Emergency Removal of Supervision Requirements for Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioners: A Mixed-Methods Survey
Abstract
Objective:
Physician supervision of nurse practitioners (NPs) was temporarily waived in Massachusetts in response to a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors examined the impact of the scope-of-practice changes and pandemic-related demands on psychiatric mental health NPs (PMHNPs) during the state’s first COVID-19 surge.
Methods:
A mixed-methods Web-based survey was conducted in May and June of 2020. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare associations across certification types, and inductive content analysis was applied to open-ended responses.
Results:
The survey response rate was 41% (N=389 of 958), consisting of 26 PMHNPs and 363 other NPs. Compared with other NPs, PMHNPs were significantly more likely to work in a telehealth setting (42% vs. 11%, p<0.001), to spend more time working during the initial surge (50% vs. 26%, p<0.05), and to believe that the waiver improved clinical work (52% vs. 25%, p<0.01). Content analysis of PMHNPs’ open-ended responses identified four themes: the supervision waiver reduced burden on PMHNPs, collaboration and mentorship models persisted, the pandemic exacerbated the already high demand for psychiatric care, and telehealth helped meet the high demand for such care.
Conclusions:
PMHNPs may be more sensitive to the scope-of-practice changes and telehealth expansion than other NPs because of the constraints of the psychiatrist shortage and high relative uptake of telehealth in psychiatric care. The interactions of workforce supply, telehealth expansion, and scope-of-practice laws are important to consider in the development of policies to improve access to mental health care.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts, psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners (PMHNPs) were significantly more affected by emergency scope-of-practice changes than were other types of nurse practitioners (NPs).
•
Temporary removal of required NP supervision did not change meaningful models of interprofessional collaboration, which were well established and highly valued by PMHNPs.
•
Expanded telehealth reimbursement and removal of psychiatrist supervision improved access to PMHNP care during a period of high demand.
•
Complex interactions between workforce supply, scope-of-practice regulation, and payment rules are important to consider in developing policies to increase access to mental health care.
The sudden high demand for mental health care after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (1–3) worsened a long-standing shortage of psychiatric providers in the United States (4). In response, the federal government issued several provisional policies to maximize the workforce by expanding telehealth services and allowing providers to practice and prescribe across state lines (5, 6). In addition, 22 state governors temporarily waived physician supervision for nurse practitioners (NPs) (7). This sudden change in NP scope of practice was unprecedented, especially in states such as Massachusetts, where NPs were previously regulated by restrictive laws. We surveyed NPs in Massachusetts to investigate how the emergency waivers affected NP care and found that psychiatric mental health NPs (PMHNPs) were significantly more affected by the waivers than were other types of NPs (8).
Despite well-documented evidence that NPs provide high-quality (9–11) and cost-effective care (12–14), restrictive scope-of-practice laws in 24 states prevent NPs from practicing to the full extent of their license and training (15). Although these laws intend to protect the public, they do not improve quality of care (16, 17) but rather reduce access to both general medical and mental health care, especially within high-risk communities (18–21). In the context of a worsening mental health crisis, understanding why scope-of-practice restrictions differentially affect PMHNPs may help inform policies to improve access to mental health care. The purpose of the survey conducted in this study was to understand the underlying drivers behind the high sensitivity of PMHNPs to the scope-of-practice change at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts.
Methods
We conducted a mixed-methods descriptive analysis of a Web-based survey of Massachusetts NPs conducted from May 8 to June 15, 2020, a period of peak COVID-19 hospitalizations in the state (22). We emailed survey invitations to the electronic mailing list of the Massachusetts Coalition of Nurse Practitioners, which includes both members and nonmembers. The landing page of the Qualtrics survey stated study eligibility criteria (clinically active NPs in March 2020) and informed consent, along with details about survey length (5 minutes), respondent anonymity, and data security. Four invitations were e-mailed over a 5-week period, with no financial or other incentive to participate. Participants provided responses anonymously, but some voluntarily provided e-mail addresses to participate in follow-up surveys.
