Jump to content

Noreaster

Members
  • Posts

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Noreaster

  1. OTP is a hot topic no doubt. When I look at the big picture, I believe it is absolutely needed. In increasing pockets over the nation, practices and hospitals / institutions / companies, are moving to, or moved to, hiring NPs exclusively over PAs. I've been seeing job ads where the ad actually states NPs only. There's different factors with this evolution. Some physicians in some institutions have begun to ask for extra $ to "supervise" PA(s). It's cheaper for an institution to have NP vs PA. NPs have marketed, lobbied, and gotten on certain administration boards and convinced administration why NPs are "better." I've actually seen this where I work. This one NP where I work had said untrue things about PA licensure, abilities, and laws and, guess what, surprise, the board of directors and administration took what the NP said at face value and totally believed her. I had to refute this with state law quotes and educate people. This is not a post about "us vs them" ...not at all. This is about us being pro-active, to evolve to be more marketable, on even par cost to credential and have on staff as NPs, and be unlinked from the subjective and confusing word "supervising" from our profession. The population is growing faster than doctors can meet the need of and PAs are a highly viable help to this need. If I have this correct, there are now 20 states that have removed the supervising part of the laws, and this is in line with OTP. I've actually talked with PAs, who don't even know what OTP is, who don't know about this evolution of NPs gaining on us, and increasing pockets of NPs being hired exclusively over PAs or the reasons as to why. I respectfully implore PAs to read up on OTP and what it's about and to get involved with state laws and help us evolve in a desirable and prosperous way. !:)
  2. Very bad news to find out attempts with the New Hampshire Board of Medicine to change laws, such as removing the supervisory physician, was backed off by the NHSPA. This is not in the best interest of our profession, at all, and is very bad news for PAs in NH. Increasingly, NPs are getting hired over PAs and some institutions/places have moved to hire NPs ONLY and no longer will hire PAs. This is a reality we face and we really do need to push the envelope to be able to evolve. Very bad news indeed. I strongly urge and encourage, even implore PAs to get involved in our profession's evolution. OTP is needed and state laws are a part of this process. If not familiarized with how and why NPs are hired over PAs, increasingly so, please learn about it and also OTP and how we can actually do something. If I have this correct, I believe 20 other states have successfully changed these state laws. NH USED to be among the top few states for PAs to practice in and we have fallen behind. We need to stand up for our profession, even in the face of opposition.
  3. This is what I'm talking about. There's numerous reasons NPs are increasingly getting jobs over us... cheaper to insure, no needed supervising physician, some SPs are demanding $$ to be in the role. I think the answer is OTP and moving away from the link/need of an SP. We could have all the credentials in the world and training and pass numerous tests but, at the end of the day, the NPs win with these increasing reasons.
  4. Are those jobs for ER? Solo jobs? I feel, in the long run, CAQ will hurt us and partly because of NPs.. they are one and done and literally are on the rise over us in growing pockets/areas/hospital campuses. We need OTP to make things even playing field with NPs, get rid of all states (and institutions and insurances) requiring to maintain the "C" after initial board pass, and simplify things vs make things more difficult/more hoops to jump through and face the potential backlash of insurances and institutions requiring it only making reimbursement more difficult...ALL of which makes it easier for NPs and more attractive to hire. People who are in administration don't even really know the difference but often think, "hey, if there's a credential then it must be good so, let's add it to the list" and, once a rule is in place because someone thought it was a good idea it's hard to get rid of. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
  5. Interesting... It really holds no weight in my area at all in Orthopedics that I'm aware of. In fact in my practice we did have a PA who was CAQ, and that PA did not have any extra privileges whatsoever, not higher salary, and, in fact, was not considered in any higher esteem, whatsoever, and was actually, and ironically, less trusted by the docs. Absolutely no offense in the slightest but I'm not glad to learn CAQ does anyone any good. Overall I do not think it's a good thing to add to the already muddied waters of our profession. It is not hard to envision insurance companies getting on board and not allowing reimbursement unless a person is CAQ. It is also more testing and, consequently, more money in the pockets of the organization that has generated this for their own gains, and also an organization that I also have come to distrust. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
  6. I'm speaking about the PA profession, not about ortho. However, just because this problem might not be currently as prevalent in ortho, doesn't mean it isn't a real problem. If ortho doesn't eventually see this trend of NPs becoming more prevalent in ortho over PAs, (like many pockets of general medicine and hospitalists are now seeing), means an increase in PA job saturation in those areas/ortho, which will drive down salaries and increase job competitiveness.
  7. 3 years isn't too bad. I think it's something the NCCPA wants to market and make money on. I see no benefit of having it, with rare exception of it truly being recognized, and almost unheard of that PAs get higher salary for having it. If anything, I think it is chasing the complete wrong direction. We are in a reality of NPs getting jobs over PAs and when PAs leave positions, NPs are hired in their place in increasing pockets. Institutions are finding out NPs are cheaper to insure and some docs are starting to ask for more money if they're to be a PA's supervising doc making it even more costly. Our energies need to be on breaking being tethered by supervising physician and OTP is part of this.... not to be cavalier but to be more competitive with NPs. This is real stuff. Our jobs are literally becoming impacted and even beginning to be threatened. It's real. CAQ will only muddy the waters with our profession and if insurance companies ever latch on to us needing CAQ, that will be a significant hardship the profession and make it even more easy for NPs over us and compound this problem. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
