AAPA Elections Still Relevant?

[burnpac]

That seems to be the response to anyone who says PAs aren't joining.  Who are those new members?  The data over the past six or seven years up through April 2013 shows an overall drop of fellow members, though not by much, so it's safe to call it pretty stagnant.  The increase in membership is due to "others," which are primarily students.  I'm sure that's the same case for what you were just told based on all of the new programs popping up.  While any increase in membership for AAPA is great, it looks like students keep their membership until it lapses and then the next batch of graduating students take their place.  It would make sense for the number of fellow members to proportionately increase if all these new student members end up staying members upon graduation.  We need to figure out how to retain them upon graduation because students don't pay much in dues and don't have much money to donate to the PAC.

 

This has always been a tough nut to crack - How to get student members to become fellow members. However, the number of students in the US is slowly rising as seats in programs expand, and new programs come on line. There are currently 181 programs in the US, and they are graduating probably about 7000 PAs per year. Double that for first and second years, and there must be about 14000 students. While this number is rising, I doubt that it expanded 13 %. Let's hope that the growth in membership is among fellows primarily. Student membership is always important too, as this is how PAs are exposed to the benefits of membership. Getting students to the Annual Conference is also important as this exposes them to a much broader professional world outside of the confines of their program. I will try to get more detail info.

[cinntsp]

I was told there are now roughly 18,000 PA students, but I don't know the number from last year.  As far as getting students to go to conference - I agree.  Distance, airfare/hotel costs, and scheduling are big hurdles to overcome.  I think programs should be encouraged to rearrange schedules around the conference to allow more students to go without missing lectures and exams.  I was the sole person from my program to attend last year because of those things, but primarily scheduling.

[burnpac]

I talked with Larry again, and it is his sense of the Data (he didn't have it in front of him), that the growth is clustered around student to fellow conversions. A good sign considering the growth in the graduate class of PAs. I saw a statistic about 5 years ago that more than 45% of the currently practicing PAs graduated in the last five years. I'll bet that this percentage is higher now.

 

We still need to grow conversion of non- lapsed members to fellows, but this is still a positive trend.

[ventana]

 

as an aside I believe this forum now has more active members( > 34,000) than the aapa has members....

• 155,274 Total Posts
• 34,445 Total Members

 

 

 

darn

 

that is embarrassing for the AAPA!

[GetMeOuttaThisMess]

New growth is nice, as long as your retention rates are acceptable.  From what I'm reading they aren't, and from my perspective I can understand why.

[burnpac]

darn

 

that is embarrassing for the AAPA!

In what way? I don't get the comparison. Until the someone details the actual titles of folks, and the actual rates of active participation, it doesn't tell me anything meaningful, and is the same as comparing apples to oranges.

[cinntsp]

darn

 

that is embarrassing for the AAPA!

I don't think that's a fair statement. The tens of thousands of inactive accounts that are permanently within the membership database can't really be compared to the number of AAPA members, which is always in flux, and requires money to join.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Jim Anderson]

Agreed that the org is moving in right direction. I also think that looking to the traditions of AAPA can help, and optimizing wisdom of early AAPA founders/past presidents is key. Need to keep members in the driver's seat.

[EMEDPA]

see my responses to #s above:

1. why does this misunderstanding persist?

2. I am glad the aapa is gaining members. it will get us a better seat at the table.  I tell all my students to join aapa, their state org, their professional society, and PAFT.

3. overall I am happy with what the current president has been doing and the way the aapa has started to pay more attention on many matters other than PR. I just would have liked to have seen him pursue this item from his position statement, even if others opposed him. to the best of my knowledge once the election was over he never mentioned it in print again. a letter from the president on the issue in jaapa would have been appreciated even if it just said" I tried but was unable to make this an agenda item because of xyz". it's important to a lot of us and even you know it won't go away until it gets a fair evaluation. I do appreciate your attempt to make that happen despite the fact that it was voted down. as a side note many of us tried to get a vote tally to support those who stood up for this but a formal tally was not recorded on this issue. I thought that was standard rules of order kind of stuff.... where would we be come election day if we were not allowed to know how our state senators voted?

bump- still waiting for response to this post.

[dmdpac]

I'm a little late to this conversation but have been reading the discourse with some interest.    I am an AAPA member and believe it is important to belong to our national (and state) professional organization(s).  Like others, I'm a little concerned with where the AAPA is and where it is going.

 

I've noticed a trend through the comments with some minor variation.  It seems that many of the comments are from members (former or current) not necessarily involved in AAPA leadership who have a series of concerns about the way the AAPA either has been or is doing business.  The few commenters who are or have been involved in AAPA leadership seem to be actively defending the organization by saying "We *are* doing something".

