Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ProSpectre last won the day on October 28 2018

ProSpectre had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

305 Excellent

1 Follower

About ProSpectre

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • Profession
    Physician Assistant Student

Recent Profile Visitors

1,074 profile views
  1. If you want to practice medicine truly independently, go to medical school. If you want to work in the role of an advanced practice provider, either PA school or NP school will get you there. Having said that, I think PA training is more standardized and more rigorous than NP school; it gives you the foundation to practice in any area of medicine, and doesn't restrict you to a particular patient population. PA school provides both inpatient and outpatient training since it requires students to rotate thorough all the core areas of medicine, so you have that foundation regardless of what specialty you choose to work in (and you have the option to switch specialties during your career). For these reasons, some specialties seem to favor PAs, including most of the surgical specialties and the ED. If you are already a practicing RN with a few years of experience then NP school is a reasonable option, but you have to be careful about where you choose to go to school -- there are online "diploma mills" where the training may not be as good. Furthermore, most NP schools require you to set up your own rotations, which can be a major headache at best and can delay graduation or provide poor rotations at worst; all PA schools set up rotations for their students. Independent practice should not be a reason to choose NP -- that's what medical school is for.
  2. There are currently 22 states (plus a couple US territories and DC) that allow independent practice of NPs (source). While PAs are far behind NPs in that regard, let's be realistic here, it's pretty hyperbolic to think that NPs will draft and pass legislation for independent practice in 28 more states in the next 2 years. Yes, the title change is an important issue, and yes, PAs have been complaining about it for well over 2 decades. But the AAPA is finally taking real action to make the change happen, yet people still bitch that it wasn't done yesterday. Change takes time, especially a change as massive as this. Let's try to keep all the doom and gloom within reason. There is definitely much work to be done, but overall I feel pretty confident in the change of tone I've seen in the AAPA and within members of the profession over the last few years. I'm a realist (rather than a true optimist), but I think the future of the profession looks pretty bright.
  3. First things first, don't submit your app to any schools that have a minimum hour requirement until you meet/exceed that requirement. Otherwise you risk getting auto-filtered out and having your app overlooked. Now that that's out of the way, waiting an extra week or two is not going to hurt anything, especially this early in the cycle. Applying early is definitely important, but I would consider anything in April or May to be early. I submitted my app in late June and still had an LOR pending in July, and I got plenty of interviews. Ensure your app is polished and complete before you submit it (including meeting all course prerequisites and PCE hour requirements, as well as a personal statement that has been proofread and critiqued through multiple drafts).
  4. I think a post-graduate residency/fellowship is the best option to show proficiency to future employers. The CAQ seems like a good option, but it isn't made for new grads -- the requirements to sit for it means you have to have at least 3000 hours of EM experience as a PA (plus the CME and procedural requirements). This makes sense though since the CAQ is supposed to be an indicator of proficiency and experience in a given specialty -- it's not designed so that you can simply study and take the test without having the experience to back it up. The certificate program at Nova is something I hadn't heard of before, but I would be pretty skeptical about spending over $10,000 for it unless a residency is absolutely not an option. Would it be cheaper than the income lost by doing a residency? Yep. But will it prepare you for practice as well as a residency? Almost surely not. While the didactic portion is an important part of doing a residency, its definitely not the primary focus -- you could do CME for that part. The real strength of residencies/fellowships is that you are staffing patients with EM docs or EMPAs that can critique your approach to different issues, provide feedback in real time, and provide graduated responsibility as you become more competent. Additionally, you get off-service rotations and procedural skills training (and robust procedure logs) that you won't get from a certificate program or bootcamp. However, the Nova EM certificate may be a decent trade-off if you simply couldn't do a fellowship and got a job in EM as a new grad.
