It's quite a lot more than a year - in primary care, it's more like four additional years of training for physicians, and 15000 supervised clinical hours for physicians (vs 500 to 1500 hours for NPs). The gap can be wider in other physician specialties, because many have longer residencies than the primary care programs. For example, child psychiatry training is four to five years (depending on the route you take), making it longer than the three years of family practice residency.

Here's a chart looking at training for MDs vs NPs in primary care. It is from a physician organization. https://www.tafp.org/media/advocacy/scope-education.pdf

I have a family member who is an NP and her biggest complaint is 20 years ago, most NPs were RN who had 5+ years of RN experience then returned to school vs current Undergrad -> NP -> licensed cutting out that practical experience. You think NP would be better if licensing required certain amount of RN clinical time?

I have heard the same concern about undermining trust from some NPs who completed their training before this more expedited route was available.

So then after 10 years on the job there would hardly be a difference in other words.

I would argue that supervised training with regular feedback on performance is different than job experience, but certainly both are relevant.