
Letting nurse practitioners be independent increases access to health care - jseliger
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/heres-an-easy-way-to-increase-access-to-high-quality-affordable-health-care/2020/01/02/46c64768-29d8-11ea-b2ca-2e72667c1741_story.html
======
spo81rty
How is this different than minute clinics and such at places like CVS? We
definitely need more NPs. So much of basic health care doesn't seem very
complicated.

------
ZhuanXia
Anything we can do to water down the Doctor’s guild is good. Their salaries
are absurd and possible only because of regulatory capture.

------
kixiQu
When I had a major health need about a decade ago, I went from MD to MD with
no success for months. Eventually my family was desperate enough to pay out of
pocket to see a NP with good recommendations. She listened, investigated
options, and fixed me. Later on, for less serious needs, my experience with
others was that NPs consistently delivered better care.

~~~
kixiQu
This is 100% an anecdote as worthy of skepticism as every other. But I'd
encourage everyone not to let your own "common sense" color your
interpretations of the evidence that shows that NPs give >/>= care.

------
yhoneycomb
> Lusine Poghosyan is a professor of nursing at Columbia University

No bias here!

~~~
gyuserbti
Speaking from personal experience, it's impossible to find anyone who wouldn't
be labeled as unbiased in this area.

There are too many turf wars, government sanctioned monopolies, and rent
seekers for anything but that to be the case. There's biases in maintaining
the status quo too.

I suppose you could have someone with a pure economics or public health
background but in my experience they tend to avoid these topics, in part
because they have no incentive to fundamentally change healthcare delivery
structures.

Lack of real competition among providers is a real underecognized problem in
discussions of healthcare in my opinion. Much could be deregulated in a very
beneficial way, but discussions almost always focus on payment instead. When
deregulation is raised as an issue, it's almost always done in a way that
focuses on easing obstacles to large pharm corps, without addressing other
forms of deregulation.

In every case that I'm aware of, increasing scope and practice of providers
only has net public health benefits. The only losing group is physicians. It's
has always been that way, all the way back to dental practice.

