Economic evaluation of nurse practitioners versus GPs in treating common conditions

Abstract

Background: As studies evaluating substitution of care have revealed only limited evidence on cost-effectiveness, a trial was conducted to evaluate nurse practitioners as a first point of contact in Dutch general practices.

Aim: To estimate costs of GP versus nurse practitioner consultations from practice and societal perspectives.

Design of study: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial between May and October 2006, wherein 12 nurse practitioners and 50 GPs working in 15 general practices (study practices) participated. Consultations by study practices were also compared with an external reference group, with 17 GPs working in five general practices without the involvement of nurse practitioners.

Method: Direct costs within the healthcare sector included resource use, follow-up consultations, length of consultations, and salary costs. Costs outside the healthcare sector were productivity losses. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Direct costs were lower for nurse practitioner consultations than for GP consultations at study practices. This was also the case for direct costs plus costs from a societal perspective for patients aged <65 years. Direct costs of consultations at study practices were lower than those of reference practices, while practices did not differ for direct costs plus costs from a societal perspective for patients aged <65 years. Cost differences are mainly caused by the differences in salary.

Conclusion: By involving nurse practitioners, substantial economic 'savings' could be used for redesigning primary care, to optimise the best skill mix, and to cover the full range of primary care activities.