 

This disconnect between the membership ("Stop dropping the ball!") and the leadership ("We *are* doing something!) seems to be a noticeable source of contention.  Communication is always a big concern within any organization.  However, if there are more members saying they see a problem, as this small sample size seems to be trending, perhaps the leadership can reevaluate what they're doing in an attempt to either better communicate just what they're doing or change the focus of their attention.

 

Of course, those participating in this discussion are a small sample of a much larger organization.  Thoughts and ideas may not be representative of the membership as a whole.  However, if such a disconnect between membership and leadership exists here in such a limited discussion I can't help but think it is more representative of the membership as a group than leadership would like to think.

 

 

Agreed that the org is moving in right direction. I also think that looking to the traditions of AAPA can help, and optimizing wisdom of early AAPA founders/past presidents is key. Need to keep members in the driver's seat.

 

Please be careful with this line of thinking.  There is much to be gained by learning from the past.  Relying too much on the past, however, can easily distract leaders and members alike from looking at the future.  PA demographics have been changing over recent years.  Focusing on the traditional past is not necessarily the best thing to do with a younger potential membership base.  That younger potential member base is both the future and a part of the key to survival of the organization and profession.

 

We have a demonstrated need to fight for relevancy in today's health care marketplace.  People need to know who we are.  Government needs to know who we are.  I think once the word gets out things will start to change.  The questions for leadership include are you going to keep doing things they way you've been doing them?  Or are you open to change to make things happen?

[EMEDPA]

We have a demonstrated need to fight for relevancy in today's health care marketplace.  People need to know who we are.  Government needs to know who we are.  I think once the word gets out things will start to change.  The questions for leadership include are you going to keep doing things they way you've been doing them?  Or are you open to change to make things happen?

excellent post, thanks.

[burnpac]

1. why does this misunderstanding persist?

 

I will take a stab at it.

 

1. The relatively small number of graduate PAs in comparison to other professions in the political setting.

2. Finite financial and human resources in the face of the need to prioritize demands on the profession, the Academy, and its budget.

3. The relative "youth" of the profession compared to organized nursing and medicine.

 

I'm sure that there are others. I'm a glass half full kind of guy, and I feel that we have achieved success well in excess of what should have been expected given the resources and political clout that we had available to us over the past 4 decades. That says a lot about the perceived utility of the PA to be a solution to the requirements of the modern HC system. The best is yet to come, and we have momentum on our side.

[EMEDPA]

#2 and #3 make sense...#1, not so much anymore....the nccpa just certified their 100,000th PA.

other organizations with smaller #s have had some significant political victories beyond what we have achieved thus far(although I agree with all of the above posters who state we are moving in the correct direction). I'm guessing there are more PAs in practice than  DOs, chiropractors, naturopaths, acupuncturists, audiologists, occupational therapists, etc all of whom have firmly established their place in the world....we are still looking for our identity to be recognized by many in the legislative arena as well as for recognition in the public consciousness.

[burnpac]

#2 and #3 make sense...#1, not so much anymore....the nccpa just certified their 100,000th PA.

other organizations with smaller #s have had some significant political victories beyond what we have achieved thus far(although I agree with all of the above posters who state we are moving in the correct direction). I'm guessing there are more PAs in practice than  DOs, chiropractors, naturopaths, acupuncturists, audiologists, occupational therapists, etc all of whom have firmly established their place in the world....we are still looking for our identity to be recognized by many in the legislative arena as well as for recognition in the public consciousness.

Agreed, and we too have had significant success legislatively at the state and national level, which has been increasing in speed and significance in the last ten years. In the political setting, we are not competing with chiropractors, therapists or audiologists. We are competing with nearly 3 million nurses and nearly 1 million MD / DOs in the political arena. In that sense, we have achieved a lot considering our 100,000.

[EMEDPA]

my thought RE: chiropractors and naturopaths was that there are several states now which recognize these folks as independent primary care providers despite the fact that they have much less training in primary care than we do....

[burnpac]

my thought RE: chiropractors and naturopaths was that there are several states now which recognize these folks as independent primary care providers despite the fact that they have much less training in primary care than we do....

Apples and oranges. These folks don't practice medicine / prescribe in the traditional sense, and they are no competition to PAs. They may be considered "independent", but they can't serve the vast majority of primary health care needs of the population in the way in which physicians, PAs and NPs can.

[dmdpac]

Apples and oranges. These folks don't practice medicine / prescribe in the traditional sense, and they are no competition to PAs. They may be considered "independent", but they can't serve the vast majority of primary health care needs of the population in the way in which physicians, PAs and NPs can.