  5. I definitely hear your concerns, and I share many of them too. I was just playing devil's advocate with my post based on the stated intent of the investigation. Most of the current leadership of the AAPA seem to be on board with a title change, so I really don't think there is any malicious intent with this investigation. I would be pretty pissed (as would a large number of PAs) if WPP's recommendation was to simply stick with the current title -- but I really don't think that will happen. I do think the survey was poorly put together (and the distribution was even worse), but I'm holding out hope that WPP knows what they're doing and is simply trying to be thorough with the data gathering stage of their investigation before getting into more specifics about the title change. Only time will tell, but luckily we'll know something by the end of next month.
  6. I think some people on here are misunderstanding the purpose of this survey and the intent of the title change investigation. The AAPA House of Delegates did NOT vote to change the title of the profession -- they simply voted to hire a company to investigate the branding and legal aspects involved in a title change. Per the AAPA Title Change webpage: "The TCI is attempting to address two key questions: 1. Is there a need to evolve the PA brand based on an objective, well-informed, data and analysis-driven view of where it stands today? 2. And if so, how do we redefine how the PA profession is positioned, how its value is conveyed, and how it is titled to meet the requirements of tomorrow’s healthcare landscape?" I, like many of you, would be perfectly happy if we had just put it to a hard vote and decided to change the title; it could have saved a lot of time and money. Ultimately though, I think hiring a professional branding firm to conduct an investigation into the issue was a wise choice, for a couple of reasons. It will allow the AAPA to unequivocally state that their final decision is based on objective data gathered by an unbiased source, which should go a long way in swaying those PAs who are opposed to title change or are still on the fence about it (we need to be united as a profession, and this should help in that regard). Furthermore, having objective data will add weight to future legislation that will be required to actually make the change in each state, and it should also help to quiet opponents from outside the profession since we'll be able to objectively show that the current title doesn't represent what we do. WPP has already stated that they intend to engage other non-PA groups in this investigation, and it's entirely possible they are using the same survey for everyone (which would explain the strange wording of many questions). Options for actual titles to change to would come after the initial results are reported in May (if the company makes the recommendation for a change). Either way, please continue to spread the word about the survey, and take the time to answer it completely and honestly. While many of us here understand that a title change is vital to the continued success of our profession, this investigation should give us objective data to convince others of that as well.
  7. Is that an official term anywhere, or just how Spanish speaking PAs have unofficially translated it? Puerto Rico recently passed legislation to allow PAs to practice there (definitely good news), but unfortunately PAs will become licensed as "medicos asistentes" there. If we're going through the trouble to change the title of our profession, we might as well take both "physician" and "assistant" out of it and choose a title that can be uniquely ours.
  8. I think it's important to do this every time we contact legislators about PA legislation; I think many lawmakers simply don't understand how PAs are trained or how they operate in day-to-day practice. We need to emphasize that we are trained in the medical model, and that we have a robust scientific grounding in undergrad (similar to premedical students) before then studying medicine at the graduate level in an abbreviated model of physician training. Comparing & contrasting PA and NP training is especially important in states where NPs have a more favorable practice environment; we need to explain that we are hired to do the same jobs, have arguably better training (more didactic hours, more clinical hours, a more standardized curriculum across programs, etc), and yet have more red-tape to practice. I completely agree, and I think state organizations should work towards legislative parity with NPs at every turn. It sucks to have to be reactive rather than proactive on these issues, but NPs are so far ahead in many states that we need to at least work towards a practice environment that puts PAs on par with NPs. I see no shame in using NP successes to work towards OTP for PAs.
  9. Credit hours definitely seem subjective, we're in agreement there. However, the hours you listed for those programs are at the low end of the curve for PA programs. The programs in my state are all around 120 credits, and those in the bordering state range from 128-174. Across the country, the 120 range seems to be most common and is likely near the average for all programs. I have yet to see any DNP program that breaks 100, and most I've looked at seem to be in the 70-80 range (for direct BSN-DNP programs); master's level NP programs are often as little as 45 credits. Don't get me wrong -- I don't say all that to create a pissing contest between PAs & NPs, but rather to lend evidence to the idea that PAs (in most cases) already complete the credit hour requirements to be awarded a doctorate according to many regional accreditation organizations.
