PAFT sent an open letter to the Exec Dir of CA ACEP at the request of members.
Want to make a change? We do!
Dr. Frank Crosby, DHSc, PA-C, President
Katie Dore, MHS, PAC-Vice President
Todd Kielman, MPAS, PA-C President Elect
Dr. Eric Holden, DHSc, PA-C, Past President
Kris Pyles-Sweet, MS, PA-C, Treasurer
Nichole Bateman, MPAS, PA-C, Secretary
Dr. Scott Stegall, PhD, PA-C, Director
Tessa Roulston, MS, MPAM, PA-C, Director
Nina Ong, PA-S, Student Director
Sara Young, PA-S, Student Director
April 9, 2019
Elena Lopez-Guzman, Executive Director California ACEP
Subject: An open letter to California ACEP
PAs for Tomorrow (PAFT) believes in action, terminology, and legislation removing barriers to efficient PA practice, allowing us to work closely with medical teams more effectively. We support California SB 697 and believe that California ACEP would support it if you had a full understanding of what Optimal TEAM practice truly is. On behalf of PAFT’s California-based members, we take umbrage at California ACEP providing misinformation to emergency physicians across the state. We respectfully request that California ACEP support this bill as written, and provide accurate OTP information to the emergency physicians of your state, not simply scare tactics without evidence-based information. There is a significant difference between legislatively-mandated supervision and collaboration requirements set at the medical organization level. In fact, legislatively-mandated supervision takes away from medical director’s and department head’s ability to manage an emergency department, clinic, private practice, urgent care center, or hospital in the manner the medical staff deems best for that practice.
It is clear that California ACEP leadership does not understand that removal of legislatively mandated supervision is NOT a call for PA independence. Consider it to be a call for team-based patient care with the degree of medical team member oversight determined at the practice level. Should the State of California tell emergency medicine physicians just how many PAs they are allowed to supervise, or should that determination be made by the physicians at the practice level? Should the State of California tell medical directors how to manage and supervise any member of the health care team, or should medical directors determine that? Removing legislatively-mandatedsupervisory requirements does not change the CLINICAL WORKING-RELATIONSHIP in any clinic setting. PAs still practice as they do now, they still collaborate with other members of the medical team, and they make medical decisions and dispositions in accordance with clinic/hospital policy and accepted standard of care. The difference is that there is less liability directed toward the “supervising” physician.
Did you know that there are 32 military bases in the State of California? Did you know that military PAs do not have regulations (legislative requirements) for mandated supervision? They may collaborate on an as needed basis with physicians (including specialists) and other team members. They, just as with civilian PAs, are required to meet the same standard of care as physicians. Should a PA’s failure to meet that standard of care be held against a legislatively mandated supervisor, who may never have seen the patient or the chart?
Your letter to physicians across the state indirectly implies that physicians do not require supervision. Does that hold true for interns as well? Residents? The reality is that interns and residents are part of the medical care team. They require supervision, but not legislatively-mandated supervision.
PAs for Tomorrow (PAFT) is a professional group of PAs committed to the idea that the PA profession must present itself accurately, as autonomous professionals, to survive and prosper in the future medical care marketplace.
Dr Frank Crosby, DrHSc, PA-C
President, PAs for Tomorrow pasfortomorrow.org firstname.lastname@example.org