Policy analysis of Texas Senate Bill 532 and the regulation of nurse practitioners in the convenience care model

Background. Retail clinics, also called convenience care clinics, have become a rapidly growing trend since their initial development in 2000. These clinics are coupled within a larger retail operation and are generally located in "big-box" discount stores such as Wal-mart or Target, grocery stores such as Publix or H-E-B, or in retail pharmacies such as CVS or Walgreen's (Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, 2008). Care is typically provided by nurse practitioners. Research indicates that this new health care delivery system reduces cost, raises quality, and provides a means of access to the uninsured population (e.g., Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, 2008; Convenient Care Association, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Hansen-Turton, Miller, Nash, Ryan, Counts, 2007; Salinsky, 2009; Scott, 2006; Ahmed & Fincham, 2010). Some healthcare analysts even suggest that retail clinics offer a feasible solution to the shortage of primary care physicians facing the nation (AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange, 2010). ^ The development and performance of retail clinics is heavily dependent upon individual state policies regulating NPs. Texas currently has one of the most highly regulated practice environments for NPs (Stout & Elton, 2007; Hammonds, 2008). In September 2009, Texas passed Senate Bill 532 addressing the scope of practice of nurse practitioners in the convenience care model. In comparison to other states, this law still heavily regulates nurse practitioners. However, little research has been conducted to evaluate the impact of state laws regulating nurse practitioners on the development and performance of retail clinics. ^ Objectives. (1). To describe the potential impact that SB 532 has on retail clinic performance. (2). To discuss the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of the convenience care model. (3). To describe possible alternatives to Texas' nurse practitioner scope of practice guidelines as delineated in Texas Senate Bill 532. (4). To describe the type of nurse practitioner state regulation (i.e. independent, light, moderate, or heavy) that best promotes the convenience care model. ^ Methods. State regulations governing nurse practitioners can be characterized as independent, light, moderate, and heavy. Four state NP regulatory types and retail clinic performance were compared and contrasted to that of Texas regulations using Dunn and Aday's theoretical models for conducting policy analysis and evaluating healthcare systems. Criteria for measurement included effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Comparison states were Arizona (Independent), Minnesota (Light), Massachusetts (Moderate), and Florida (Heavy). ^ Results. A comparative states analysis of Texas SB 532 and alternative NP scope of practice guidelines among the four states: Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, indicated that SB 532 has minimal potential to affect the shortage of primary care providers in the state. Although SB 532 may increase the number of NPs a physician may supervise, NPs are still heavily restricted in their scope of practice and limited in their ability to act as primary care providers. Arizona's example of independent NP practice provided the best alternative to affect the shortage of PCPs in Texas as evidenced by a lower uninsured rate and less ED visits per 1,000 population. A survey of comparison states suggests that retail clinics thrive in states that more heavily restrict NP scope of practice as opposed to those that are more permissive, with the exception of Arizona. An analysis of effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of the convenience care model indicates that retail clinics perform well in the areas of effectiveness and efficiency; but, fall short in the area of equity. ^ Conclusion. Texas Senate 532 represents an incremental step towards addressing the problem of a shortage of PCPs in the state. A comparative policy analysis of the other four states with varying degrees of NP scope of practice indicate that a more aggressive policy allowing for independent NP practice will be needed to achieve positive changes in health outcomes. Retail clinics pose a temporary solution to the shortage of PCPs and will need to expand their locations to poorer regions and incorporate some chronic care to obtain measurable health outcomes. ^

ATTITUDES TOWARD AND UTILIZATION OF NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL TESTING FOR CHROMOSOME ANEUPLOIDY AMONG OB/GYNS

Prenatal diagnosis is traditionally made via invasive procedures such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS). However, both procedures carry a risk of complications, including miscarriage. Many groups have spent years searching for a way to diagnose a chromosome aneuploidy without putting the fetus or the mother at risk for complications. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for chromosome aneuploidy became commercially available in the fall of 2011, with detection rates similar to those of invasive procedures for the common autosomal aneuploidies (Palomaki et al., 2011; Ashoor et al. 2012; Bianchi et al. 2012). Eventually NIPT may become the diagnostic standard of care and reduce invasive procedure-related losses (Palomaki et al., 2011). The integration of NIPT into clinical practice has potential to revolutionize prenatal diagnosis; however, it also raises some crucial issues for practitioners. Now that the test is clinically available, no studies have looked at the physicians that will be ordering the testing or referring patients to practitioners who do. This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of OB/GYN’s and how they are incorporating the test into clinical practice. Our study shows that most physicians are offering this new, non-invasive technology to their patients, and that their practices were congruent with the literature and available professional society opinions. Those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients would like more literature on the topic as well as instructive guidelines from their professional societies. Additionally, this study shows that the practices and attitudes of MFMs and OBs differ. Our population feels that the incorporation of NIPT will change their practices by lowering the amount of invasive procedures, possibly replacing maternal serum screening, and that it will simplify prenatal diagnosis. However, those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients are not quite sure how the test will affect their clinical practice. From this study we are able to glean how physicians are incorporating this new technology into their practice and how they feel about the addition to their repertoire of tests. This knowledge gives insight as to how to best move forward with the quickly changing field of prenatal diagnosis.