Dataset Information

Differences in Opioid Prescribing Among Generalist Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine if there are differences in opioid prescribing among generalist physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) to Medicare Part D beneficiaries.

Design

Serial cross-sectional analysis of prescription claims from 2013 to 2016 using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Subjects

All generalist physicians, NPs, and PAs who provided more than 10 total prescription claims between 2013 and 2016 were included. These prescribers were subsetted as practicing in a primary care, urgent care, or hospital-based setting.

Methods

The main outcomes were total opioid claims and opioid claims as a proportion of all claims in patients treated by these prescribers in each of the three settings of interest. Binomial regression was used to generate marginal estimates to allow comparison of the volume of claims by these prescribers with adjustment for practice setting, gender, years of practice, median income of the ZIP code, state fixed effects, and relevant interaction terms.

Results

There were 36,999 generalist clinicians (physicians, NPs, and PAs) with at least one year of Part D prescription drug claims data between 2013 and 2016. The number of adjusted total opioid claims across these four years for physicians was 660 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 660-661), for NPs was 755 (95% CI = 753-757), and for PAs was 812 (95% CI = 811-814).

Conclusions

We find relatively high rates of opioid prescribing among NPs and PAs, especially at the upper margins. This suggests that well-designed interventions to improve the safety of NP and PA opioid prescribing, along with that of their physician colleagues, could be especially beneficial.

SUBMITTER: Ellenbogen MI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6953344 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differences in Opioid Prescribing Among Generalist Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants.

Ellenbogen Michael I MI Segal Jodi B JB

Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) 20200101 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine if there are differences in opioid prescribing among generalist physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) to Medicare Part D beneficiaries.<h4>Design</h4>Serial cross-sectional analysis of prescription claims from 2013 to 2016 using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.<h4>Subjects</h4>All generalist physicians, NPs, and PAs who provided more than 10 total prescription claims between 2013 and 2016 w ...[more]

PMID: 30821817

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to gain insight into how substitution of elderly care physicians (ECPs) by nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs) or registered nurses (RNs) in nursing homes is modelled in different contexts and what model in what context contributes to perceived quality of healthcare. Second, this study aimed to provide insight into elements that contribute to an optimal model of substitution of ECPs by NPs, PAs or RNs.DesignA multiple-case study was conducted that draws on realist evaluation principles.SettingSeven nursing homes in the Netherlands PARTICIPANTS: The primary participants were NPs (n=3), PAs (n=2) and RNs (n=2), working in seven different nursing homes and secondary participants were included; ECPs (n=15), medical doctors (MDs) (n=2), managing directors/managers/supervisors (n=11), nursing team members (n=33) and residents/relatives (n=78).Data collectionData collection consisted of: (1) observations of the NP/PA/RN and an ECP/MD, (2) interviews with all participants, (3) questionnaires filled out by the NP/PA/RN, ECPs/MDs and managing directors/managers and (4) collecting internal policy documents.ResultsAn optimal model of substitution of ECPs seems to be one in which the professional substitutes for the ECP largely autonomously, well-balanced collaboration occurs between the ECP and the substitute, and quality of healthcare is maintained. This model was seen in two NP cases and one PA case. Elements that enabled NPs and PAs to work according to this optimal model were among others: collaborating with the ECP based on trust; being proactive, decisive and communicative and being empowered by organisational leaders to work as an independent professional.ConclusionsCollaboration based on trust between the ECP and the NP or PA is a key element of successful substitution of ECPs. NPs, PAs and RNs in nursing homes may all be valuable in their own unique way, matching their profession, education and competences.

Project description:ObjectivesNurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs) increasingly practice in emergency departments (EDs), yet limited research has compared their practice patterns with those of physicians.Design, setting and participantsUsing nationally representative data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), we analysed ED visits among NPs/PAs and physicians between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2017. To compare NP/PA and physician utilisation, we estimated propensity score-weighted multivariable regressions adjusted for clinical/sociodemographic variables, including triage acuity score (1=sickest/5=healthiest). Because NPs/PAs may preferentially consult physicians for more complex patients, we performed sensitivity analyses restricting to EDs with >95% of visits including the NP/PA-physician combination.ExposuresNPs/PAs.Main outcome measuresUse of hospitalisations, diagnostic tests, medications, procedures and six low-value services, for example, CT/MRI for uncomplicated headache, based on Choosing Wisely and other practice guidelines.ResultsBefore propensity weighting, we studied visits to 12 410 NPs/PAs-alone, 21 560 to the NP/PA-physician combination and 143 687 to physicians-alone who saw patients with increasing age (41, 45 and 47 years, p<0.001) and worsening triage acuity scores (3.03, 2.85 and 2.67, p<0.001), respectively. After weighting, NPs/PAs-alone used fewer medications (2.62 vs 2.80, p=0.002), diagnostic tests (3.77 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.67 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations (OR 0.35 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.46)) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.80)) than physicians. Contrastingly, the NP/PA-physician combination used more medications (3.08 vs 2.80, p<0.001), diagnostic tests (5.07 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.86 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.51) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 1.23 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.43)) than physicians-results were similar among EDs with >95% of NP/PA visits including the NP/PA-physician combination.Conclusions and relevanceWhile U.S. NPs/PAs-alone used less care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging, the NP/PA-physician combination used more care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging than physicians alone. Findings were reproduced among EDs where nearly all NP/PA visits were collaborative with physicians, suggesting that NPs/PAs seeing more complex patients used more services than physicians alone, but the converse might be true for more straightforward patients.

Project description:IntroductionIn developed countries, substituting physicians with nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurses (physician substitution) occurs in nursing homes as an answer to the challenges related to the ageing population and the shortage of staff, as well as to guarantee the quality of nursing home care. However, there is great diversity in how physician substitution in nursing homes is modelled and it is unknown how it can best contribute to the quality of healthcare. This study aims to gain insight into how physician substitution is modelled and whether it contributes to perceived quality of healthcare. Second, this study aims to provide insight into the elements of physician substitution that contribute to quality of healthcare.Methods and analysisThis study will use a multiple-case study design that draws upon realist evaluation principles. The realist evaluation is based on four concepts for explaining and understanding interventions: context, mechanism, outcome and context-mechanism-outcome configuration. The following steps will be taken: (1) developing a theory, (2) conducting seven case studies, (3) analysing outcome patterns after each case and a cross-case analysis at the end and (4) revising the initial theory.Ethics and disseminationThe research ethics committee of the region Arnhem Nijmegen in the Netherlands concluded that this study does not fall within the scope of the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) (registration number 2015/1914). Before the start of the study, the Board of Directors of the nursing home organisations will be informed verbally and by letter and will also be asked for informed consent. In addition, all participants will be informed verbally and by letter and will be asked for informed consent. Findings will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal, international and national conferences, national professional associations and policy partners in national government.

Dataset Information

Differences in Opioid Prescribing Among Generalist Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants.

Objective

Design

Subjects

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Differences in Opioid Prescribing Among Generalist Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets