Abstract
Restrictive nurse practitioner (NP) practice regulation at the state level continues to obstruct patient access to quality affordable care because primary care provider shortages heighten across the nation. Evidence-based research supports NPs as cost-effective providers without conceding quality of care. A patchwork of highly variable state policies subjectively determines the degree of collaborative oversight required for NPs to practice in each state. An objective review of policies influencing NP capacity to deliver care promotes evidence-informed policy adaptation. A policy analysis was completed using Bardach and Patashnik's framework to evaluate policy options for NP practice regulation in Texas. Full practice authority (FPA) policy effect was quantitively evaluated through difference-in-differences regression models using selected measures of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Health welfare outcomes were calculated using emergency department utilization, average household health expenditures, poor physical health days, and NP-specific adverse action reports (AAR). Overall, FPA policy did not have a statistically significant effect on state-clustered emergency department utilization, average household health expenditures, or poor physical health days. Full practice authority was associated with decreased NP AAR. The analysis supports FPA as a viable policy option for states such as Texas and counters claims FPA policy adoption results in detrimental sequalae in the health of the population.