The survey consisted of 10 closed-ended questions related to NP specialty, clinical setting, changes in employment, working hours during the pandemic, and organizational supervision policies (8). To examine the effect of waived supervision on clinical work, we asked, “Do you believe the waiver of supervision requirements has enabled you to improve your clinical work?” In addition, three open-ended questions (“Has your clinical work changed as a result of the temporary waiver of supervision requirements? If so, please explain”; “Does your employer impose supervision requirements different from state requirements? If so, please explain”; and “Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the impact of COVID-19 on your clinical work?”) focused on understanding NPs’ perceptions of care delivery related to the temporarily waived supervision. Given the unprecedented clinical context of the public health emergency, these questions elicited comments on a broad range of topics, including telehealth, autonomy, and changing patient needs (23).
The quantitative data were analyzed with Fisher’s exact test to examine the strength of associations between PMHNP certification and other variables, by using all other NPs as a comparison group. We used inductive content analysis to identify themes in the open-ended responses from PMHNPs. A team of three researchers (two NPs, M.O.R.-J. and Victor Petreca, D.N.P., Ph.D., and one non-NP, J.P.) independently read and coded responses. The team met to discuss meaning units, condense them into categories, and identify core themes. We established trustworthiness of the data by using credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility was ensured by the full team debriefing and reaching a consensus on themes. Transferability was accomplished by providing a rich description of the themes, such that others could relate to them. To ensure dependability, we provided a step-by-step study description, enabling replicability. Confirmability was achieved by the non-NP review categories identified by the NPs to help ensure that the themes reflected the data and not personal experience. This study was approved by the Boston College Institutional Review Board.
Results
Of the 958 NPs receiving the survey invitation, 413 consented and 389 were eligible, resulting in a response rate of 41%. A subset of NPs (N=26, 7%) held psychiatric mental health certifications, whereas most held certifications in family (N=157, 40%), adult-gerontology (N=127, 33%), acute care (N=28, 7%), or other (N=51, 13%). These proportions reflected the composition of NPs nationally (24).
Quantitative Results
Table 1 shows a comparison of the clinical settings of PMHNPs with those of all other types of NPs. During March–May 2020, fewer PMHNPs than other NPs worked in ambulatory care (PMHNPs, 15% vs. non-PMHNPs, 50%). Table 2 allows comparison of PMHNPs and other NPs based on four key work-related variables. PMHNPs were significantly more likely than other NPs to work in a telehealth setting (42% vs. 11%, p<0.001), to spend more time working during the initial surge (50% vs. 26%, p<0.05), and to believe that the waiver improved clinical work (52% vs. 25%, p=0.003).
| Psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners (N=26) | Other nurse practitioners (N=363) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical setting | N | % | N | % |
| Telehealth | 11 | 42 | 40 | 11 |
| Primary care–ambulatory care | 4 | 15 | 182 | 50 |
| Acute inpatient care | 5 | 19 | 55 | 15 |
| Home- and community-based care | 6 | 23 | 19 | 5 |
| Unemployed | 0 | — | 8 | 2 |
| Othera | 0 | — | 51 | 14 |
a
“Other” included COVID-19 field hospitals or testing sites and postacute care.
| PMHNPs (N=26) | Other NPs (N=363) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Total N | N | % | N | % | pb |
| Telehealth setting March–May 2020 | 381 | 11 | 42 | 40 | 11 | <.001 |
| More time at work in March–May 2020 | 389 | 13 | 50 | 103 | 26 | .026 |
| Employer restrictions despite waiver | 347 | 2 | 8 | 56 | 17 | .278 |
| Waiver improved work | 335 | 13 | 52 | 87 | 25 | .003 |
a
NPs, nurse practitioners; PMHNPs, psychiatric mental health NPs. Because of incomplete responses, some percentages in this table were based on totals that were smaller than those given in the table headings.
b
Statistical significance of differences between PMHNPs and other NPs was assessed with Fisher’s exact test.
Qualitative Results
Four themes were identified through inductive content analysis of 18 PMHNPs who opted to provide comments prompted by the open-ended questions. These themes include the following: supervision waiver reduced burden, collaboration and mentorship models persisted, the pandemic exacerbated the already high demand for psychiatric care, and telehealth helped meet high demand for care.
Supervision waiver reduced burden.
The first theme, described by 44% (N=8 of 18) of the PMHNPs who provided comments, captured how the supervision waiver reduced burden for PMHNPs by streamlining care, alleviating the need to find a supervising psychiatrist in the middle of a shortage, and minimizing PMHNP migration.
