After years in medicine, one loses patience with arguments that blur needed distinctions. One of the most consequential appears in claims that expanding roles for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other nonphysician clinical providers justify treating them as equivalent to physicians. Because care is team-based and work often overlaps, we are asked to believe that distinctions in training, judgment, supervision, and accountability matter less than they once did.
Teamwork is necessary in medicine. But it is not equivalence, and shared work is not shared responsibility. This essay does not argue against team-based care or the work of nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and nonphysician clinicians. It argues against the unsupported conclusion that overlapping work, outcomes, and workforce pressure establish equivalence in training, judgment, and final accountability between physicians and nonphysician clinical providers.
By equivalence, I do not mean performance on isolated tasks or outcomes in defined settings. I mean something larger: interchangeable preparation for broad clinical judgment, unsupervised diagnostic responsibility, and final accountability when a case becomes uncertain or unstable. Nonphysician clinical providers are not a single category; their training pathways and responsibilities vary.
Nonphysician roles expanded in response to clinical need, especially where access was limited. That history matters, because a model first justified by unmet need should not be broadened into a general equivalence claim without showing that the preparation, judgment, and accountability expected in independent practice are comparable. Yet incentives make that broadening easier.
Real physician voices, twice a week
Free, and one click to unsubscribe.
Patients need clarity about who is caring for them, what preparation stands behind that care, and who ultimately bears final responsibility. They still need to know who is prepared to recognize danger and answer when routine care fails, especially when illness looks ordinary.
I would not write this had I not learned from nurses. My respect for nurses was formed at bedside, where partnership was real and devotion centered on patients. I also spent four decades teaching medical students, interns, residents, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, flight crews, and hospice providers. Even in residency, developing competence is not treated as a warrant for unsupervised final responsibility. First-, second-, and third-year residents in internal medicine practice under attending supervision, and similar graduated models govern postgraduate physician training across specialties. Graduated responsibility is not the same as independent accountability.
This issue cannot be reduced to whether collaboration is good. The question is whether a narrower access rationale is being expanded into a broader equivalence claim without adequate clinical or evidentiary clarity. The issue is whether cost-driven substitution is being mistaken for evidence of equivalence in formation, judgment, and accountability.
The American College of Physicians and the American Medical Association articulate the same concern. ACP states that physicians and nonphysician health care professionals are not interchangeable, opposes independent practice by nonphysician clinicians, and calls for clear disclosure of credentials to patients. AMA likewise maintains that physicians should retain authority in team-based arrangements because ultimate responsibility rests there.
The corporatized model of medicine extends beyond for-profit settings into nonprofit institutions, which remain answerable for those pressures. The AMA has warned that corporate influence and private equity can degrade quality, erode physician autonomy, and threaten patient access. In that setting, role substitution can be marketed as clinical progress while serving as a labor strategy.
Once systems are organized around staffing pressure, throughput, and labor cost, language drifts. Team-based care can be made to carry claims it was never designed to bear. The public is asked to support care and accept that differences in formation, judgment, and accountability matter less.
By formation, I mean prolonged supervised training that connects information, technique, clinical reasoning, ethical prioritization, and responsibility across an episode of care. Formation joins knowledge and technique to disciplined judgment and prepares someone to decide whether it should be done, for whom, under what conditions, and at what risk.
Danger does not always announce itself dramatically. Routine cases may conceal disaster, and reassuring presentations may hide instability.
The ability to recognize concealed danger is shaped by formation and experience. Bedside clinicians of many kinds may detect that something is wrong. The question here is narrower: Who is expected to integrate that concern, widen the differential, reorder priorities, and bear final responsibility when the case exceeds protocol. That is responsibility under uncertainty, and it is where the distinction between physician and nonphysician clinical provider becomes practical and moral.
The evidence in this area remains more limited than public rhetoric often suggests. Comparative studies are concentrated in selected settings, limited outcome measures, and variable supervision rather than the full range of clinical judgment and accountability. Some reviews report similar outcomes on selected metrics, but major limitations recur across the literature, including low strength of evidence, heterogeneous roles, supervision effects, billing opacity, and limited insight into complex patients, cost, and utilization. Other evidence associates nonphysician care in some settings with higher utilization and less favorable outcomes. Taken together, this literature supports caution rather than broad claims of equivalence.
