates. The predictor variables were NP scope of practice by state (limited, partial, or full) and RN ease of practice (state RN licensure compact membership status). Covariates were state sociodemographic, healthcare, and firearm/firearm policy context variables that have a known relationship with the outcomes. RESULTS: Full scope of practice for NPs was associated with lower rates of suicide and homicide, with stronger associations for suicide. Likewise, greater ease of practice for RNs was associated with lower suicide and homicide rates. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that nurses are an important component of the healthcare ecosystem as it relates to injury outcomes. Laws supporting full nursing practice may have a protective effect on population health in the area of injuries and future studies should explore this relationship further.

Virginia NP scope of practice: A legislative case study.

During the 2018 state legislative session, Virginia's General Assembly approved legislation supporting a transitional licensing model for NPs with at least 5 years of full-time work equivalence in their certification area. This article outlines Virginia's case as an example for NP advocates who are planning scope-of-practice legislation in other states.

Where are we now? Practice-level utilization of nurse practitioners in comparison with state-level regulations.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Full practice authority for nurse practitioners (NPs) is optimal for high-quality, cost-effective health care. However, a complete picture of utilization after states have adopted full practice authority needs to be determined. The purpose of this examination was to review the evidence regarding practice-level utilization (PLU) of NP PLU in comparison to state-level regulations (SLRs). METHODS: Studies published in English and based on US populations were identified through PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus (January 1, 1989-December 31, 2018), and bibliographies of retrieved articles. Of the 419 articles identified with these limits, 19 (5%) met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Four categories of PLU were identified: billing practices, level of supervision, privileges, and prescriptive authority. Significant differences were seen between urban versus rural NPs and primary care versus specialty NPs. Thirteen of the 19 studies did not specifically address the SLR of the included sample. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: No studies described the type of NP certification, practice specialty, and utilization, and compared all to the SLR. There is a need for more evidence concerning PLU of NPs across the tiers of SLR. Only then can health care organizations, political leaders, and other stakeholders have the information needed to proceed with beneficial practice-model changes.

NP and PA Privileging in Acute Care Settings: Do Scope of Practice Laws Matter?

As hospitals' interest in nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) grows, their leadership is eager to know how their medical staffing privileging policies for these professionals compare to peer hospitals. This study assesses the extent of variation of these policies in four clinical areas and examines whether the differences are associated with state scope of practice laws for NPs and PAs. We also examine the relationship of NP and PA privileging policies to each other. Our analysis finds no evidence that hospital privileging is associated with state scope of practice, and indeed within-state variation is more significant than cross-state variation. We also find a strong correlation between NP and PA privileging in all four clinical areas. These results suggest the need for additional research to understand the institutional-level variables and human dynamics at the level of medical staffing committees that may explain the dramatic variation in privileging policies and, ultimately, the effects of different privileging levels on costs and quality.