ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Nurse practitioners & doctors |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Nurse practitioners & doctors

Letter To The Editor
| Monday, December 24, 2018 10:03 a.m

While I respect Catherine Grant and nurse practitioners (NPs) who care for Pennsylvanians in rural areas, I disagree with the solution she proposed in her op-ed “Please, let nurse practitioners serve patients” (Dec. 8, TribLIVE).

Grant suggests that Pennsylvanians will gain better access to care by removing a state law that requires NPs to collaborate with physicians. States that have granted independent practice to NPs continue to struggle with access issues. Those states did not experience a sudden surge in additional NPs in rural areas.

In addition, nothing in current law keeps NPs from practicing to the fullest extent of their training. A collaborative agreement with a medical doctor is not a burden, but rather an assurance of greater expertise immediately available in the care of patients.

Case in point: Grant already owns her own health center. She can prescribe medications, order diagnostic tests and manage patients with chronic illnesses. As her story demonstrates, she’s already practicing to the fullest extent of her training and making a difference in her community.

Finally, when polled, a majority of Pennsylvanians say physicians should be immediately available when being treated by an NP.

The question our elected leaders need to ask is whether they support removing physicians from health care teams as the nurses suggest. We believe that’s the last thing patients want.

Dr. Lawrence John


The writer is a family physician and president-elect of the Pennsylvania Medical Society.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.