Jump to content

spflynn4

Members
  • Content Count

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About spflynn4

  • Rank
    Registered

Profile

  • Profession
    Physician Assistant

Recent Profile Visitors

479 profile views
  1. I think that there's an important point made by EDEdPA as well- membership in state and national societies is awful among PAs. It's inexcusable for us to sit back and bemoan our societies if we refuse to participate in them, and NPs generally benefit from a nursing lobby with deep pockets. The AAPA, our state societies, and subspecialty societies are fighting on our behalf and we need to participate and fund them as a profession. Additionally, I believe that most student memberships for state societies are either free or low cost- why not lean on PA programs to require student membership in their state society? I'm a part of the Endocrine PA society, and we see a good conversion rate from free student memberships to paid fellow memberships. I think that this is a good way to expose students to the realities of the political side of our jobs and hopefully groom some future leaders.
  2. The bill passed assembly today without any no votes!
  3. it passed through the Appropriations committee on 8/30, and was re-amended on the Assembly floor yesterday. It's set for a re-reading and I think it's supposed to have a hearing this week per the CAPA email that was sent out last night.
  4. That's a really big vote in support of OTP. However, I don't have a lot of confidence that the NP lobby wouldn't overcome CMA's objections if push comes to shove. Too bad CAPA can't get with Jim Wood (sponsor of AB 890) and CMA to just include NPs and PAs in the same piece of legislation. Ideally, we could see a law with the same set of restrictions imposed on both positions.
  5. I've been nervously watching this bill (California has a really cool bill tracker that shows you the progress of each bill as it moves through all of the committees and votes- here's SB 697 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB697) and sending emails to everyone along the way. I'm excited at the progress that it's made, but I'll believe this bill exists when it's got Gavin Newsom's signature on it. As for NP independence, I can't tell how close their bill is to being a reality (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB890). The LA times article was an absolute fluff piece, but I can't say I'm shocked that nurses/NPs got good PR. They always get good PR. I believe that the California Medical Association pushed back on the bill, according to this article (https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2019-07-03/california-doctors-oppose-expanding-nurse-practitioner-authorities). However, I would love to see CAPA get involved in the "negotiations" that are ongoing between CMA and the California Nurses Association. Overall, I would love to see a law that basically gives NPs and PAs the same legal requirements and practice standards. In most larger groups we fill the same role, so it would be a common sense law to give us the same practice rights. However, I think we can all agree that politics rarely follows any sort of common sense.
  6. I appreciate the "flexing" in question (not sure if that's the right use of the word on my part, but I'm leaving it)! As a member of PAFT (just realized I could add the little badge to my profile), I'm fully on board with what PAFT is pushing. I agree that AAPA needs an experienced chair, but I hope that whoever fills the position has the same progressive mindset that has won a few recent elections.
  7. I was pretty surprised to read this today, I wonder if they'll bring in another PAFT member as CEO. PAFT has been flexing their muscles lately, and it could be good to have that energy steering AAPA.
  8. The PA OTP bill is being voted on in the Senate today (can't tell if they've voted yet, they're at recess right now).
  9. Saw today that the bill passed through its first committee with an 8-0 vote (with 1 "no vote recorded", whatever that means). http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB697
  10. Would it help to send ACEP a link to both bills being considered? It seems as though everybody would prefer OTP over a full push for independence, but I wonder if it might be a moot point to convince an organization that sounds like they've made up their mind.
  11. Don't know how much it'll help, but I used the email that she gave in that letter to send her a comparison between SB 697 and SB 323. SB 323 was a full on push for NP independence, which SB 697 is not. I also specifically mentioned the fact that CAPA has letters of support from physicians for SB 697. I'm hoping that she can see the difference between a push for independence and a push for collaboration, but we'll see.
  12. Just sent an email to my local Assembly member, who happens to sit on the committee that AB 890 (the bill for NP independence) is parked in. I told him to compare this bill to SB 323 and SB 697. SB 323 failed in committee in 2016 due to massive pushback from several physician groups (as outlined in the letter that was posted in the OTP thread), while SB 697 is the OTP bill that CAPA is supporting this cycle. I threw in a brief comparison of the training between PAs and NPs (specifically the clinical hours) and asked him how he could vote to support a revived version of a failed bill when there is a better option being proposed. It's tough not to get down when it feels like the hits for NPs and against PAs keep coming. I'm more than happy to be a pain to some state senators/assembly members if it keeps us competitive. I believe that PAs and NPs should have the same laws regarding licensing, independence, etc, but that seems to be a work in progress at this point.
  13. It seems as though you're adding a certain spin to my post that wasn't in there. My point was that I don't think that the Florida bill will happen right now in California, because I"m still not sure how it happened in Florida. If it's altruism, that's great. However, we can't really count on altruism being what drives OTP forward. I also agree with your overall point- the time is now to push for less restrictive PA practice laws. However, it's a good first step. Moving from supervision to collaboration is a good step, and having a practice level decision on the delegation of services is a modernization of largely archaic laws. I will be unhappy if this is the only OTP bill that is brought up or passes in California, but I also understand that it's a work in progress. It's up to us California PAs to make sure that we don't settle for a halfhearted attempt at OTP past this initial attempt.
  14. I'm happy to hear that PAs are included, but any thoughts on why Rep. Pigman would have added PAs onto the bill? It doesn't sound like FAPA was pushing at all for inclusion here. If I'm feeling optimistic, I'd love to believe that someone just believes in midlevel equality (which would be a great goal, IMO), but I feel like I'm missing something here.
×
×
  • 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