Why are we making nice with NPs?

[andersenpa]

Let's worry less about complementing physicians and more about how PAs can best serve pts .......

[physasst]

Who says we want to be physicians and be called doctor? I dont think anyone is saying that. I think as PA's we can still be a compliment to MD's - just as NP's are now. But, we can still compliment MD's and have more independent functions. What I am saying is that when an MD thinks of hiring someone next week, next month or next year, I want to be in the running for that job - not "a PITA to supervise because of all the regulations and rules" that a current PA brings.

 

 

I have no argument with that. We need to simplify regulations regarding PA practice, and we need to encourage the concept of PA's practicing to the top of their licensure/registration.

 

I would like to see greater autonomy for PA's, and I would like to see things made more simple by the Medical Boards to encourage more PA hiring.

 

I have no issue with that, and support that 100%. BUT, if want to move to a PA clinical doctorate, and fight for complete independence, that, I would be against.

[bobuddy]

I dont know about the PA doctorate either - like others in this forum, I think it is just a "keeping up with the Jones's". I have a doctorate now. It has done nothing for me as far as getting a job, better pay, etc. If I want to teach at the university level, then yes, that will be required. What will help keep me employed as a PA in the clinic/hospital or where ever, AND a better candidate to hire in the future, is the changing/eliminating of the rules and regulations that are standing in our way. Those same rules and regulations are not in the way of the NP's.

[Fairmeadow]

I agree that it is the rules and regulations that keep our profession from advancing, not the degrees. Many years ago, in the first half of the 20th century, when scientific medical education was new, many doctors had varying educational backgrounds. After the Flexner report, education was standardized. Many of the old doctors, who had less recognized degrees, had much experience. They continued to practice, but eventually died off. Then the new standard was the norm. Being from an earlier era does not make one less qualified. It may, in fact, make one more qualified due to experience. I am old, and graduated with an associates. I have a masters, but would not get a doctorate, because I am too old to need it. I do not feel that I am more qualified because of my masters. But an employer might feel that way. When you are trying to get a job, you have to look at yourself through the employer's eyes.

 

We all know that the advanced degrees do not make us more competent. The patients and employers do not know that. Their opinions are more important than ours in many regards.

[Fairmeadow]

It's interesting. The Flexner report came out in 1910, about 100 years ago. Google it, if you are not familiar with it. It was commissioned by the AMA, supposedly to figure out ways to increase the quality of medical education. At that time, the AMA was coming into its' heyday. There were a lot of different kinds of practitioners out there then: allopathic, osteopathic, homeopathic, eclectic, Thomsonian, etc. all of whom had different philosophies of medical practice. This was before scientific medicine had really caught on. The AMA represented the allopathics. The Flexner report, used by the AMA as evidence, along with its' newly found political power, put all the other disciplines out of business by getting their schools closed. The osteopaths managed to hang on by the skin of their teeth.

 

The AMA/Flexner report raised the educational level to get into medical school to the point where mostly, only those who were relatively well off, could afford to go to school. It got the law changed to where new medical schools had to be approved by the state government. It restricted the number of doctors being educated in several different ways.

 

Now, I'm not totally knocking the Flexner report. There were some poor quality schools then, and the report helped to get them closed.

 

The point I'm making is this. One hundred years ago, there was a major struggle between different medical disciplines. The allopaths won. With the exception of osteopaths, who were severely wounded, none of the other disciplines existed after the fight was over.

 

There were winners and there were losers. I see similarities in what is happening now. We need to make sure that we, as PA's, are winners.

 

In a struggle for one's life, one does not hold back. One does not let his attacker get the upper hand.

 

I love the quote about the appeaser/alligator made by Winston Churchill that someone has posted above this.

[Grinder993]

We all know that the advanced degrees do not make us more competent. The patients and employers do not know that. Their opinions are more important than ours in many regards.

 

 

That is the point I am trying to make. For the altruism that physasst displays, what matters is what the employers think. And yes this is a keeping up with the Jones's, if we don't we will be left far behind. THE EMPLOYERS AND THE PT WILL BELIEVE THE DNP IS BETTER TRAINED! FACT!! The ANA will conduct a media blitz implying this. When you are applying for a job and the employer who doesn't know PAs from Pintos is only going to see:

Option 1. Doctorate level NP for X dollars.

Option 2. Masters degree PA for X dollars.

