Jump to content

Rondaben

Members
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

About Rondaben

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile

  • Profession
    Physician Assistant

Recent Profile Visitors

900 profile views
  1. Thank you for setting up the FB page! I hadn't had an opportunity to do it. I'm likewise a student at HSu and am part of the first cohort that will be graduating in a few weeks. Good luck to all on the start of your journey!
  2. Congrats to all who have been accepted! It is a hard road, but worth it!
  3. Good luck to all this cycle! Waiting is the hardest, but it is worth it!
  4. Im 48 and 6 months from graduation. BEST DECISION OF MY LIFE.
  5. Sorry Hope2PA, just got online. Darby's original bill text did only include NPs. PAs were included in the committee substitute version of the bill that is not available until it is voted out of committee. The bill under consideration in the committee includes both NP and PAs. I should have included that. Apologies.
  6. 193.5 was a proposed regulation. The problematic parts of the proposal are in bold. Essentially they made it impossible to delegate the reading, interpretation and rendering of diagnosis something that could NOT be delegated--thereby taking away PAs ability to use those tests in practice. Darby's HB 2907 essentially reiterates the EXISTING language allowing us to do those things. Because it would be passed as a law, it would prevent the TMB from putting forth a regulation that contradicted it. This would protect the current ability of PAs to use radiological procedures as we do cur
  7. A little background on HB2907. At the end of Jan/First of March the TMB put forth a proposed rule that would prevent PAs from reading, interpreting, or making a diagnosis on the basis of radiological studies. Effectively you could order the study but had to wait on a physician to provide a read before you could legally act on the study. Rediculous, yes. There was no clear determination of who was behind the rule proposal and the TMB essentially shelved it due to pushback. Rep Darby was informed of this and submitted HB2907. TAPA was NOT involved with this particular piece of l
  8. Thank you EMEDPA, I appreciate the response! You make great points and you obviously have a lot more experience than I do. There is definitely a problem, I agree completely with you and Cideous on that, but I think that I was putting the emphasis for that on a lower priority. Yes, language and titles matter, there is no denying that. I am still learning much about the practicalities of all of this, that I admit to as well. One thing I perceive--perhaps wrongly--is that there isn't a cohesive goal at the end of the day. If we look at NPs for example I would venture to say that the ove
  9. TAPA is in contact with the parties. They are in contact with the politicians as well about legislative efforts, but without resources lobbying against parties like the TMA and NP is not going to be terribly effective. The legislative efforts are easily accessible on their website. Why is the name important at all? It is the same name that it was 50 years ago before you decided to become a PA. No matter what name you call yourself it doesn't define who you are. Just the process of doing a name change and then amending the legislative language is a huge lift--even moreso in Texas where
  10. Here is the problem, without mincing words. Texas PAs, to a large extent, are not involved in the future of their profession. They do not join organizations nor do they support the actions of TAPA or AAPA to lobby for efforts in Texas. The funds spent on lobbying by PAs and PA advocacy groups is a pittance compared to the NP lobby and TMA. Nurse practitioners rode in on Texas PA coattails. They are more active and, with the hope of political SuperPACS, have millions of dollars at their disposal--evident by their success for independent practice nationwide. They are not interested in
  11. Another thing is that the attempt in this rule is to reclassify job tasks that have historically been within the purview of our scope as now requiring "independent medical desicionmaking". If this were to occur in a state that had legislatively granted independent practice to NPs it would only affect PAs. Makes you think.
  12. This was a proposal that was announced on Jan 25th. The proposed language was not passed through the Texas PA Board or the Nursing Board. It was essentially out of the blue. The language clearly contradicts that of the PA practice legislation in the Occupations Code 204.202. In essence, the rule would prevent PAs and NPs from interpreting radiology studies or making a diagnosis based on radiological studies. Right now the best way to fight this is to inform physicians and PAs of the effects this rule would have on our profession and on public health.
  13. I'm wrapping up didactic as we speak. I have 15 year old twins so they are not as young but are getting into the SUPER busy high school years. It really is a personal decision and one that should be came to with your spouse/children whenever possible. EVERYONE needs to be on board with the PA school demands or you are asking for troubles and setting yourself up for disappointing results in school AND family life. You won't regret taking the time off to be with your child. I understand not wanting to do daycare. My wife and I were the same so we made it work. If family is a primary moti
  14. I also only applied to one. As MT2PA said, make sure you like it. I was lucky in that I cannot imagine a better fit for me AND it was convenient. Kind of like winning the lottery!
×
×
  • 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