Jump to content

Tom Price, Trump's Head of HHS-View of PAs/NPs


Recommended Posts

It seems that his main focus was not allowing full independent practice to NPs within the VA. Its obvious that Dr. Price is against allowing PAs/NPs to have full independent practice. However, he is a prior orthopedic surgeon, and from what I understand Ortho surgeons almost deal exclusively with PAs, maybe that prior experience with PAs will be a good thing? Time will tell. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck.  The moment he restricts our clinical role is the moment thousands of rural communities across the nation lose their only access to medical care.  I can see it now, sticksville, mt forking over 300/hr to staff an emergency physician (who is probably locums), to see 10 pts a week.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author (and the OP) here takes one legitimate action that Dr. Price took (disagreeing with independent practice by NPs at the VA) and extrapolates that to "wants to restrict the role of nonphysician providers."

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE HERE that Dr. Price, Trump, or the GOP wants to restrict our roles.

None.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.

The sky isn't falling, no matter how much liberals cry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First they came for the Nurse Practitioners.

And I didn't speak because I was not a Nurse Practitioner....

You're extrapolating, this time to the nth degree.

 

Nobody is sending the brownshoes to round up the NPs and put them in the Gulag.

 

Instead it was ONE position arguing against the CHANGE in policy giving NPs MORE autonomy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

The author (and the OP) here takes one legitimate action that Dr. Price took (disagreeing with independent practice by NPs at the VA) and extrapolates that to "wants to restrict the role of nonphysician providers."

 

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE HERE that Dr. Price, Trump, or the GOP wants to restrict our roles.

 

None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

 

The sky isn't falling, no matter how much liberals cry about it.

Saying that he wants to restrict our practice is correct. There can be no debate about it. The degree to which he wants to restrict is debatable. He may not want to strip us of the the scope we have now, but I doubt he is in favor of our expanding our scope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that he wants to restrict our practice is correct. There can be no debate about it. The degree to which he wants to restrict is debatable. He may not want to strip us of the the scope we have now, but I doubt he is in favor of our expanding our scope.

Reasonable assumption.  But that does not mean he is going to send us to the Gulag.

 

I disagree that there can "be no debate about it", as I have seen nothing from him regarding PA scope of practice.  He, like myself, may agree with some expansion of scope for PAs while disagreeing with NP autonomy.  

 

Another way to look at it is "the degree with which he may agree to expand our scope is debatable." 

 

Many reasonable people, including myself, have serious concerns about expanding our scope of practice.  We may disagree on this, but we should be able to disagree without resorting to hysterical exaggerations and untruths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Reasonable assumption.  But that does not mean he is going to send us to the Gulag.

I disagree that there can "be no debate about it", as I have seen nothing from him regarding PA scope of practice.  He, like myself, may agree with some expansion of scope for PAs while disagreeing with NP autonomy.  

Another way to look at it is "the degree with which he may agree to expand our scope is debatable." 

Many reasonable people, including myself, have serious concerns about expanding our scope of practice.  We may disagree on this, but we should be able to disagree without resorting to hysterical exaggerations and untruths.

I have seen no evidence that he wants to expand our practice, only that he restricts another provider. With only that evidence to go on, I must assume he is not in favor of any scope expansion. I'll be happy to be proven otherwise.

 

I understand and know well you have misgivings about PA scope expansion. Not trying to debate that because I'm not worried about winning hearts and minds of the opposition on that one anymore. Too much energy drain for me. It's either going to happen or it won't, and it looks like it is.

 

I believe only one person spoke in hyperbole. IDCtoPA seemed to merely be using satire, which I thought was actually pretty funny. I don't see a lot of exaggerated responses, and I've not seen any untruths.

 

I'll admit that he could be for PA expansion if you admit I have no reason to believe that. Fair enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boats,

I never said they were sending NPs to the gulag. I relied on a historical reference to point out why it is important to look at the bigger picture rather than dismiss a concern because it is currently directed at the "other". I understand that it is not a DIRECT correlation. But, the point is relevant. 

 

MDs/DOs control the medical boards which regulate PA scope in pretty much every state. None of them have been very accepting of expanding scope for PAs even in the face of the broad scope that NPs have achieved. 

 

That Dr Price is on record opposing expanded scope for a non-physician provider (NP) is relevant. It currently is the only indication we have of his thoughts on non-physician provider (PA or NP). 

 

To say that we should not look at that and take it into consideration as we evaluate how he as a potential arm of the incoming administration might view PA efforts to expand their scope is really short sighted. 

 

It doesn't mean we should immediately gather the torches and pitchforks, but I think that those who would like to see an expanded scope for PAs are certainly justified is sitting up and taking note.

 

NPs ARE non-physician providers. So there was no hysterical exaggeration or untruth... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasonable assumption, but wouldn't say that it's not open to debate.  We just don't have enough info yet.

I agree with scope expansion, just not full autonomy, especially right out of school.  

The author of the article extrapolated a negative, creating the idea that Dr. Price is for restricting our practice.  Then the OP highlighted that idea, then IDC satirically took it to the extreme.  

The hyperbole in American politics today is dividing us to the point that we forget we have so much in common.

Yes, fair enough my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That Dr Price is on record opposing expanded scope for a non-physician provider (NP) is relevant. It currently is the only indication we have of his thoughts on non-physician provider (PA or NP). 