 

 

They can if that's who people choose to see for their primary care.  We are, in fact, competing with them in that sense.  They may not be any comparison to PAs in a "traditional sense".  But this is who many people choose to see for their primary care.  By default, this makes them the competition.

[burnpac]

They can if that's who people choose to see for their primary care. We are, in fact, competing with them in that sense. They may not be any comparison to PAs in a "traditional sense". But this is who many people choose to see for their primary care. By default, this makes them the competition.

I have no problem with people seeing and considering non-traditional professionals as their PCPs. The difference is that I can provide services and serve a role in the HCS that they can't. A PA can also get reimbursed for services that they can't. A distinct advantage in the modern HCS.

[EMEDPA]

I have no problem with people seeing and considering non-traditional professions as their PCPs. The difference is that I can provide services and serve a role in the HCS that they can't. A PA can also get reimbursed for services that they can't. A distinct advantage in the modern HCS.

agree. a lot of these other folks are cash only or bill the very few insurances that pay for their services.

[cinntsp]

 

2. Finite financial and human resources in the face of the need to prioritize demands on the profession, the Academy, and its budget.

 

 

I wonder what could have been done with the $850k loss attributed to the 2012 conference being held in Toronto.  I feel perhaps the financial resources are not as finite as we may assume, but rather not utilized correctly.

[burnpac]

I wonder what could have been done with the $850k loss attributed to the 2012 conference being held in Toronto.  I feel perhaps the financial resources are not as finite as we may assume, but rather not utilized correctly.

Hind sight is always 20/20, isn't it? :-)

 

Conference site decisions are made years in advance, and this was not one of the best, as you point out. There have been others that not done as well as staff and leaders would have liked. They can't all be Vegas.

 

With the loss of the Pharma money, which used to make every AAPA conference successful, regardless of location, the AAPA has needed to shift this decision-making to the new reality of the budget, as had all medical organizations. Medical organizations could once count on Pharma money to subsidize every aspect of operations. Now, the profession and the Academy has to rely on successful, profit making conferences, CME, and activities, and members also have to take up the slack to continue vital activities in support of the profession.

 

While I'm no longer on the BOD and haven't been for some time, I know that the current president and members of the BOD are acutely aware of the new reality, and it has been reflected in the budget as well as realignment of the Academy staff and operations.

[HLReed]

EMED, you can be critical all you want, but at the end of the day there are really only three options at this point:

 

1. Join the AAPA ACTIVELY and, since in your view it is hemorrhaging support compared to this forum, it should be relatively easy to take some control and improve it from the inside.

 

2. Start a new organization with your vision and PROVE that you can do it better.

 

3. Be an armchair critic who points out flaws without ever doing much action.

 

I give you a lot of respect because you, I think, decided to go with #2. So you have a mission statement and support and a name and all of these things are good. But I think if you are honest about your goals you will stop trying to make a version of AAPA Lite and be what you really want to be. One of your big talking points has always been a PR campaign. A well-organized and motivated group, even a small one, can increase the visibility of an organization and promote a brand. But lets be honest, you can't afford a massive campaign over traditional media. If you want to ignore the online avenue you are sadly out of touch.

 

Everyone from toddlers to geriatrics are on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and spend more hours online than watching TV in a given day. Print media is a goner (as a guy who cut his teeth in newspaper and magazine, that makes me sad to admit). Radio is irrelevant. If you want to reach a lot of people fast and cheap, you go viral. That means a few people with some vision, creativity, decent writing skills, and a couple of people with some design skills can make more of an impact than a Super Bowl ad. Guerrilla marketing and viral marketing are the only way a small, relatively broke, group of people can make a big difference.

 

If you disagree with that, then the profession isn't the only one "still in the 1970."

[GetMeOuttaThisMess]

Or in my case, option number 4.  Wait it out for another 5-7 years and get out while not letting the door hit me on the backside.  For many of us who have been around since the early years, you make it sound like "getting involved" is an easy process.  I can tell you from personal experience that unless you're already in that pre-approved "click" of individuals whether it be in ones' state or nationally, it is going to be very difficult to break that ice.  If you go back to the 70's and 80's you'll find that in many instances national and state officers were nothing more than a revolving door.  Thank goodness for myself, the state leaders have not been what I've perceived the national leadership to be.  

 

The way that I see it, we're too few, our guns are smaller, and we're surrounded on all sides by patients who still fifty years later, for the most part, don't know who we are; a nursing lobby that can squash us like a bug with numbers and finances that we could only dream of; and a physician body that would just as soon dump us as assist us.  Until the profession is recognized by the major insurance providers at a reasonable reimbursement scale for service, and our state legislative bodies get us out from under the thumbs of the medical boards, we're hosed.