Assuming X is equal. Would the uninformed not believe they were getting more "bang for the buck" with option 1?

[Grinder993]

From physasst:

For example....with nurses moving to a DNP, there will already be a greater financial burden laid upon them at graduation....Will this mean that fewer will pursue low paying jobs in CHC, inner city clinics, and HIV clinics....(where by the way, NP's have been a very valuable workforce commodity)? Will fewer of them enter primary care? What will the effect be on the applicant pool? Salaries? Will they migrate to higher paying specialties in suburban areas?

 

 

 

Why not ask yourself how many potential PA's will we lose because we are not Doctorate level? How many will instead become DNPs, Pharmacists, DPTs. While the title may not mean much to you, it means alot to most people. I have talked with several college students who have rotated through this ER to "shadow" and have mentioned they may not pursue the PA degree b/c it is not doctoral level.

As far as how many people will go to inner cities and HIV clinics...come on...the people that are interested in that work are going to do it regardless. The impact will be no different than it is now. Do you REALLY think that another 25k in student loans is going to just push people over the edge from working in those clinics. Get real man. If you are already in debt 100k, being in debt 125k makes no difference.

[andersenpa]

We all know that the advanced degrees do not make us more competent. The patients and employers do not know that. Their opinions are more important than ours in many regards.

 

Regardless of how we each feel about an issue, perception is everything, and that is what we have to use as a tool to our advantage- just as nursing has.

[bobuddy]

Currently, in the state of KY, that doctorate NP (or heck, just NP) is the one you are going to hire. No chart signing rules, no signing prescriptions for them, no forms filled out....... need I go on? Last year, the prescription issue came up again in KY for PA's - and we were turned down. They said they wanted "more studies". The head of KAPA told me last week that PA's have essentially been "blackballed" by the ANA in KY. Where was the AAPA during that fight for KY PA's last year? Non existent according to what the KAPA guys told me. I have not heard if it is coming before lawmakers this year or not.

Meanwhile, the NP's are taking our jobs. The VA center in Lexington now hires ONLY NP's. The Little Clinics, etc that you see popping up in the Wal-Marts, Krogers, etc are all staffed by NP's ONLY. The PA profession keeps harping about us being in Primary Care and serving rural areas, but I how can I do this if I cant untangle myself from these antiquated regulations? Do I want to be an independent practitioner? Not really. I like working WITH my docs. I love working in my rural area. I am actually DOING what I said I would do when I applied for PA school - work in primary care in a rural under served area. But the NP's are fast becoming the "Physician Associates" that we should be - and we are fast becoming the "nurses" by staying dependent on the MD's for our jobs.

[physasst]

From physasst:

For example....with nurses moving to a DNP, there will already be a greater financial burden laid upon them at graduation....Will this mean that fewer will pursue low paying jobs in CHC, inner city clinics, and HIV clinics....(where by the way, NP's have been a very valuable workforce commodity)? Will fewer of them enter primary care? What will the effect be on the applicant pool? Salaries? Will they migrate to higher paying specialties in suburban areas?

 

 

 

Why not ask yourself how many potential PA's will we lose because we are not Doctorate level? How many will instead become DNPs, Pharmacists, DPTs. While the title may not mean much to you, it means alot to most people. I have talked with several college students who have rotated through this ER to "shadow" and have mentioned they may not pursue the PA degree b/c it is not doctoral level.

As far as how many people will go to inner cities and HIV clinics...come on...the people that are interested in that work are going to do it regardless. The impact will be no different than it is now. Do you REALLY think that another 25k in student loans is going to just push people over the edge from working in those clinics. Get real man. If you are already in debt 100k, being in debt 125k makes no difference.

 

Nationally, the data doesn't bear that out. Feelings don't matter. Data does. There has been an increase in the number of PA schools and applicants every year for the past decade. Unless you have some data to show that there are a decrease in the number of applicants to PA school, that argument doesn't hold water.

 

My calculations from a workforce perspective have already, at least in modeling, shown a decrease in the presence and work productivity of NP's in primary care secondary to the DNP degree. This is not beneficial and will further weaken primary care delivery.

 

There is also concern about the applicant pools for the DNP degree. We don't know what the full impact will be on CHC's and poor rural and inner city clinics, to think that we know otherwise is foolish. I can tell you, as a policy analyst and a workforce researcher, this is a concern that MANY have on the national level regarding the DNP. We won't know the outcome of this impact for about 10 years at least, although we might have some preliminary data in about 5.

