Nurse practitioner services: Content and relative work value

Nursing Outlook

Volumn 48, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 269-275

  Sullivan Marx, Eileen M ^a   Happ, Mary Beth ^c   Bradley, Katherine J ^b   Maislin, Greg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c School of Medicine ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICARE; NURSE PRACTITIONER; NURSING; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PILOT STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REIMBURSEMENT; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES; WORK;

FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICARE PART B; NURSE PRACTITIONERS; NURSING SERVICES; PILOT PROJECTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RELATIVE VALUE SCALES; UNITED STATES; WORK;

EID: 0034327945     PISSN: 00296554     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1067/mno.2000.109062     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Lang N, Sullivan-Marx EM, Jenkins M. Advanced practice nurses and success of organized delivery systems. Am J Managed Care 1996;2:129-35.
2. Physician Payment Review Commission. Annual report to Congress, 1991. Washington (DC): The Commission; 1991.
3. American Medical Association. Medicare RBRVS: the physician's guide. Chicago: The Association; 1999.
4. Sullivan-Marx EM, Mullinix C. Payment for advanced practice nurses: economic structures and systems. In: Mezey MD, McGivern DO, editors. Nurses, nurse practitioners. New York: Springer; 1999, p 345-68.
5. American Medical Association. Physicians' current procedural terminology CPT '99. Chicago: The Association; 1999.
6. Hsiao WC, Braun P, Yntema D, Becker ER. Estimating physicians' work for a resource-based relative value scale. N Engl J Med 1988;319:835-41.
7. American Nurses Association. Nurse practitioner consensus panel on resource inputs for services. Report of the ANA to the Health Care Financing Administration. Washington (DC): The Association; 1990 November.
8. American Nurses Association, ANA/National Organizational Liaison Forum Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) utilization survey. Washington (DC): The Association; 1994.
9. Leape LL, Freshour MA, Yntema E, Hsiao W. Small-group judgement methods for determining resource-based relative values. Med Care 1992;30:NS28-NS39.
10. Kahan JP, Morton SC, Farris HH, Kominski GF, Donovan AJ. Panel processes for revising relative values of physician work: a pilot study. Med Care 1994;32:1069-85.
11. American Medical Association. Physicians' current procedural terminology CPT '95 standard edition. Chicago: The Association; 1995.
12. US Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare program; revisions to payment policies and adjustments to the relative value units under the physician fee schedule for calendar year 1996. Federal Register 1995;60(236):63190-357.
13. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration. 1996 Part B Medicare annual data. Washington (DC): Department of Health and Human Services; 1996.
14. Strauss A, Corbin J. Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1994. p 273-85.
15. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage; 1985.
16. Johnson R. Nurse practitioner-patient discourse: uncovering the voice of nursing in primary care practice. Scholarly Inquiry Nurs Pract 1993;7:143-63.
17. Evans LK. Knowing the patient: the route to individualized care. J Gerontol Nurs 1996;22:15-9.
18. Jenny J, Logan J. Knowing the patient: one aspect of clinical knowledge. IMAGE J Nurs Sch 1992;24:254-8.
19. Radwin LE. Knowing the patient: a process model for individualized intervention. Nurs Res 1995;44:364-70.
20. Tanner CA, Benner P, Chesla C, Gordon DR. The phenomenology of knowing the patient. IMAGE J Nurs Sch 1993;25:273-80.
21. Diers D, Hamman A, Molde S. Complexity of ambulatory care: nurse practitioner and physician caseloads. Nurs Res 1986;35:310-4.