Outcomes of primary care delivery by nurse practitioners: Utilization, cost, and quality of care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To examine whether nurse practitioner (NP)-assigned patients exhibited differences in utilization, costs, and clinical outcomes compared to medical doctor (MD)-assigned patients.Data sources
Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data capturing characteristics, outcomes, and provider assignments of 806 434 VA patients assigned to an MD primary care provider (PCP) who left VA practice between 2010 and 2012.Study design
We applied a difference-in-difference approach comparing outcomes between patients reassigned to MD and NP PCPs, respectively. We examined measures of outpatient (primary care, specialty care, and mental health) and inpatient (total and ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations) utilization, costs (outpatient, inpatient and total), and clinical outcomes (control of hemoglobin A1c, LDL, and blood pressure) in the year following reassignment.Principal findings
Compared to MD-assigned patients, NP-assigned patients were less likely to use primary care and specialty care services and incurred fewer total and ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations. Differences in costs, clinical outcomes, and receipt of diagnostic tests between groups were not statistically significant.Conclusions
Patients reassigned to NPs experienced similar outcomes and incurred less utilization at comparable cost relative to MD patients. NPs may offer a cost-effective approach to addressing anticipated shortages of primary care physicians.
SUBMITTER: Liu CF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7080399 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThis study is designed to assess the cost of services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by nurse practitioners (NPs) billing under their own National Provider Identification number as compared to primary care physicians (PCMDs).Data sourceMedicare Part A (inpatient) and Part B (office visit) claims for 2009-2010.Study designRetrospective cohort design using propensity score weighted regression.Data extraction methodsBeneficiaries cared for by a random sample of NPs and primary care physicians.Principal findingsAfter adjusting for demographic characteristics, geography, comorbidities, and the propensity to see an NP, Medicare evaluation and management payments for beneficiaries assigned to an NP were $207, or 29 percent, less than PCMD assigned beneficiaries. The same pattern was observed for inpatient and total office visit paid amounts, with 11 and 18 percent less for NP assigned beneficiaries, respectively. Results are similar for the work component of relative value units as well.ConclusionsThis study provides new evidence of the lower cost of care for beneficiaries managed by NPs, as compared to those managed by PCMDs across inpatient and office-based settings. Results suggest that increasing access to NP primary care will not increase costs for the Medicare program and may be cost saving.
| S-EPMC4946030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe role of nurse practitioners in primary care has recently expanded. While there are some outcome data available for different types of consultations, little is known about the relative cost.AimTo compare the cost of primary care provided by nurse practitioners with that of salaried GPs.Design of studySynthesis, modelling, and analysis of published data from the perspective of general practices and the NHS.Data sourcesTwo published randomised controlled trials.MethodA dataset of resource use for a simulated group of patients in a typical consultation was modelled. Current unit costs were used to obtain a consensus mean cost per consultation.ResultsMean cost of a nurse practitioner consultation was estimated at 9.46 UK pounds (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.16 to 9.75 pounds) and for a GP was 9.30 UK pounds (95% CI = 9.04 to 9.56 pounds) according to salary and overheads, that is, from the perspective of general practices. From the NHS perspective, which included training costs, the estimated mean costs were 30.35 UK pounds (95% CI = 27.10 to 33.59 pounds) and 28.14 UK pounds (95% CI = 25.43 to 30.84 pounds) respectively. Sensitivity analysis suggested that the time spent by GPs contributing to nurse practitioners' consultations (including return visits) was an important factor in increasing costs associated with nurse practitioners.ConclusionEmploying a nurse practitioner in primary care is likely to cost much the same as employing a salaried GP according to currently available data. There is considerable variability of qualifications and experience of nurse practitioners, which suggests that skill-mix decisions should depend on the full range of roles and responsibilities rather than cost.