 

I have, anecdotally, heard the opposite. I have had at least 3 RN's approach me about PA school....why? Cause while they wanted to be NP's, they don't want to do the DNP and they think it is a waste of time and money...

 

Does my anecdotal observation mean anything? With an n of 3 not much...Same with your analogy of "shadows" not pursuing the PA degree. Personally, I would tell them that if they were that hung up on obtaining a doctoral, then no, they shouldn't become PA's, and I would wish them luck with their career pursuits. If I were a program director, I wouldn't want students whose sole pursuit was obtaining a doctoral degree...there are hundreds of other applicants who would be better suited for the profession.

 

YMMV.

[Grinder993]

Physasst:There is also concern about the applicant pools for the DNP degree. We don't know what the full impact will be on CHC's and poor rural and inner city clinics, to think that we know otherwise is foolish. I can tell you, as a policy analyst and a workforce researcher, this is a concern that MANY have on the national level regarding the DNP. We won't know the outcome of this impact for about 10 years at least, although we might have some preliminary data in about 5.

We cannot afford to sit around for 10 years "collecting data" while the NPs are kickin our butts! You sound like a politician trying to prosecute a war from behind a desk, not listening to the reports coming back from the field. We are already behind the curve, putting us another decade behind that curve may be the end of us. Like I have said before, I feel that in the future PA's will suffer one of a few fates:

1. Absorbed by the NP's.

2. Phased out with option to do a accelerated MD or DO program.

3. Acheieve Doctoral degree and begin to move in the same autonomous direction as the NPs while mantaining a closer relationship (not mandatory supervised) with the MD's thus making ourselves once again more desirable than the NP due to similarity in training.

[Fairmeadow]

Data is a good tool, very helpful. The common sense rule has to apply, also. Take all data with a grain of salt. Increases in PA school applications and admissions do not necessarily mean more PA jobs. The jobs may not be there for the graduates. Common sense tells me that if NP's are marketed better to doctors and patients, that if they have rules and regulations that are less onerous to doctors, patients and themselves that they will win the fight. Rules are tools. Better rules mean better weapons in the turf wars.

 

If I was not married, I would be in the most desolate, underserved place in America practicing medicine. Money has nothing to do with it, at least for me.

 

There are plenty of doctors, PA's and NP's who, if they did not have families, would be living in underserved areas. The problem is, they do have families. While they are in the clinics, absorbed in helping the underserved with their medical problems, their families would be trying to live their lives in the community. Highly educated wives need jobs, too, that generally are not available in the rural areas. Children need educational opportunities that are not generally available in the rural areas. That is why the rural areas will never have enough practitioners.

 

As long as PA's have to be under the thumb of doctors, and as long as doctors continue to leave primary care, the numbers of PA's in primary care will continue to decrease. Now, I am not for complete independence as a PA. I believe in collaboration and backup. But, generally, PA's have to practice under the license of their doctor. In many states, there is a limit on how many PA's doctors can supervise (I hate that word). We are optional providers, per CMS, so one could open a clinic seeing mostly Medicaid patients, and then just have the rug pulled out from them when CMS decides not to reimburse them for Medicaid in hard times because they are optional.

 

So we practice more and more in the specialties. We would really like to be in primary care. But the governmental authorities who would benefit most from us doing that put obstacles in our way. Our national organization doesn't help us. We realize one day that the pay is better, the quality of life is better and we still can help people when working in a high paid specialty. That makes the decision to not go into primary care easier.

 

And, physasst, what's with your signature? What is your definition of religious bondage?:smile:

[physasst]

Hehe, religious bondage is simply that....any dogmatic belief in religion.

 

As far as jobs. Do you honestly believe that NP's could crowd PA's out of the marketplace? How? Their matriculation numbers have stayed static since 1997. Approximately 7,000 per year. PA's, on the other hand, have increased over the past ten years. About 6,500 graduates annually now.

 

We have the largest generation in the history of our country about to retire, and there is significant pressure to reduce costs in healthcare. Add to this new residency restrictions, and there will be MORE PA and NP jobs than can possibly be filled. Perhaps in about 35 years or so, we may reach an oversupply of providers..but until then, there is no shortage of jobs. Perhaps in certain high saturation markets, but that simply means that PA's need to move.