  8. CAQ is a complete waste of time and money. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
  9. NH used to be one of the best states to practice in for PAs. It still isn't bad, in terms of prescribing and, for the most part laws. However, NH has been becoming pretty complacent and that is a bad thing. This is a time of change and we are facing a NEED for change, like OTP and striving to evolve, however, some in state boards are resisting/not supporting this needed change. So, to answer your question, it's a mixed bag of some good current laws, thanks for the older PAs, who fought hard battles to gain good laws but, sadly, this tenor has lessoned and, unless more like the earlier PAs in NH get into seats of boards, which can help evolve us, we will continue to settle and, thus, NPs will thrive and continue to evolve and this will be a negative impact on job placement and more for us.
  10. Thanks. I was hoping to find out if Colorado is PA friendly, in terms of working.. like PAs being respected, and the state laws being able to prescribe, and work autonomously, and those sorts of things. I see the AAPA salary stats for wages so, I'm not really asking that here. It seems PAs in CO aren't too active on this site at all but I really was hoping to find out these basics.
  11. There's an old post on here with this subject but years old and sort of seems CO wasn't too PA-friendly. Have things changed over the past several years?? I had an interview in CO trying to gain a sense of it. thanks!
  12. Thanks for the reply. Does Colorado Springs have an ortho department? thanks!
  13. Hey guys. I'm entertaining a job offer in CO for ortho. I have getting on like 15 years of experience. I think the offer I got was just ok ish... Can you guys offer any insights for salary ranges for experienced ortho PAs there in CO? please? They said I'd be in the 75th percentile with MGMA but that's ALSO lumping in ortho PAs with like 1 year experience... Like 4 months since I wrote this post.. not even one reply...
  14. hey guys. I'm entertaining a job offer in CO for ortho. I have getting on like 15 years of experience. I think the offer I got was just ok ish... Can you guys offer any insights for salary ranges for experienced ortho PAs there in CO? please? The said I'd be in the 75th percentile with MGMA but that's also lumping in ortho PAs with like 1 year experience...
  15. This is a rough start. I'd always advise new grads to go over things with diligence and even a fine toothed comb when starting. This half salary to start is awful and insulting. If you didn't have a new apartment, I'd say, get out of that job NOW. However, since you do, perhaps you should actively look for a position now. ...or discuss openly what you expect... meaning your salary etc.. I absolutely would, if I were there. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
  16. Hey Colorado PAs.. just noticing there's not much in the way of posts/threads for this state on this site. I am actually interviewing in CO next week. Are PAs not too active in CO? There's a lot of posts with no replies on here.. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
  17. It's been a few years since this thread was started. Have things changed? I actually have an interview I'm CO. I'm currently in a pretty PA friendly state, as far as laws go so would like to not down-step too much. Can PAs write prescriptions without limits or needing co-signing on scripts? By the way...this NP edge over PAs isn't Colorado-specific; it's really a trend nation wide from what I can see. So, are laws decent in CO for PAs? Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
  18. I do like the fact that they're doing something to evolve things and it's cool to be able to have options. I do not like, however, that this pilot test is still a high stakes test. What I'm honestly confused about is: the NCCPA is saying "no preparation needed" and the NCCPA told me that this is testing "walk around knowledge" and no prep needed. Sooo.... like 75% or over of us are in specialties and we're going to be tested without prep??? and expected to have a "walk around knowledge" of general medicine?? This just does not make a lot of sense to me. If I were to put on my critical thinking hat, knowing that if fail the pilot, one can take the PANRE, well, if the pilot costs the same of the PANRE and there is so much less overhead costs for the pilot, (no test center charges, etc), then well, the NCCPA is making a lot of money when the specialty PAs fail the pilot b/c they didn't prep and were tested on the fly. I really just don't get certain aspects of this. My main concern is that I advocate for doing away with high stakes re-cert testing. The pilot, so far, does not fulfill that...thus far.
  19. I wish the AAPA didn't back out from this. I know it takes money, which the AAPA has more than I think people realize. However, I do think that after the up-front cost, the new MOC would become a money maker--paying back and then a revenue producer. I do not feel that developing a new MOC and OTP are mutually exclusive at all, as some seem to suggest. We need change and I have no trust in the NCCPA, at all at this point and feel the change could have been a strong change in coming up with a new MOC, (not an original certifying system but, rather, MOC). This change would have been a awesome way to break some of the choke-hold of the harmful NCCPA. I'm highly disappointed.
  20. Hey ortho PAs: I wanted to see if could poll you guys to see what you'd feel would be a market-competitive compensation for weekend call. We've being offered to do extra for a flat weekend rate. Any suggestions/ideas/input would be highly appreciated !
  21. Thank you very much. I hope that is true and I hope the bill gets signed !!! I'm very much ok with states needing initial PANCE but against license being linked to MOC/PANRE entirely! I think we're down to only 18 states requiring re-cert testing/maintaining the C and hoping the number continues to go down.
  22. ok, thanks very much. So, the part of not having to maintain certification, (even though passed PANCE) is still on the bill?
  23. Wow.. Ok, so, I'm a little confused. The Governor agreed to entertain the new bill? I don't get why he wouldn't just reverse the veto...I'd think that'd be easier? What clarifications with licensure linked to certification?
  24. It looks as though the WV Governor is re-considering the bill, which is really great news. Major props to ALL the PAs, who worked hard--not only on all the years of work to even get the bill approved (before veto) but also for doubling back and re-working it to get the WV Governor to re-consider. Hoping it will be a go! I'm assuming the Governor would reconsider all on the bill, with the exception of what the NCCPA swayed him with, for re-cert linkage to state license.
×
×
  • 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