  10. Dave Mittman is the current president-elect, meaning he will begin his 1-year term as president later this year in July. Jonathan Sobel is the current AAPA President. Both appear to be pro-OTP and pro-title change, so I think we're in good hands for now. But it's still important for PAs to get involved wherever possible -- join the AAPA and state orgs, volunteer time to these organizations, donate to the AAPA PAC, and educate fellow PAs (as well as legislators, physicians, NPs, etc) about the changes that we need to keep moving our profession forward.
  11. We'll actually know the final results from the investigation in a little over a year, about 14 months from now. They're releasing the initial results this coming May, and the second phase results in May of 2020. Considering the length of time PAs have been debating this change, I think another 14 months to do it right is reasonable. But yea, I hope we can get the title change done soon as possible. It isn't the greatest issue facing the PA profession, but it's definitely an important step that will help facilitate the bigger changes like OTP, direct Medicare payment for PAs, etc.
  12. I'm going to remain optimistic. I would be thoroughly pissed if the consulting firm recommended against a title change, but I don't believe that's going to happen (maybe that's just the optimist in me). Hiring an independent organization was probably a smart move on the part of the AAPA though, for a couple of reasons. Assuming that a title change is recommended, it allows all those PAs that are in favor to show that an objective route was taken to get to this decision, which would hopefully eliminate some of the resistance among those in the profession who remain anti-title change. We are an evidence-based profession, after all, so having hard data should go a long way to convincing those against a title change (and those on the fence) that it's an important part of modernizing the profession. Considering that a title-change was voted down in the HOD as recently as 2012, having an independent firm make the recommendation may be just what we need to finally push it through. Furthermore, having data from an independent organization may be helpful in the actual implementation of a title change when legislation is brought before lawmakers, and it should also provide ammunition to fight back against the inevitable backlash from organized medicine. I definitely understand the cynicism from some of the older PAs here, but I really do think the current leadership of the AAPA are doing what they can to push the profession forward, both with OTP and with the title change.
  13. If you watch the video I posted in the recent title change thread, the consulting company outlines their timeline in pretty good detail. The preliminary results of their investigation will be presented at the HOD this May. So far, they have reviewed existing research/trends/publications/regulations, have identified stakeholder groups that are important in this discussion, and have developed a methodology to study how PAs are currently perceived. The results of their research will be used to outline a strategy "for how to improve or enhance the perceptions of the PA profession", and will include whether or not they recommend a title change. This is what will be presented in May 2019. If their research shows that a title change would "position the profession for greater impact and success", then they will develop potential titles for the profession, which would then need to be "validated in the marketplace". The results of this second phase would then be presented as a final report at the HOD in 2020. Obviously, I think many on this thread and in the profession as a whole are hoping that a title change will be recommended (I sure am). From this timeline though, it's pretty clear that nothing is going to be finalized this year.
  14. I posted the link above above, as I imagine a lot of people may have overlooked the email. The email I got was titled "Boosting PA Visibility in 2019" and it wasn't purely about the Title Change Survey; it also had information about other PA advancements like the ad campaign the AAPA and NCCPA are doing this year and legislative updates for 2019 (like the new bill to authorize direct pay to PAs from Medicare).
  15. This is pretty interesting actually, that video is the first I've heard directly from the firm that was hired to conduct the title change investigation. Here is a link for those who don't want to have to dig through their emails: https://www.aapa.org/title-change-investigation-resources/?utm_source=newscentraltopas&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tci Interestingly, you do NOT have to be an AAPA member to get the survey that the firm will be sending out in March about the title change. I encourage every PA on this forum that is interested in moving the profession forward to take a few moments to update your info, or to create a free account if you aren't a member. That way when the surveys are sent out next month, we can have as many voices heard as possible. Let's keep this momentum rolling!
  • 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