First, many respondents believed that the reduction of administrative or regulatory burden streamlined their care. Some described no longer needing to “inform supervising physicians when starting stimulants,” whereas others conveyed a more global sense of autonomy and the ability to practice “without restriction.” Some felt that this reduction of administrative burden increased the timeliness of their care: “I am free to make decisions. I am faster to respond to emergencies. My PATIENTS ARE DOING BETTER.” For this PMHNP, more efficient care meant better patient outcomes.
Second, there was a sense of relief that PMHNPs no longer needed to maintain a supervisor amid a shrinking pool of older psychiatrists, who were particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. This sentiment was best captured by this respondent:
It is a relief, especially during this time, to know that, God forbid, anything should happen to [my supervising psychiatrist], my patients would not be left without care. He is in his seventies, I believe, and works in a hospital, so I do worry about his health.
For this respondent, the waiver ensured that PMHNPs’ ability to care for their patients would not be threatened by the fragility of the aging workforce of psychiatrists. This tension was long standing and existed before the pandemic, as conveyed by this respondent:
I know an experienced advanced practice [psychiatric] nurse whose supervising M.D. gave her short notice right before the crisis that he was retiring. She is able to continue to treat her patients because of the governor’s order but hasn’t been able to find a psychiatrist willing to supervise her after the governor’s emergency order expires.
This comment highlights the sense of the precarious position that PMHNPs held before the waiver, because they were dependent on deteriorating workforce resources over which they had little control.
Last, some respondents felt that the waiver minimized the likelihood of PMHNPs’ going to neighboring states with full practice authority. For example, one PMHNP commented, “I have lost many colleagues due to relocation because of the MMA’s [Massachusetts Medical Association’s] strict hold on Massachusetts legislators.” This PMHNP equated the persistent supervision requirements with the political power of organized medicine. However, some PMHNPs were concerned about how continued restrictions would further exacerbate a shortage: “I have 3 NPs that work for me and more [who] want to join the practice. If this change is not permanent, they will go to [New Hampshire] or [Rhode Island].” This comment highlights that PMHNPs have many jobs to choose from in New England, and practice restrictions were a deterrent to stay in state.
Collaboration and mentorship models persisted.
Another theme that emerged from the qualitative data was the continuation of informal collaboration despite the lifted supervision requirement, described by 17% (N=3 of 18) of respondents. PMHNPs continued to consult with NP and physician colleagues alike. There was a strong sense that meaningful models of collegial mentorship were well established before the pandemic and were more valuable than state-mandated supervision. This sentiment was captured by the following comment:
Not having supervision has not changed my practice whatsoever. I continue to meet remotely with a group of colleagues, which is a forum for sharing clinical knowledge and would be sufficient as a form of ongoing supervision, in my opinion.
This PMHNP expressed appreciation for as-needed consultations with peers but saw state-mandated supervision as unnecessary. This opinion was not unique to less experienced clinicians but was also prevalent among veteran PMHNPs. For example, this PMHNP commented:
I actually have a collaborating physician [who] is available if I need him. The collaboration for those of us with more than a few years of experience is just a formality that is rarely used. It is only a hurdle.
Some PMHNPs described a willingness to mentor less experienced colleagues, such as this PMHNP: “If someone like me (a seasoned provider) could supervise new clinicians, we could reinforce our available mental health clinicians.” This respondent saw the authorization of experienced NPs to serve as collaborators for new NPs as an opportunity to grow the psychiatric workforce within a context of mentorship and alleviate the mental health care crisis.
The pandemic exacerbated the already high demand for psychiatric care.
Another prominent theme was the high demand for psychiatric care during the COVID-19 surge, described by 56% (N=10 of 18) of the respondents. This demand was described as an increase in both patient acuity and amount of visits, exemplified by comments such as “My workload has dramatically increased” and “Late cancelations and no-shows are down by about 85%.” Respondents suggested that demand was driven by both maintenance care for previous patients and establishing care for new patients.
This acute surge in demand, however, occurred amid a chronic shortage of care. This was described by one PMHNP:
Prior to COVID-19, due to many factors, including the opiate crisis and an aging workforce, there was already a mental health care shortage across all demographics in Massachusetts that was promising to worsen. Now we are expecting aftershocks from COVID-19, as people seek postponed care and care related to trauma and economic and personal loss from COVID-19.
