← Risk register SOC 29-1171 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Nurse Practitioners

323,040 US workers · median $132,300/yr · Healthcare

SAFE

Nurse practitioners physically examine patients, perform procedures like suturing, joint injections, and pelvic exams, and hold prescriptive authority that requires a licensed human signature — none of which an AI can execute or legally own. The documentation-heavy layer of the job (note writing, coding, prior-auth letters, patient education handouts, differential-diagnosis brainstorming) is exactly what current models do well, so ambient AI scribes and decision support will compress the clerical share of the day rather than the clinical one. The likely outcome is more patients per NP and faster panels, not fewer NPs; note that the licensure/prescribing shield is regulatory and scope-of-practice rules can shift.

10-year outlook: Demand keeps climbing as NPs absorb primary care shortfalls, with AI eliminating most of the charting burden and pushing NPs toward higher patient volumes and harder cases.

US employment, 2019–2025+61.0%
200,600323,040 workers

Headcount grew steadily across the period.

Median pay $109,820 → $132,300 -3.6% in real terms (nominal +20.5%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+40.1% 320,400 → 448,800 on the projections basis

Hard to automate, and growing

The work resists current AI and the BLS projects +40.1% more of these jobs by 2034. Note that safe does not mean well paid — several of the fastest-growing resistant occupations are among the lowest paid on the register.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~29,500 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

Medical Surgery NurseNurse Practitioner (NP)Adult Nurse PractitionerAdvanced Practice ProviderSurgical Nurse PractitionerCertified Nurse PractitionerAdvanced Practice Nurse (APN)Cardiology Nurse PractitionerOrthopedic Nurse PractitionerDermatology Nurse PractitionerPsychiatric Nurse PractitionerFamily Nurse Practitioner (FNP)Family Health Nurse PractitionerNeurosurgical Nurse PractitionerGerontological Nurse PractitionerLicensed Nurse Practitioner (LNP)Neonatal Nurse Practitioner (NNP)Palliative Care Nurse PractitionerPediatric Nurse Practitioner (PNP)Gastroenterology Nurse PractitionerACNP (Acute Care Nurse Practitioner)Electrophysiology Nurse PractitionerInternal Medicine Nurse PractitionerEmergency Medicine Nurse Practitioner

Score — 80/100 resistance

Holding it up: liability shield (18/20). Weakest point: task resistance (13/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 13 + 16 + 18 + 16 + 17 = 80. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 13/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier A 13 reflects the split day: palpating an abdomen, draining an abscess, inserting an IUD, and reading a patient's affect across the exam table stay off-limits to software, but chart review, ICD-10/CPT selection, refill triage, standing-order protocol visits for strep or UTI, and the entire note-writing load are already being handed to scribes and algorithms — enough of the shift is screen work to keep this out of the 14+ band.

Embodiment 16/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments A 16 is earned in acute and primary care rooms where you do the pelvic exam, the joint injection, the wound closure, the neuro exam, and the code — uncontrolled bodies, uncooperative kids, home visits and SNF rounds — though it stops short of 18-20 because a meaningful and growing share of NP visits are telehealth and e-consult where nobody is touched.

Liability shield 18/20

Licensed human required and personally liable An 18 tracks the fact that your NPI and DEA number go on the prescription, your state licence is what a board can suspend, and in 27-plus full-practice-authority states you are the named defendant rather than a collaborating physician's extension — the two points held back acknowledge that scope-of-practice is statute, and legislatures rewrite statute.

Trust premium 16/20

The human relationship is the product A 16 reflects panel medicine: patients request you by name, disclose the drinking and the domestic violence because of continuity across years, and adherence to the plan depends on whether they believe you — but urgent care, retail clinics, and locum coverage make a real fraction of NP encounters one-off, which caps it below the 18-20 of a solo therapist or midwife.

Judgment & accountability 17/20

Exists to be accountable for ambiguous calls A 17 covers the calls that guidelines don't close: whether this chest pain goes to the ED or home with a stress test next week, whether to start or refuse a controlled substance in a patient with a flagged PDMP, when to override a sepsis alert, and how to work up a vague complaint in someone with six comorbidities — you sign the differential and own the miss, with the shortfall from 20 reflecting how much of primary care runs on USPSTF and specialty algorithms.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works · 3 deployment reports on file

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, licensure, liability, trust

How to future-proof this job

Where to go deeper on what this job runs on: Khan Academy — reading and vocabulary, all levels, free free · Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit · Coursera — critical thinking and logic, audit free free to audit · MIT OpenCourseWare — problem-solving and analytical method courses free · Purdue OWL — the standard reference for professional writing free · Toastmasters — public speaking practice at local clubs worldwide low

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 87/100, still SAFE.

4 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening liability shield +2

    State boards or DEA rules explicitly requiring that any AI-generated prescription, dosage change, or triage disposition be reviewed and signed by a licensed independent practitioner with personal liability — analogous to the pharmacist-countersign model. Also: full practice authority expansion (now in ~27 states plus VA) makes NPs the accountable signer rather than a physician-supervised extender, moving the shield onto the NP's own license.

  • already happening task resistance +2

    Genuine two-tier structure: the clerical tier (notes, prior-auth letters, handouts, coding) is the tier being automated; the residual tier is procedures, exam findings under uncertainty, and dispositions. Panel-size growth per NP raises the judgment density of each remaining hour rather than lowering total task resistance.

  • plausible judgment accountability +2

    If ambient scribes and decision support absorb documentation, coding, and differential generation, the residual day is disposition calls, undifferentiated complaints, and goals-of-care conversations. Watch for malpractice insurers (e.g. NSO/CNA NP policy language) pricing 'AI-assisted' visits with an explicit override-documentation requirement, which formalizes the NP as the accountable decider on every AI recommendation.

  • plausible trust premium +1

    Payer or employer contracts guaranteeing a named human clinician per patient panel — e.g. direct primary care and concierge models that market continuity with a specific NP, and CMS primary-care management codes (99490, G2211) that pay for a continuous clinician relationship rather than an encounter.

The limit. Already 80/100; headroom is small and the main downside risk is the mirror of the upside — scope-of-practice liberalization that lets pharmacists, RNs, or AI-supervised protocols handle the routine prescribing tier would erode the licensure shield rather than reinforce it. Employment risk here is panel-size dilution (fewer NPs hired per population), not task substitution.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 381 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 21,680 $163,340 +23%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 10,060 $161,470 +22%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 7,310 $130,980 -1%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,590 $135,700 +3%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 6,530 $131,740 +0%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 5,990 $147,480 +11%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 5,970 $134,560 +2%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 5,950 $132,500 +0%

Best paid

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1,580 $231,560 +75%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 3,110 $219,080 +66%
Vallejo, CA 180 $182,370 +38%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $132,300. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this

The score above is about what the work exposes. This is reporting about real deployments in this occupation — the difference between "could be automated" and "somebody automated it."

Canada Health Infoway · Rush, McLeod Health, Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System · Northwest Territories Health and Social Services Authority

3 of 3 reported cases, with sources

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.