What’s in a name? In veterinary medicine, more than you might think. As the profession explores a new provider role for providing care, the title “veterinary professional associate” has gained traction. Advocates prefer it over the older term “midlevel practitioner,” citing the nuanced connotations this label carries. From perceived hierarchies to evolving scopes of practice, terminology plays a powerful role in shaping how these clinicians are viewed by colleagues, clients, regulators and more. Let’s take a closer look at the language used to describe non-physician providers in human healthcare—and why players on the veterinary stage are choosing their words carefully.

Midlevel practitioner

Once a go-to phrase in American healthcare, “midlevel practitioner” was meant to describe providers like nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) who practiced at a level between registered nurses and physicians. But in recent years, the term has fallen out of favor. It implies a kind of hierarchy that many clinicians find dismissive—as if they’re not quite good enough to be at the “top,” even though their training and responsibilities often allow for independent or semi-independent care. While still used in older regulations or insurance documentation, many institutions are moving away from this label due to its pejorative undertones.

Advanced practice provider (APP)

“Advanced practice provider” has become the preferred alternative in many U.S. hospitals and health systems. It’s seen as a more modern and inclusive term that refers to licensed professionals with graduate-level training—most often NPs and PAs, but sometimes also CRNAs (nurse anesthetists) and clinical nurse specialists. The appeal of “APP” lies in its neutrality and respectfulness. It emphasizes the provider’s advanced credentials without implying inferiority to physicians, and it acknowledges the role these clinicians play as full-fledged members of the care team. As a result, APP is widely embraced across healthcare organizations.

Advanced practice clinician (APC)

Closely related to APP, “advanced practice clinician” is another label that seeks to recognize the clinical training and capabilities of non-physician providers without diminishing them. You’ll see this term used interchangeably with APP in some hospitals and academic centers. Like APP, it carries a positive or at least neutral tone and avoids defining clinicians by what they aren’t. Its usage is growing, though APP is slightly more prevalent.

Non-physician provider (NPP)

“Non-physician provider” is a term that gets straight to the point—perhaps too directly. While technically accurate, it defines these clinicians by what they aren’t rather than what they are, which can be problematic. Although still used in insurance, billing and regulatory settings, many professionals find it dismissive or reductive. It centers the physician as the norm and everyone else as the “other,” reinforcing outdated hierarchies in modern team-based care.

Associate clinician

More common in international or global health settings, “associate clinician” is a relatively neutral term for care providers who are not doctors but are trained to provide medical services. In parts of Africa, Southeast Asia and the UK, this title is part of formal workforce structures. It doesn’t carry the same baggage as “midlevel,” though it also lacks the more empowering connotations of “advanced practice.” In the U.S., it’s rarely used, but globally, it’s an accepted and practical term for describing trained clinicians in tiered care systems.

Allied health professional

This is a broader umbrella than most others on the list. “Allied health professional” refers to a wide range of non-physician, non-nurse healthcare workers, including physical therapists, respiratory therapists, dietitians and radiologic technologists. While it doesn’t specifically refer to advanced practice clinicians, it often gets used in workforce discussions and interdisciplinary team contexts. It’s a respected and useful term, though not especially helpful when the conversation is focused on providers with prescribing authority or independent diagnostic roles.

Extender (physician extender)

A relic of the past, “physician extender” was once a popular way to describe non-physician clinicians who expanded a doctor’s ability to see more patients. The term has aged poorly. Today, it’s widely considered pejorative and condescending, suggesting that these providers exist merely to extend a physician’s reach rather than having their own clinical judgment, autonomy and patient relationships. It pops up in older military or bureaucratic documents, but it’s largely retired from modern usage.

Advanced practice registered nurse (APRN)

Within the nursing profession, “advanced practice registered nurse” is a widely used and respected classification that encompasses nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, clinical nurse specialists and certified registered nurse anesthetists. This isn’t a catch-all for all midlevel or non-physician providers; it’s nursing-specific and tied directly to licensure and regulatory frameworks. APRNs play a vital and expanding role in U.S. healthcare, and the term carries a strong professional identity. Unlike more general labels, APRN is precise, formal and embraced in the field.

Midlevel health worker

In global health and public health discourse, especially within low- and middle-income countries, “midlevel health worker” is a functional term used to describe healthcare providers with formal training who are not fully licensed physicians. It’s especially useful in describing task-shifting strategies where midlevel workers fill critical care gaps. While the “midlevel” framing carries some of the same connotations as in the U.S., the global usage tends to be more pragmatic than pejorative. It’s about matching training to need in resource-limited settings.

Non-physician clinician

“Non-physician clinician” is a term you’re more likely to encounter in academic papers, especially those focused on health systems research, global health or workforce analysis. It’s neutral and somewhat clinical in tone, describing what the provider is not, but doing so in a descriptive rather than dismissive way. It’s not widely used in day-to-day practice, but it shows up in publications that need a clear, encompassing way to refer to a group of providers delivering clinical care without holding a medical degree.

The language of clinical roles: A quick guide