Jump to content

NeoTrion

Members
  • Content Count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About NeoTrion

  • Rank
    Registered

Profile

  • Profession
    Physician Assistant

Recent Profile Visitors

502 profile views
  1. Sounds like splash damage and you were hit by it. I would think more could be said, but perhaps they used the old "you can resign or we can fire you" bit. If you find out more it would be interesting to share. It would help others in the future that come against the same situation.
  2. We had the same problem at a hospital here in Texas. We had to get our state chapter involved and claim the restriction of trade. They were making this decision based on a nursing position statement that the Board of Nursing posted on the website. The admin, that was made up of all nurses with the exception of the legal counsel and the CMO, stated: "we have to protect our nurses." Our state chapter reached out to the medical board and basically pointed out that the nurses are deciding who can practice medicine in our state. That caused a meeting between the medical board and the nursing board, and hence that position statement was heavily edited. The nursing board now recognizes PAs. We then went back to the hospital admin that then tried to blame it on corporate. When the state chapter lawyers contacted corporate they had no idea what that hospital was talking about. Eventually, we were given parity with the NPs at that hospital. The nursing admin was not happy about that, and neither was the head of the medical privilege office which was run by an RN. The key was the help we got from our state chapter. I will say this little hospital in Texas was educated and credentialing from Baylor and MD Anderson considering PAs and NPs was shown to them on paper. I had the CMO and CNO say "that is them and this is our hospital." They did make it sound like their hospital was better than either Baylor or MD Anderson. Basically, they did not want to be educated The only thing they responded to was a legal counsel to legal counsel discussion. It is the main reason why I choose to get involved in the state chapter. The difference was that I was already on medical staff there and not trying to get a job. This may be worth going to your state chapter or asking why you need a co-signer. In our state, we have no OTP but NPs are not independent. Neither requires a co-signature unless admitting or discharging. I should add that the NPs in the hospital were not opposed to us and even the RNs were happy to take orders from us. The RNs in our department also signed a petition. Our obstacle was the RNs in administration.
  3. NeoTrion