| S-EPMC1872064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Primary care is increasingly delivered at or near workplaces, yet utilization and cost of employer-sponsored primary care services remain unknown. Objective:To compare the health care utilization and cost of an employer-sponsored on-site, near-site, and virtual comprehensive primary care service delivery model with those of traditional community-based primary care. Design, Setting, and Participants:This population-based cohort study of 23 518 commercially insured employees and dependents of an engineering and manufacturing firm headquartered in southern California was performed from January 1, 2016, to July 1, 2019. A subset of the population with most (≥50%) primary care visits through employer-sponsored on-site, near-site, or virtual care clinics was matched to a subset not having most such visits through the employer-sponsored clinics using propensity score matching (n = 1983 each). In sensitivity analyses, employees were matched to dependents at neighboring firms that lacked access to the employer-sponsored primary care delivery model (additional n = 1680). Exposures:Integrated primary care, mental health, and physical therapy delivered through on-site, near-site, and virtual clinics. Main Outcomes and Measures:Utilization (inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, pharmaceutical, radiology, and laboratory visits per 1000 member-months) and spending (2019 costs per member per month in US dollars) by service type. Results:A total of 23 518 individuals (mean [SD] age, 27 [15] years; 14 604 [62.1%] male) were included in the full population sample and had been enrolled in the employer-sponsored health plan for a mean of 29 months (interquartile range, 14-48 months). Of eligible members, 5292 (22.5%) used the employer-sponsored services, with 2305 (9.8%) using them for most of their primary care. The mean (SD) cost of employer-sponsored service delivery was $87 ($32) per member month. Among the matched populations (mean [SD] age, 31 [11] years; 3349 [84.5%] male) of primary users vs control individuals, total spending was 45% lower per member per month (95% CI, 35%-55%; cost difference, -$167 per member per month; 95% CI, -$204 to -$130; P < .001) among users after adjustment. The lower spending was associated with lower spending on non-primary care services, such as emergency department (-33%; 95% CI, -44% to -22%) and hospital visits (-16%; 95% CI, -22% to -10%), despite higher spending on primary care (109%; 95% CI, 102%-116%) and mental health (20%; 95% CI, 13%-27%). Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that individuals who used the models' services for most of their primary care had lower total spending despite higher primary care spending, which may be associated with self-selection of lower-risk persons to the employer-sponsored services and/or with the use of comprehensive primary care.
| S-EPMC7193330 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop simple stylized models for evaluating the productivity and cost-efficiencies of different practice models to involve nurse practitioners (NPs) in primary care, and in particular to generate insights on what affects the performance of these models and how.Data sources and study designThe productivity of a practice model is defined as the maximum number of patients that can be accounted for by the model under a given timeliness-to-care requirement; cost-efficiency is measured by the corresponding annual cost per patient in that model. Appropriate queueing analysis is conducted to generate formulas and values for these two performance measures. Model parameters for the analysis are extracted from the previous literature and survey reports. Sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate the model performance under different scenarios and to verify the robustness of findings.Principal findingsEmploying an NP, whose salary is usually lower than a primary care physician, may not be cost-efficient, in particular when the NP's capacity is underutilized. Besides provider service rates, workload allocation among providers is one of the most important determinants for the cost-efficiency of a practice model involving NPs. Capacity pooling among providers could be a helpful strategy to improve efficiency in care delivery.ConclusionsThe productivity and cost-efficiency of a practice model depend heavily on how providers organize their work and a variety of other factors related to the practice environment. Queueing theory provides useful tools to take into account these factors in making strategic decisions on staffing and panel size selection for a practice model.
| S-EPMC3419879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the impact of unit-level nurse staffing on quality of discharge teaching, patient perception of discharge readiness, and postdischarge readmission and emergency department (ED) visits, and cost-benefit of adjustments to unit nurse staffing.Data sourcesPatient questionnaires, electronic medical records, and administrative data for 1,892 medical-surgical patients from 16 nursing units within four acute care hospitals between January and July 2008.DesignNested panel data with hospital and unit-level fixed effects and patient and unit-level control variables.Data collection/extractionRegistered nurse (RN) staffing was recorded monthly in hours-per-patient-day. Patient questionnaires were completed before discharge. Thirty-day readmission and ED use with reimbursement data were obtained by cross-hospital electronic searches.Principal findingsHigher RN nonovertime staffing decreased odds of readmission (OR=0.56); higher RN overtime staffing increased odds of ED visit (OR=1.70). RN nonovertime staffing reduced ED visits indirectly, via a sequential path through discharge teaching quality and discharge readiness. Cost analysis projected total savings from 1 SD increase in RN nonovertime staffing and decrease in RN overtime of U.S.$11.64 million and U.S.$544,000 annually for the 16 study units.ConclusionsPostdischarge utilization costs could potentially be reduced by investment in nursing care hours to better prepare patients before hospital discharge.