This respondent described the chronic unmet need for mental health care and expressed concern about the increased demand during and after the pandemic.
Telehealth helped meet the high demand for care.
The valuable role of telehealth in meeting the increased demand for mental health care was evident in the comments of 44% (N=8 of 18) of respondents. Many PMHNPs related how telehealth ensured mental health care maintenance for established patients when the in-person setting was inaccessible. Some remarked that the transition of in-person psychiatric care to telehealth was surprisingly seamless, even among those not well versed in technology. Respondents also had a sense that requiring in-person care for psychiatric patients was a barrier to high-quality care during the pandemic, especially for patients lacking executive functioning or with acute mental illness. This PMHNP explained it well:
The ability to provide insurance-reimbursed telehealth visits for all my patients, without authorization procedures and at parity with usual rates, has greatly improved access.
Other PMHNPs also described how telehealth enabled patient-centered care by allowing close follow-up without triggering anxiety related to traveling for appointments. Although most respondents appreciated telehealth, a few reported some downsides, such as this PMHNP: “Doing telehealth is draining in ways that an in-person visit is not—exhausting at the end of the day seeing equal numbers of patients as if I were going into hospital.” Others were concerned with a lack of access for patients with lower digital literacy or those requiring an in-person setting.
Discussion
We conducted a survey of 389 Massachusetts NPs during the height of the first COVID-19 surge. We found that, compared with other NP specialties, PMHNPs experienced both higher demand for their care and a greater impact of the scope-of-practice change on their clinical work, which were both likely facilitated by the higher uptake of telehealth by PMHNPs. Our qualitative analysis of 18 PMHNPs’ responses to the open-ended questions revealed four major themes: the Massachusetts supervision waiver in response to the COVID-19 pandemic emergency reduced burden on PMHNPs, collaboration and mentorship models persisted, the pandemic exacerbated the already high demand for psychiatric care, and telehealth helped meet the high demand for such care.
Temporary State Scope-of-Practice Change
On the basis of the responses of a small group of PMHNPs, our findings suggest that constraints imposed by the psychiatrist shortage may be the underlying driver behind PMHNPs’ high sensitivity to scope-of-practice changes in the wake of the COVID-19 emergency, relative to other NPs. These results are consistent with those of other studies that point to PMHNPs’ substantial challenges in finding and maintaining a supervising psychiatrist (25). Unlike PMHNPs, most other NPs did not face the same obstacles in maintaining supervision because of a larger and younger supply of physicians in other clinical areas. These challenges were further exacerbated by the pandemic. Whereas other types of NPs experienced a drop in patient volume (26), PMHNPs experienced a sharp rise in demand for their care, and the scope-of-practice change immediately lifted their burden of finding a willing psychiatrist supervisor.
Massachusetts moved to permanently adopt full practice authority for NPs in January 2021, and support has grown for the modernization of NP scope-of-practice laws to increase access to care in the remaining 50% of states with restrictive laws (27–31). Nationwide, the PMHNP workforce is growing and now comprises 31% of the total psychiatric provider-to-population ratio (32). In 15 states, PMHNPs make up over a third of all psychiatric providers, and PMHNPs generally are more likely to practice in states with fewer restrictions (32, 33). Modernizing scope-of-practice laws will be particularly influential in restricted practice states with high levels of unmet mental health needs (e.g., in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and Tennessee) that already rely heavily on PMHNPs (34).
Nonmandated Models of Collaboration
Our results indicate that eliminating psychiatrist supervision does not change meaningful models of PMHNP collaboration, which are well established and, possibly, more valuable than mandated psychiatrist supervision. For many PMHNPs in our study, regulated supervision before the pandemic was strictly a bureaucratic requirement and inconsequential to their practice, echoing other results suggesting that supervision of NPs is much less frequent than stipulated by regulations (25). The unregulated interprofessional collaboration that occurs naturally between peers and within teams is highly valued by both NPs and physicians (25, 35). Whereas regulating collaboration among experienced clinicians serves little purpose, ensuring new clinician access to a robust supply of mentors is critical and could be facilitated by a range of stakeholders (e.g., professional organizations, state boards of nursing, and public health departments).
