Edward Timmons: Cutting red tape will help nurse practitioners fill gaps in care in Pa.

Long wait times and long commutes to get access to health care have become commonplace in Western Pennsylvania . I always hesitated to cancel an appointment when I lived in Pennsylvania. I knew it was likely I would need to wait several more weeks or months to get rescheduled.

Fortunately, there is a solution that can help that will not cost taxpayers a dime and will not compromise quality.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) are highly trained nurses with graduate training. Most have thousands of hours of clinical experience. They are already providing high quality care throughout Pennsylvania. Their potential is limited, however, due to unnecessary red tape.

Current Pennsylvania law requires NPs to enter into collaborative practice agreements with physicians. This does not mean that physicians directly oversee or supervise nurse practitioners. Instead, there is a contract — a piece of paper. A very expensive piece of paper — costing NPs as much as $3,000 per month.

NPs also must find a willing physician, which can be time consuming and limit the reach of these highly trained professionals.

Twenty-seven states and Washington, D.C. — including the bordering states of New York, Delaware and Maryland — have already unlocked the potential of nurse practitioners. Senate Bill 25, currently under consideration in the Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee, would give Pennsylvania an opportunity to move in this direction. Companion legislation will soon be introduced in the state House.

What would eliminating some of this red tape mean for Pennsylvania citizens? I co-authored a study that compared Pennsylvania to Maryland. As noted, Maryland already allows nurse practitioners the freedom to work to the full extent of their training without red tape.

A summary of what we found follows. First, we estimated that NPs in Pennsylvania would be able to see almost 1,800 more patients per week by cutting red tape. Second, we observed that patients in Maryland reported fewer poor mental health days. Finally, full practice authority in Pennsylvania can potentially eliminate half of the state’s health provider shortage areas.

Are there any risks to patients from this reform? First, it should be noted that no state that has moved to full practice authority has ever moved back. If patients were indeed harmed by letting nurse practitioners do the job they are trained to perform, we might expect some regret. There is no evidence of this.

I also co-authored a comprehensive analysis of the effects of states moving to full practice authority. The evidence is overwhelming. In nearly all cases research finds no evidence of harm to patients from empowering nurse practitioners. In fact, in several cases, outcomes improve.

Generally speaking, there is only one voice against change: professional doctor associations. And this is not all doctors — some doctors support change. Doctors in the 27 states that have already granted NPs full practice authority seem to be performing just fine.

Patients in Pennsylvania, especially in rural Pennsylvania, are dealing with long wait times and long drives for care. Research has shown that eliminating red tape for nurse practitioners can help. There are no risks to patients and the change will not cost taxpayers a dime. Common sense, not politics, should allow Pennsylvania to join the majority and untie the hands of nurses.

Edward Timmons is a service associate professor of economics and director of the Knee Regulatory Research Center at West Virginia University.