| S-EPMC3207188 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of nurse practitioners (NPs) in primary care is one way to address growing patient demand and improve care delivery. However, little is known about trends in NP presence in primary care practices, or about how state policies such as scope-of-practice laws and expansion of eligibility for Medicaid may encourage or inhibit the use of NPs. We found increasing NP presence in both rural and nonrural primary care practices in the period 2008-16. At the end of the period, NPs constituted 25.2 percent of providers in rural and 23.0 percent in nonrural practices, compared to 17.6 percent and 15.9 percent, respectively, in 2008. States with full scope-of-practice laws had the highest NP presence, but the fastest growth occurred in states with reduced and restricted scopes of practice. State Medicaid expansion status was not associated with greater NP presence. Overall, primary care practices are embracing interdisciplinary provider configurations, and including NPs as providers can strengthen health care delivery.
| S-EPMC6080248 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe 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 methodsCohort 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.ResultsPCPs 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).ConclusionsExpanded 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.
| S-EPMC7375947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevalence of electronic health records (EHRs) has significantly increased, and EHRs are a known contributor to clinician burnout. However, it is unknown whether the use of multifunctional EHRs is associated with nurse practitioner (NP) burnout in primary care practices. This is a major gap in the literature because 69% of practicing NPs deliver primary care services to patients.PurposeThis study aimed to investigate whether the use of multifunctional EHRs is associated with primary care NP burnout.MethodThis study is a secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data collected from NPs in two states (Pennsylvania and New Jersey). Nurse practitioners completed surveys measuring burnout, use of multifunctional EHRs, demographics, and characteristics of their practice. Use of multifunctional EHRs was operationalized using two items-computerized capabilities and electronic reminder systems. Burnout was measured using a validated, single item asking NPs to self-report their feelings of burnout. A multilevel cox regression model was built to test for associations between the use of multifunctional EHRs and NP burnout.ResultsOf 396 NPs included, 25.3% reported burnout. The use of multifunctional EHRs did not increase primary care NP burnout (risk ratio = 0.30, 95% confidence interval = 0.13-0.71, p = .01).Implications for practiceWith 25.3% of NPs burned out, it is imperative to reduce NP burnout. However, computerized capabilities and electronic reminder systems did not contribute to feelings of NP burnout. Future research examining other EHR components is needed to understand which features of the EHR contribute to NP burnout.
| S-EPMC8351449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBurnout threatens patient care and clinicians are experiencing challenges within the practice environment. Little is known about nurse practitioner (NP) perceptions of burnout and its relationship to care quality and practice environment. We investigate the relationship between primary care NP burnout on perceptions of care quality and if the practice environment moderates the relationship between burnout and care quality.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data from 396 NPs. Burnout and care quality were measured using a single item, but the practice environment was measured using the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire. Multi-level proportional odds cumulative logit models were built to test for associations between burnout and care quality and for moderation.ResultsTotal, 25.3% of NPs reported burnout. Odds of perceiving higher quality of care was 85% less for NPs experiencing burnout compared to those not experiencing burnout. Practice environment did not moderate the relationship between burnout and care quality, but with a one unit increase in the practice environment subscales, the odds of NPs perceiving higher care quality increased anywhere from 3.83 to 7.57 times.ConclusionBurnout is related to lower perceptions of care quality but favorable environments were related to higher perceptions of quality.
| S-EPMC8349831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether nurse practitioners can provide care at first point of contact equivalent to doctors in a primary care setting.DesignSystematic review of randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies.Data sourcesCochrane controlled trials register, specialist register of trials maintained by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, science citation index, database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, national research register, hand searches, and published bibliographies.Included studiesRandomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies comparing nurse practitioners and doctors providing care at first point of contact for patients with undifferentiated health problems in a primary care setting and providing data on one or more of the following outcomes: patient satisfaction, health status, costs, and process of care.Results11 trials and 23 observational studies met all the inclusion criteria. Patients were more satisfied with care by a nurse practitioner (standardised mean difference 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.47). No differences in health status were found. Nurse practitioners had longer consultations (weighted mean difference 3.67 minutes, 2.05 to 5.29) and made more investigations (odds ratio 1.22, 1.02 to 1.46) than did doctors. No differences were found in prescriptions, return consultations, or referrals. Quality of care was in some ways better for nurse practitioner consultations.ConclusionIncreasing availability of nurse practitioners in primary care is likely to lead to high levels of patient satisfaction and high quality care.
| S-EPMC100791 | biostudies-literature