At the time of this writing, 15 states authorize full practice authority at the point of licensure, whereas 10 states require that new NPs collaborate with experienced providers during a stipulated period (usually 2 years). As of January 2021, Massachusetts joined seven other states that authorize NPs to serve as collaborators during this transition-to-practice period, avoiding the limits of the shortage of psychiatrists. Adopting similar provisions in other restricted states is another opportunity to reduce practice barriers and improve access to mental health care, albeit not as optimal as organic, nonmandated collaboration.
Telehealth Facilitated a Demand for Psychiatric Care During the Pandemic
The increased demand for mental health care at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was both met and alleviated by telehealth services. Given the compatibility of telehealth and mental health care (36, 37), PMHNPs used telehealth more than did other types of NPs. These results are consistent with nationwide trends during the initial stage of the pandemic, when patient volume was low in most clinical areas, but stable within psychiatry, likely because of its high telehealth adoption rate (26). Among all the specialties, mental health saw the largest increase in telehealth use in the Medicare program in 2020, stabilizing far above prepandemic levels; by the end of 2020, telehealth psychiatric visits were as common as in-person visits (38).
Overall, it is difficult to untangle the effects of telehealth expansion from those of the scope-of-practice changes on the experience of PMHNPs during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, for many PMHNPs, expanded telehealth reimbursement and the waiver of psychiatrist supervision appear to have created a net effect of improving access for their patients to much-needed psychiatric care. Although it remains to be seen whether the benefits of telehealth (39–41) outweigh its potential costs (26, 41–44), there are signs that it is receiving broad support from policy makers. As more permanent adoption of telehealth takes shape (45, 46), it will be critical to continue examining how telehealth expansion interacts with scope-of-practice laws, especially among PMHNPs.
Together, telehealth expansion and persistent NP practice barriers could conspire to exacerbate access disparities in underserved communities. Rural and high-poverty counties experience both a lower uptake of telehealth (26, 47) and intensified psychiatrist shortages (48). Because of the limited supply of psychiatrists, PMHNPs in underserved areas face greater regulatory barriers (e.g., paying higher physician supervision fees and continued supervision), thereby limiting PMHNPs’ capacity to improve access to care in high-need areas (19, 25, 49). Modernizing NP scope-of-practice restrictions and enabling clinicians to provide telehealth across state lines will be most effective in underserved areas.
Limitations
These findings should be interpreted in the context of several limitations. First, the sample was drawn from a list of past and current members of an advocacy organization for NPs. PMHNPs belonging to this organization may be more experienced and potentially more politically engaged than PMHNPs who do not belong to this group. Further research targeting NPs who are not members of advocacy groups would be an important validation step. In addition, this was a brief survey designed to minimize respondent burden. Consequently, the survey did not capture several important factors that may affect a PMHNP’s perception of the pandemic and scope-of-practice change, including practice type and characteristics, region, level of NP experience, and degree type (doctorate versus master’s degree), among others. These are important contextual factors to consider in future research. Last, our results are generalizable to states with persistent NP practice restrictions and particularly relevant to those acutely affected by the psychiatric workforce shortages.
Conclusions
The findings of this mixed-methods study suggest that scope-of-practice laws and changes in telehealth rules affect specific types of NPs differently. The complex interactions among workforce, regulation, and payment rules may disproportionately affect the delivery of mental health services relative to other types of care. As policy makers debate the future of telehealth, these complexities should not be overlooked. Modernizing NP scope-of-practice laws, with or without telehealth expansion, promises to increase access to mental health care, especially for at-risk populations.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Jane Flanagan, Ph.D., F.A.A.N., and Victor Petreca, D.N.P., Ph.D., Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, in assisting with the qualitative analysis.
References
1.
Holland KM, Jones C, Vivolo-Kantor AM, et al: Trends in US emergency department visits for mental health, overdose, and violence outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Psychiatry 2021; 78:372–379
2.
Wu T, Jia X, Shi H, et al: Prevalence of mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord 2021; 281:91–98
3.
Zalsman G, Levy Y, Sommerfeld E, et al: Suicide-related calls to a national crisis chat hotline service during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. J Psychiatr Res 2021; 139:193–196
4.
Bishop TF, Seirup JK, Pincus HA, et al: Population of US practicing psychiatrists declined, 2003–13, which may help explain poor access to mental health care. Health Aff 2016; 35:1271–1277
5.
Trump Administration Makes Sweeping Regulatory Changes to Help US Healthcare System Address COVID-19 Patient Surge. Baltimore, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2020. https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/trump-administration-makes-sweeping-regulatory-changes-help-us-healthcare-system-address-covid-19. Accessed July 8, 2022
6.
