Dataset Information

Cross-sectional analysis of US scope of practice laws and employed physician assistants.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study examined if the variation in physician assistant (PA) state scope of practice (SOP) laws across states are associated with number of employed PAs, PA demographics and PA/population ratio per state. The hypothesis was that less restrictive SOP laws will increase the demand for PAs and the number of PAs in a state.

Design

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis at three time points: 1998, 2008, 2017.

Setting

Fifty states and the District of Columbia.

Participants

Employed PAs in 1998, 2008, 2017.

Methods

SOP laws were categorised as permissive, average and restrictive. Three national datasets were combined to allow for descriptive analysis of employed PAs by year and SOP categories. We used linear predictive models to generate and compare PA/population ratio least square means by SOP categories for each year. Models were adjusted for percent female PA and PAs mean age.

Results

There was a median PA/population ratio of 23 per 100 000 population in 1998 and 33 in 2017. A heterogeneous expansion of SOP laws was seen with 17 states defined as super expanders while 15 were never adopters. In 2017, comparing restrictive to permissive states showed that in adjusted models permissive SOP laws were associated with 11.7 (p .03) increase in ratio of employed PAs per 100 000 population, demonstrating that states with permissive SOP laws have an increased PA density.

Conclusions

There has been steady growth in the mean PA/population ratio since the turn of the century. At the same time, PA SOP laws in the USA have expanded, with just 10 states remaining in the restrictive category. Permissive SOP laws are associated with an increase in the ratio of employed PAs per state population. As states work to meet the projected physician need, SOP expansion may be an important policy consideration to increase the PA workforce.

SUBMITTER: Valentin VL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8118013 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:AimTo describe variation in task shifting from GPs to practice assistants/nurses in 34 countries and to explain differences by analysing associations with characteristics of the GPs and their practices and features of the health care systems.BackgroundRedistribution of tasks and responsibilities in primary care are driven by changes in demand, such as the growing number of patients with chronic conditions, and workforce developments, including staff shortage. The need to manage an expanding range of services has led to adaptations in the skill-mix of primary care teams. These developments are hampered by barriers between professional domains.MethodsData were collected between 2011 and 2013 through a cross-sectional survey among approximately 7,200 general practitioners (GPs) in 34 countries. Task shifting is measured through a composite score of GPs' self-reported shifting of tasks. Independent variables at GP and practice level are as follows: innovativeness; part-time working; availability of staff; location and population of the practice. Country-level independent variables are as follows: demand for and supply of care, nurse prescribing, and professionalisation of practice assistants/nurses. Multilevel analysis is used to account for clustering of GPs in countries.FindingsCountries vary in the degree of task shifting. Regarding GP and practice characteristics, use of electronic health records and availability of support staff in the practice are positively associated with task shifting and GPs' working hours negatively, in line with our hypotheses. Age of the GPs is, contrary to our hypothesis, positively related to task shifting. These variables explain 11% of the variance at GP level. Two country variables are related to task shifting: a lower percentage of practices without support staff in a country and nurse prescribing rights coincide with more task shifting. The percentage of practices without support staff has the strongest relationship, explaining 73% of the country variation.

Project description:AimTo describe variation in task shifting from general practitioners (GPs) to practice assistants/nurses in 34 countries, and to explain differences by analysing associations with characteristics of the GPs, their practices and features of the health care systems.BackgroundRedistribution of tasks and responsibilities in primary care are driven by changes in demand for care, such as the growing number of patients with chronic conditions, and workforce developments, including staff shortage. The need to manage an expanding range of services has led to adaptations in the skill mix of primary care teams. However, these developments are hampered by barriers between professional domains, which can be rigid as a result of strict regulation, traditional attitudes and lack of trust.MethodsData were collected between 2011 and 2013 through a cross-sectional survey among approximately 7200 GPs in 34 countries. The dependent variable 'task shifting' is measured through a composite score of GPs' self-reported shifting of tasks. Independent variables at GP and practice level are: innovativeness; part-time working; availability of staff; location and population of the practice. Country-level independent variables are: institutional development of primary care; demand for and supply of care; nurse prescribing as an indicator for professional boundaries; professionalisation of practice assistants/nurses (indicated by professional training, professional associations and journals). Multilevel analysis is used to account for the clustering of GPs in countries.FindingsCountries vary in the degree of task shifting by GPs. Regarding GP and practice characteristics, use of electronic health record applications (as an indicator for innovativeness) and age of the GPs are significantly related to task shifting. These variables explain only little variance at the level of GPs. Two country variables are positively related to task shifting: nurse prescribing and professionalisation of primary care nursing. Professionalisation has the strongest relationship, explaining 21% of the country variation.