Medicine ordinarily requires strong evidence before concluding that a question has been settled. If a drug, device, or procedure were supported mainly by selected measures, heterogeneous study designs, variable oversight, and limited evidence about patients, utilization, and harm, we would not treat broad claims as established. We would say the evidence was promising in some settings but insufficient for general conclusions. The same scientific discipline should apply here. Acknowledging the work of nonphysician clinical providers does not require treating that narrower evidence base as proof of equivalence with physicians in preparation, judgment, or final accountability.
Still, the workforce reality is established. A need emerged, the market responded, and the question now is whether we will govern honestly by distinguishing access from equivalence, disclosing credentials clearly, organizing care around patient safety, and stating what the evidence does and does not show. Workforce necessity can justify deployment, but it cannot by itself justify claims of equivalence in preparation, scope of judgment, or final responsibility under uncertainty.
We should be able to say plainly how this happened, what the current arrangement is, and what an honest way forward requires. That we so often do not suggests not merely political caution, but a deeper moral timidity. A profession confident in its obligations to patients would not need euphemism to discuss formation, limits, accountability, and risk. It would tell the truth about the system it has built and the standards it intends to preserve. That would require substantial investment. But the alternative is to pretend that patient safety, professional formation, and final responsibility can be resolved mainly through efficiency, access, and cost. At some point, medicine has to be judged not only through profit and workforce convenience, but through the moral obligations it professes to uphold.
Physicians are not merely technicians of protocols or performers in an attention economy that rewards speed, certainty, and display. They are meant to be clinician-scientists, formed to speak truthfully about evidence, interpret data under uncertainty, and remain answerable for what their interpretations mean in the lives of real patients. That includes resisting claims of equivalence in clinical acumen or quality of care between physicians and nonphysician clinical providers when those claims outrun the evidence. To represent such equivalence as established without sufficient support is difficult to justify ethically, because it asks patients and the public to accept as settled a question that has not yet been responsibly demonstrated.
Physicians are trained to be physicians. If that formation matters, then access to it should be expanded, not bypassed. If it does not matter, then society should say so honestly and reconsider why physicians are trained as they are. That means creating rigorous pathways for qualified nurse practitioners and physician assistants, with advanced standing shaped by prior education, clinical training, experience, and recommendations, but without evading the essential structure of physician formation. If one is to assume a physician’s authority and responsibility, then one should meet physician standards: the scientific foundations of medicine, supervised clinical rotations, passage of USMLE Steps 1, 2, and 3, and the discipline of residency and, where appropriate, fellowship. That would require health systems, educators, and policymakers to build meaningful pathways into physician formation and expand residency and fellowship positions, with priority for primary care and underserved communities.
Patients deserve collaboration, access, and excellent nonphysician colleagues within models honest about role, preparation, supervision, and accountability. Many physician and nonphysician clinicians in team-based care understand this: Respect does not require pretending that different roles carry the same formation, authority, or burden of responsibility. Patients deserve clarity about responsibility, because shared work does not settle who must integrate uncertainty, reorder priorities, and answer when protocols fail. That same clarity would benefit nonphysician clinicians as well. As these roles continue to expand, they will inevitably come under closer examination, as all consequential roles eventually do. It is better that this occur within a framework of honest distinctions, expectations, and transparent accountability than after years of inflated claims and avoidable confusion.
A serious health care system should know the difference and honor it.
This essay is cited in the KevinMD record on scope of practice.
Gus W. Krucke is board-certified in internal medicine and emergency medicine and certified as a hospice medical director. After decades in academic medicine and physician education in Texas, he now serves as core faculty in internal medicine at Northeast Georgia Health System in Gainesville, Georgia. He is also medical director of Omega House HIV/AIDS Hospice in Houston, Texas.
Dr. Krucke writes on physician identity, moral courage, medical education, the corporatization of health care, and the preservation of professional judgment in modern medicine. His essays explore the tension between metrics and meaning, the human consequences of diffuse accountability, and the enduring importance of bedside presence, integrity, and fortitude in patient care.
His scholarly work includes publications in MedEdPublish, Proceedings of Baylor University Medical Center, Texas Heart Institute Journal, World Journal of AIDS, Consultant, The Breast Journal, The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, and Critical Care Medicine. His writing and research have addressed scholarly productivity in residency education, complex infectious disease cases, HIV-related dermatologic disease, diagnostic challenges, migraine treatment, critical care monitoring, and the central role of the individual patient in medical education. More information is available through Krucke’s Medicine, Doximity, LinkedIn, and X.