Exception to Separate Registration Requirements across State Lines. Washington DC, US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division, 2020. https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/GDP/(DEA-DC-018)(DEA067)%20DEA%20state%20reciprocity%20(final)(Signed).pdf
7.
Poghosyan L, Pulcini J, Chan GK, et al: State responses to COVID-19: potential benefits of continuing full practice authority for primary care nurse practitioners. Nurs Outlook 2022; 70:28–35
8.
O’Reilly-Jacob M, Perloff J: The effect of supervision waivers on practice: a survey of Massachusetts nurse practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic. Med Care 2021; 59:283–287
9.
Barnett ML, Balkissoon C, Sandhu J: The level of quality care nurse practitioners provide compared with their physician colleagues in the primary care setting: a systematic review. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract (Epub Oct 20, 2021). doi: 10.1097/JXX.0000000000000660
10.
Laurant M, van der Biezen M, Wijers N, et al: Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 7:CD001271
11.
Swan M, Ferguson S, Chang A, et al: Quality of primary care by advanced practice nurses: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2015; 27:396–404
12.
Morgan PA, Smith VA, Berkowitz TSZ, et al: Impact of physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants on utilization and costs for complex patients. Health Aff 2019; 38:1028–1036
13.
Perloff J, DesRoches CM, Buerhaus P: Comparing the cost of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries assigned to primary care nurse practitioners and physicians. Health Serv Res 2016; 51:1407–1423
14.
Razavi M, O’Reilly-Jacob M, Perloff J, et al: Drivers of cost differences between nurse practitioner and physician attributed Medicare beneficiaries. Med Care 2021; 59:177–184
15.
State Practice Environment. Austin, TX, American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 2021. https://www.aanp.org/advocacy/state/state-practice-environment. Accessed July 8, 2022
16.
Perloff J, Clarke S, DesRoches CM, et al: Association of state-level restrictions in nurse practitioner scope of practice with the quality of primary care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Med Care Res Rev 2019; 76:597–626
17.
Smith LB: The effect of nurse practitioner scope of practice laws on primary care delivery. Health Econ 2022; 31:21–41
18.
Alexander D, Schnell M: Just what the nurse practitioner ordered: independent prescriptive authority and population mental health. J Health Econ 2019; 66:145–162
19.
Xue Y, Ye Z, Brewer C, et al: Impact of state nurse practitioner scope-of-practice regulation on health care delivery: systematic review. Nurs Outlook 2016; 64:71–85
20.
Yang BK, Trinkoff AM, Zito JM, et al: Nurse practitioner independent practice authority and mental health service delivery in US community health centers. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68:1032–1038
21.
Yang BK, Johantgen ME, Trinkoff AM, et al: State nurse practitioner practice regulations and US health care delivery outcomes: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev 2021; 78:183–196
22.
COVID-19 Response Reporting. COVID-19 Interactive Data Dashboard: Hospitalizations. Boston, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 2021. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-response-reporting#covid-19-interactive-data-dashboard-. Accessed July 8, 2022
23.
O’Reilly-Jacob M, Perloff J, Sherafat-Kazemzadeh R, et al: Nurse practitioners’ perception of temporary full practice authority during a COVID-19 surge: a qualitative study. Int J Nurs Stud 2022; 126:104141
24.
2020 AANP National NP Sample Survey. Austin, TX, American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 2021
25.
Chapman SA, Toretsky C, Phoenix BJ: Enhancing psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner practice: impact of state scope of practice regulations. J Nurs Regul 2019; 10:35–43
26.
Patel SY, Mehrotra A, Huskamp HA, et al: Variation in telemedicine use and outpatient care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Health Aff 2021; 40:349–358
27.
VA Grants Full Practice Authority to Advance Practice Registered Nurses. Washington DC, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Public Affairs, 2016. https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=2847. Accessed July 8, 2022
28.
Policy Perspectives: Competition and the Regulation of Advanced Practice Nurses. Washington DC, Federal Trade Commission, 2014. https://www.ftc.gov/reports/policy-perspectives-competition-regulation-advanced-practice-nurses. Accessed July 8, 2022
29.
