Fifty Years of Failed Primary Care Workforce Innovation

For fifty years nurse practitioners and physician assistants have been promoted as primary care solutions, but the primary care result has been negated by a movement from 65% primary care to over 65% non-primary care.
The promises of the past have not been realized in the primary care of today. Declines across fifteen class years of recent graduates indicate even less primary care delivery per graduate in the future.
NP and PA graduates were few prior to 1980. Since 1980 the NP and PA annual graduates have doubled in number each 6 to 12 years. After 50 years of development, after 50 years of promises and after 30 years of massive expansion, where is the health access workforce?
Such writing is never fun. This is not the way to win friends and influence people. Sadly the United States has demonstrated an impressive ability to continue to promote solutions that do not work, innovations that fail, and reorganizations that delay primary care recovery. Perhaps by pointing out innovations that have failed, more will begin to objectively review recent innovations and reorganizations - and the US policy reasons why they all fail. 
Why do health professional associations, nursing workforce leaders, physician associations, government reports (all the way to the highest levels such as the Institutes of Medicine), entire issues of journals, and various foundations persist in the myth?
Why continue to promote NP and PA graduates as primary care solutions?
Any flexible workforce that can go either direction cannot be called a primary care solution. Too little primary care spending and much more health spending for non-primary care assures the final non-primary care result.
It is time to call the midlevel effort in the United States a failure for basic health access result - a most commonly stated reason for the creation of NP and PA.
This is no disrespect to dedicated NP and PA graduates that remain in primary care. The US result is entirely the fault of US health policy. Versatile NP and PA graduates have found great favor in non-primary care workforce.
How much smaller does the result need to be after decades of diminishing return on investment? The United States can expect less than 25% of the recent NP and PA graduating classes to serve in primary care during their careers with even lower proportions serving in primary care where needed.
The US designs insure NP and PA primary care to be the least experienced in primary care delivery. Departures from primary care during training, at graduation, and each year after graduation assure least experience and least years in primary care from NP and PA graduates. Lowest activity levels, one or more year breaks away from any health care delivery, lowest volume, and increased pay for movements to different primary care practices assure least experience and least continuity.
Why is this evidence ignored decade after decade?
This is not about the quality of care, which is more about the patient than the provider for well over half of American patients. This is about experienced primary care RN, NP, PA, MD, and DO workforce as well as health care team members. When those in primary care benefit from departing continuity practices (4% salary gain) and benefit even more (10%) by departing primary care, lower primary care experience is the result.
Because of US policies, it is simply not possible to extract much primary care out of midlevel graduates or any flexible workforce source that can go both ways – to primary care or to non-primary care. Even during the 1990s, physician assistants were tracked by Larsen and Hart as departing steadily over a 10 year period during arguably the most favorable primary care policy in the past 30 years.
The evidence is clear. NP and PA workforce in the United States has followed US policy designs from basic health access beginnings to become non-primary care workforce most commonly found in zip codes with the top concentrations of physicians in the United States. The pathways for NP, PA, MD, and DO workforce indicate steady departures from basic health access for the past 50 class years of graduates and across the years after graduation from training.
The departures include fewer and fewer entering and remaining in primary care as well as fewer and fewer entering and remaining in family practice – the source most important for 200 million people and the source most commonly found where health spending is lowest by United States designs.






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Fine CMS You Have Gotten Us Into

Perhaps we are indeed back to the time of Another Fine Mess (Laurel and Hardy). In a mad rush to implement innovation and to save all possible costs, CMS is creating complications for people that it is most responsible to protect. As PBS and Ken Burns celebrate the legacy of The Roosevelts, it is tragic to see what has become of over a century of effort involving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care equity. The United States has one of the most complex health designs and clearly the various designers often know not what they are doing to others. More cartoons and comedians would find this a ripe area for material if not for the suffering involved. Health and Human Services has a huge role across Social Security and US health care. CMS or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a dominant role to play in the design of health care in the United States.  CMS can be progressive or regressive. Interestingly CMS has chosen to appear to be progressive and in
Read more

The Essential True Reform Restores Primary Care and Much More

The list of distractions from True Reform are impressive. For decades True Reform has been specifically avoided as primary care worsens within practices and from outside. The demise is most specifically about the financial design. Unless there is a focus on True Reform, there is little hope for Basic Health Access. This may not make as much sense to those outside of family medicine. Family physicians not familiar with AAFP may also be clueless. If you think that you can fix primary care with more technology, more rearrangements, more types of health professional graduates, or more expansions of training - think again. None of these have any hope of working without financial design changes - major changes. The following are various concepts that dominate the discussions at AAFP and primary care meetings and media releases of associations and foundations and institutions. Members, staff, media releases, programs, and personnel have been reviewed.  There is little about Tru
Read more

Why not inside out empowerment rather than outside in abuse?

Just in from Annals of Family Medicine (Miller, Rubenstein, Howard, Crabtree) Shifting Implementation Science Theory to Empower Primary Care Practices Hope for primary care, generalists, rural health, and care where needed requires a very different perspective after decades of failed designs. Not surprisingly this will need to come from inside of these practices and places. Not surprisingly policies and practices dictated from outside have been not only a poor fit - but have been abusive to the populations most in need of care and the practices that serve them. There is hope from the primary care research community. The perspective must be inside of practice looking out - instead of outsiders forcing changes. Qualitative research explores and discovers and reflects as Ben, Will, and others taught me along with the various rural family physicians interviewed and researched in the 1990s in Nebraska. The current focus on quantitative research has demonstrated little to
Read more