 

To say that we should not look at that and take it into consideration as we evaluate how he as a potential arm of the incoming administration might view PA efforts to expand their scope is really short sighted. 

 

It doesn't mean we should immediately gather the torches and pitchforks, but I think that those who would like to see an expanded scope for PAs are certainly justified is sitting up and taking note.

 

NPs ARE non-physician providers. So there was no hysterical exaggeration or untruth... 

Agree, it certainly should be something we pay attention to. 

 

But I do think you and others are exaggerating the concern.  He has said nothing about RESTRICTING (a verb that means reducing from present levels) our scope or NP scope.  Instead, all he has said is that he is against INCREASING NP scope.  Lack of an increase does NOT mean a restriction (unless you're in Congress).

 

The untruth comes from the article's author, and highlighted by JMJ.   I see nothing anywhere that indicates Dr. Price wants to "restrict" our scope from current levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without starting a fight (and calling me liberal is not an insult, thank you) - I think a lot of us have trepidation about the incoming administration and how things will go.

 

I think we should all be looking ahead and paying attention to who is being brought in, their historical support and choices and how it could affect our profession.

 

There is a sense of insecurity and well deserved in my opinion.

 

AAPA SHOULD be looking at this and figuring out who our supporters are and how to get them in touch with the powers that be and continue to fly our professional flag proudly and keep our foot in the door.

 

If we aren't paying attention then we are remiss and uninterested and that could jeopardize our livelihood.

 

We should all speak our minds to the powers that be and make it clear when an undesirable choice or decision is made. 

 

I am not encouraged by the situation and worried about the fallout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Restriction is to limit or constrain. As in not allow to expand or increase. Restriction is the appropriate word. If he opposed expansion of NP scope. then he favored -RESTRICTING- NPs to their current scope. 

 

He may very well not favor REDUCING the scope of NPs or PA below what is currently permitted. Who knows.. But, like I said before, the PA profession should not assume that an MD/DO opposed to expanded scope for one non-physician provider will look favorably on expanded scope for another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I think a lot of us have trepidation about the incoming administration and how things will go.

 

It is not in anyone's interest to have a single party control the presidency too long. Given the unbearable idiocy of our two main parties, alternating between their polar opposites will keep us closest to an "average" path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without starting a fight (and calling me liberal is not an insult, thank you) - I think a lot of us have trepidation about the incoming administration and how things will go.....

Wasn't trying to insult you at all.  Being a liberal isn't a bad thing, but neither is being a conservative, or libertarian.   Being a LEFTIST however, like many of our Democrat politicians, is indeed a very bad thing.

 

Many of us libertarians/conservatives also have trepidation about Trump, after all, he was a Democrat until relatively recently!  lol

 

If they do start sending them please let me know. I want to help them load up the trains.

 

I want to know, and if you were to do that (and I know you wouldn't), you would be in my crosshairs my friend.  But of course, you wouldn't help them load the trains.

 

Restriction is to limit or constrain. As in not allow to expand or increase. Restriction is the appropriate word. If he opposed expansion of NP scope. then he favored -RESTRICTING- NPs to their current scope. 

 

He may very well not favor REDUCING the scope of NPs or PA below what is currently permitted. Who knows.. But, like I said before, the PA profession should not assume that an MD/DO opposed to expanded scope for one non-physician provider will look favorably on expanded scope for another. 

Restriction prevents FLOW, not GROWTH.  I have seen nothing from him showing he wants to REDUCE our scope in any way.

 

No assumptions should be made, one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very hard to to predict the future, just look at the last election.

 

Don't judge my politics on this..

 

A life long democrat

 

But, he was a department chair at Emory where he worked with a strong pa program and also an aa program. At Grady he likely interacted with pa's every day as well as aa's in anesthesia. Grady is a strong pa hospital. As they say with stocks, this is no guarantee of future performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very hard to to predict the future, just look at the last election.

 

Don't judge my politics on this..

 

A life long democrat

 

But, he was a department chair at Emory where he worked with a strong pa program and also an aa program. At Grady he likely interacted with pa's every day as well as aa's in anesthesia. Grady is a strong pa hospital. As they say with stocks, this is no guarantee of future performance.

That is encouraging for us at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The GOP Doctors Caucus has aligned itself with organized medicine in restricting the role of nonphysician clinicians, viewed by many as the answer to a physician shortage. Dr Price signed a caucus letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs in opposition to a Veterans Health Administration plan to let its advanced-practice registered nurses work independently, without physician supervision. The GOP Doctors Caucus wrote that the Veterans Health Administration proposal "is a misguided injustice to our nation's veterans," noting that fewer than half of the states allow full scope of practice for advanced-practice registered nurses."

 

I am not sure what the issue is all about. I worked for two years in a VA clinic which they call a CBOC. I managed a panel of 1000 patients; nearly all of them over 65 years of age and most very sick people. There were no doctors in the clinic for the entire period. The nearest VA doctor was three hours drive away. During the two year period, I saw the SP twice. Once for ten minutes when I started. Once again for ten minutes a year later at review time. He never called me on the phone; never visited; never asked for cosigning of notes. I agree that there are more issues to supervision than I have described but I doubt Dr Price has any idea what goes on at the VA every day with PAs who work there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More