    HB2250 and HB4066

    So TAPA has had two bills come out of committee so far. HB 2250 schedule II and HB4066 are up for consideration on the house calendar committee but has not been scheduled to be heard. Time is starting to run short. So Texas PAs help is needed to put pressure on the calendar committee. Members are posted below. If you live in their areas it would be good to send a letter and put some pressure on them. Time is growing short to get these bills on the calendar. Rep. Four Price Vice Chair: Rep. Joe Moody Members: Rep. Joe Deshotel Rep. John Frullo Rep. Craig Goldman Rep. Oscar Longoria Rep. Will Metcalf Rep. Tom Oliverson Rep. Eddie Rodriguez Rep. Toni Rose Rep. John Wray
  4. I know this has been a topic with some members here, but I just received an email from TAPA looking for applications for committee members and committee chairs. I know some people have not made it in before, but you can't win if you don't play. I am on two committees but will be giving up a place in one, but I am trying to hang on to my place in another. It may not happen, but I would like someone from this forum to get my seat if it does. I would like to work with some of my respected peers from this forum as well. We have a large amount of experience on this forum to draw from, and our efforts with getting different schools of thought were successful with the AAPA.
  5. Can't make it in May, but I am definitely interested in meeting everyone in person at another event.
  6. I am in Texas. This is actually a hot topic for us, and many of us want to see some headway made.
  7. Asking mainly because I am working on my doctorate, working, and on two different committees in TAPA. I have been a member of PAFT since I was a student and wanted to see if I could take more of a leadership role. My employer is not the best with taking time off and is stingy with CME money. The meetings with TAPA have all been on my dime, so there is the financial aspect as well. I do that because I can contribute in areas that I do well in, and I was challenged to "put up or shut up" by former mentors. I am trying to see if I can fit something else in rather than commit and then reconsidering. I have respected many of the officers in PAFT and really want to work with them in person. I may need to wait until after I finish my classes. Not personally looking for a resume punch/notch, but I do want to be more involved. Thanks for the info SAS.
  8. Any chance you might consider sending your latest draft to me? I am working on something similar in my state and we are looking for some language to guide us and get the ball rolling.
  9. What kind of time commitment are we looking at here?
  10. CAdams, I just discussed this on a post with our legislative committee. This person kept saying we need our physician "partners" to gain traction with our agenda. I did state that's why this is important it is also important that there is mutual respect between the two parties to be "partners." If there were respect I think they would allow an independent PA board, but they keep thumbing their nose at our board in different ways.
  11. SAS I am on the committee and can attest we didn't have anyone drop out like they usually do. You can always attend the meetings as a TAPA member. I think I am looked at the same as you are, and I have been on the committee for 3 years now. There are usually openings on the off years. The on years that we push legislation always have many that want to serve. Either way I would look forward to working with you in the future. Any idea when the voting results will be announced for office?
  12. Cideous might be time to put up. You cant complain if you don't participate. Consider running for office or getting involved. There are more people in TAPA that would embrace change than you think. But remember majority rules.
  13. TAPA has put these bill forward for consideration. HB 2250 (Lucio III)- Schedule II bill (Senate companion- SB 1308 by Buckingham)HB 3970 (Sheffield)- Mental Health recognitionHB 3128 (Price)- Concussion forms (Senate companion is forthcoming from Perry)HB 4066 (Beckley)- PA Practice ManagementHB 2907 (Darby)- Delegation of radiology interpretation and diagnosis (PAs will be included in committee substitute) TAPA is also supporting SB919 and companion bill HB1592. Feel free to take a look at these bills on the Texas web site. I know SAS has run for office, but it is easy to complain about things when your not part of the solution. Run for office or ask for placement on a committee and make your voice heard. I think why there isn't much support for HB80 is because a large amount of PAs do not want to support what they see as degree creep. We have our share just on this board.
  14. When this issue has not been tabled by the TMB. The can was merely kicked down the road, at least this was the latest information on the legislation committee. TAPA sent the call to action for Texas PAs and SPs to email, snail male, etc... the TMB concerning this rule change. Believe it or not Scott Freshour (TMB cousel) admitted on a government relations call that "it was poorly written rule targeting independent clinic practices with no physician or radiologist over read at any point, but was not intended to change normal workflow in hospital or clinic practices." I have heard in the back channels that he and the president of TMA were responsible for writing this "poorly written rule," but honestly that is just back channel communication. He went on to say he had been overwhelmed with negative responses. So now they are actually willing to talk and have a stakeholder meeting to try and develop consensus before moving forward. This matches with what some of us that are connected to back channel in the TMB are hearing. We had requested a stale holders meeting before the wave of opposition hit, and at that time they weren't responsive. Now they want to talk about this and have been open to a stake holders meeting. Some members that should be invited to the stakeholders meeting have yet to be invited, and were politely told there is not plans to invite them. They were told they could attend as a member of the general public. Next meeting with TMB is March 1st, but I doubt they can get a re-write done and approved by that time. It will probably end up being in the summer. This update was sent out to members over email. TMB is still concerned that this radiology interpretation is not something that can be delegated to us by a physician. As I see this it is just to let the fire cool down a bit, and hope we get distracted by other pursuits on the legislative agenda. I am still encouraging members and non members alike to at least still send their opposition points to the TMB to keep the pressure on. We are also asking Texas PAs to send a copy of what they send to TAPA. We all know government has a habit of misrepresenting the numbers, and this serves as a possible point of contention for TAPA to challenge the number of dissenting emails TMB received. I have heard that TMB will take this up anytime between March - July. Mind you TAPA proposed a rule change for this (rule 185) before the TMB and TMA proposed their restrictive rule (193). TAPA's states this is decided at the clinic site with the SP. Ours was approved and recommended by the PA board and sent to TMB for review. At that point that is when TMA countered with their rule. We pushed our rule through the proper channels due to hearing rumors that TMA was going to introduce restrictive legislation on this. It is also hasn't helped that the push for straight independence by Texas Nurse Practitioners has finally awaken TMA and TMB. They have sent out multiple position statements basically calling out NPs. In this link we are not mentioned at all, but they are definitely going after Texas Nurse Practitioners. https://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=49527. It looks like TMA finally said enough is enough. We are essentially getting hit by the splash damage used to go after them, even though we are not named in the above article. I have also been told that Texas Nurse Practitioners have also tried to go for a Nurse Practitioner Compact like the RNs have. It is looked upon as a backdoor method for independence. If an NP is independent and licensed in a state within the compact, then they want to be able to work in Texas, but be governed by the restrictions in the state were they are actually licensed. This would effectively give them backdoor independence in Texas, even though they have gone for independence in Texas for multiple years. There bill has never made it out of committee. I don't know how true that it is, but I have heard some of the doctors talk about and are concerned. This could be simply fear mongering. At any rate the American Academy of Emergency Medicine has also voiced their opposition to PA's in medicine in the following link. https://www.aaem.org/current-news/aaem-takes-a-stand-on-the-use-of-apps-in-ed . There was a PA that was invited to speak at the Texas College of Emergency Physicians conference this year. His invitation was withdrawn after the AAEM published their opinion. The topic was "of PA utilization in the emergency department. They stated they wanted a "Physician Perspective." SAS if you haven't seen Eva's response to TMB, I think you would be proud of how it was written. As a member of both PAFT and TAPA I was happy to see the language. Has PAFT sent anything to TMB concerning this rule? As a member of PAFT I would like to know if they are planning anything on their end to support TAPAs efforts or if they plan to attend the TMB meeting as well.
  15. SAS it is good to see that you decided to take the bull by the horns and give some new leadership to our state org. I would like to echo to every Texas PA on this board to send in your opinion ASAP. Legislatively TAPA is working on this, but we need stated opinions behind us. Some feel that this may have been a swipe at OTP or NP OTP in the future.
×
×
  • 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