The Nurse Practitioner Workforce and Its Role in the Massachusetts Health Care Delivery System [HPC Policy Brief]. Boston, Massachusetts Health Policy Commission, 2020. https://www.mass.gov/doc/policy-brief-the-nurse-practitioner-workforce-and-its-role-in-the-massachusetts-health-care/download
30.
The Role of Nurse Practitioners in Meeting Increasing Demand for Primary Care. Washington DC, National Governors Association, 2012. https://www.nga.org/center/publications/the-role-of-nurse-practitioners-in-meeting-increasing-demand-for-primary-care. Accessed July 8, 2022
31.
Exec Order No 13890, 84 FR 53573 [Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation’s Seniors]. 2019. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/08/2019-22073/protecting-and-improving-medicare-for-our-nations-seniors. Accessed July 8, 2022
32.
Beck AJ, Page C, Buche J, et al: The distribution of advanced practice nurses within the psychiatric workforce. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc 2020; 26:92–96
33.
Kuo YF, Loresto FL, Rounds LR, et al: States with the least restrictive regulations experienced the largest increase in patients seen by nurse practitioners. Health Aff 2013; 32:1236–1243
34.
New State Fact Sheets Highlight Key Data About Mental Health and Substance Use Needs and Capacity. San Francisco, Kaiser Family Foundation, 2020. https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/press-release/new-state-fact-sheets-highlight-key-data-about-mental-health-and-substance-use-needs-and-capacity. Accessed July 8, 2022
35.
Kraus E, DuBois JM: Knowing your limits: a qualitative study of physician and nurse practitioner perspectives on NP independence in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2017; 32:284–290
36.
Barnett P, Goulding L, Casetta C, et al: Implementation of telemental health services before COVID-19: rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23:e26492
37.
Varker T, Brand RM, Ward J, et al: Efficacy of synchronous telepsychology interventions for people with anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and adjustment disorder: a rapid evidence assessment. Psychol Serv 2019; 16:621–635
38.
Medicare Beneficiaries’ Use of Telehealth in 2020: Trends by Beneficiary Characteristics and Location. Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 2021. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/medicare-beneficiaries-use-telehealth-2020. Accessed July 8, 2022
39.
Barnett ML, Yee HF, Mehrotra A, et al: Los Angeles safety-net program eConsult system was rapidly adopted and decreased wait times to see specialists. Health Aff 2017; 36:492–499
40.
Mark TL, Treiman K, Padwa H, et al: Addiction treatment and telehealth: review of efficacy and provider insights during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatr Serv 2022; 73:484–491
41.
Mehrotra A, Huskamp HA, Souza J, et al: Rapid growth in mental health telemedicine use among rural Medicare beneficiaries, wide variation across states. Health Aff 2017; 36:909–917
42.
Ashwood JS, Mehrotra A, Cowling D, et al: Direct-to-consumer telehealth may increase access to care but does not decrease spending. Health Aff 2017; 36:485–491
43.
O’Reilly-Jacob M, Mohr P, Ellen M, et al: Digital health & low-value care. Healthc 2021; 9:100533
44.
Pierce BS, Perrin PB, Tyler CM, et al: The COVID-19 telepsychology revolution: a national study of pandemic-based changes in US mental health care delivery. Am Psychol 2021; 76:14–25
45.
Calendar Year (CY) 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule. Baltimore, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2021. https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/calendar-year-cy-2022-medicare-physician-fee-schedule-final-rule. Accessed July 8, 2022
46.
States’ Actions to Expand Telemedicine Access During COVID-19 and Future Policy Considerations. New York, The Commonwealth Fund, 2021. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/jun/states-actions-expand-telemedicine-access-covid-19. Accessed July 8, 2022
47.
Lam K, Lu AD, Shi Y, et al: Assessing telemedicine unreadiness among older adults in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 180:1389–1391
48.
Andrilla CHA, Patterson DG, Garberson LA, et al: Geographic variation in the supply of selected behavioral health providers. Am J Prev Med 2018; 54:S199–S207
49.
Martin B, Alexander M: The economic burden and practice restrictions associated with collaborative practice agreements: a national survey of advanced practice registered nurses. J Nurs Regul 2019; 9:22–30
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 20 December 2021
Revision received: 10 March 2022
Accepted: 20 May 2022
Published online: 25 August 2022
Published in print: February 01, 2023
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).