Both California and Texas recently passed legislation expanding the scope of responsibilities that can be fulfilled by nurse practitioners. Mike Miesen makes the case that “this is arguably more important” than recent news about California’s low premiums under Obamacare:
We can expect the loosening of regulations to lead to cheaper, more efficient care in the long term; a nurse practitioner’s hourly rate is lower than a physician’s and, assuming they can both conduct a high-quality, basic check-up—and evidence suggests that quality and patient satisfaction is higher along some metrics nurse practitioners compared to physicians—everyone is better off. It’ll also mean shorter wait times, as the supply of available clinicians will rise.
Significantly, both of these factors could lead to clinicians accepting Medicaid patients at a higher rate than before. Worrying research has shown that, increasingly, physicians have been unwilling to take on new Medicaid patients due to the low reimbursement rate relative to Medicare or private insurance. Relaxing scope-of-practice regulations will mean that these patients may soon be able to more easily receive the care they need.
Relatedly, Soltas points out that controlling healthcare costs will mean losing healthcare jobs:
There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow where all of our health-care spending has magically accrued. Health care “costs” are really health care jobs. In surveys, hospital managers name labor as their largest cost issue — not the Affordable Care Act.
Achieving any substantial reduction in the cost of care will require what economists call “labor-saving technology.” We will have to find ways to destroy health care jobs — or at least to slow their growth.
The Dish 