 

I would counter that the whole concept of a "fight" between PA's and NP's is silly, counter productive, and simply looking to create a problem where there isn't one. But that's my opinion.

 

Until I have data to show otherwise, that's what I'll continue to think.

[Fairmeadow]

Hehe, religious bondage is simply that....any dogmatic belief in religion.

 

As far as jobs. Do you honestly believe that NP's could crowd PA's out of the marketplace? How?

 

We have the largest generation in the history of our country about to retire, and there is significant pressure to reduce costs in healthcare. Add to this new residency restrictions, and there will be MORE PA and NP jobs than can possibly be filled. Perhaps in about 35 years or so, we may reach an oversupply of providers..but until then, there is no shortage of jobs. Perhaps in certain high saturation markets, but that simply means that PA's need to move.

 

Physasst:

 

I guess you have me there on the matter of religious bondage. I am in bondage. Dogmatic means inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true. So you have me there, also.

 

You also have me on the data, as I don't have it at my fingertips like you do.

 

Yes, I do believe that NP's can crowd PA's out of the marketplace. I realize that the need for providers is growing greatly, but they will need providers who can function without the handcuffs of crippling regulations. That is where we can lose the war.

 

And, as far as PA's just having to move to find a decent job, who wants to have to move away from their grandchildren, parents, etc. to get a job because the NP's have all the jobs in the area? That's not a good answer.

 

Hey, do you remember the GMENAC report on U.S. physician manpower that came out in 1983? Remember how the DATA showed that there was going to be a surplus of 70,000 physicians in the U.S. by 1990? We were all scared by that one. I thought I would be changing careers in a few years, as they would not need PA's, anymore. As Sarah would say, "How's that working for you?" Point is, as I said above, TAKE ALL DATA WITH A GRAIN OF SALT!

[physasst]

Hehe, religious bondage is simply that....any dogmatic belief in religion.

 

As far as jobs. Do you honestly believe that NP's could crowd PA's out of the marketplace? How?

 

We have the largest generation in the history of our country about to retire, and there is significant pressure to reduce costs in healthcare. Add to this new residency restrictions, and there will be MORE PA and NP jobs than can possibly be filled. Perhaps in about 35 years or so, we may reach an oversupply of providers..but until then, there is no shortage of jobs. Perhaps in certain high saturation markets, but that simply means that PA's need to move.

 

Physasst:

 

I guess you have me there on the matter of religious bondage. I am in bondage. Dogmatic means inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true. So you have me there, also.

 

You also have me on the data, as I don't have it at my fingertips like you do.

 

Yes, I do believe that NP's can crowd PA's out of the marketplace. I realize that the need for providers is growing greatly, but they will need providers who can function without the handcuffs of crippling regulations. That is where we can lose the war.

 

And, as far as PA's just having to move to find a decent job, who wants to have to move away from their grandchildren, parents, etc. to get a job because the NP's have all the jobs in the area? That's not a good answer.

 

Hey, do you remember the GMENAC report on U.S. physician manpower that came out in 1983? Remember how the DATA showed that there was going to be a surplus of 70,000 physicians in the U.S. by 1990? We were all scared by that one. I thought I would be changing careers in a few years, as they would not need PA's, anymore. As Sarah would say, "How's that working for you?" Point is, as I said above, TAKE ALL DATA WITH A GRAIN OF SALT!

 

 

Well, we won't discuss religion or that crazy chica from Alaska....as this is not the appropriate forum for that....

 

But my point was....there are not enough NP's, nor will there be enough NP's to crowd PA's out of the market, at least not everywhere. Could you find some pockets? Sure, if you looked hard....but they aren't training enough NP's (and conversely, we aren't training enough PA's as well) to make any real dent in the projected demand.

 

As far as data...well, I'm an economist....I like it graphic :;;D:

 

As far as moving....I did....Family is best served in small, very small, limited doses. But again, that is my opinion. Ohio at the time had crappy PA legislation, and so I moved.

 

I vaguely remember the GMENAC, but all projections or forecasts are just that...projections. We've gotten better at it since 1983....

[Joelseff]

As long as PA's have to be under the thumb of doctors, and as long as doctors continue to leave primary care, the numbers of PA's in primary care will continue to decrease..........generally, PA's have to practice under the license of their doctor.

 

I think this is a VERY good point! NP's dont have the supervisory restriction to practice and can theoretically (and have already begun to do so) push themselves as the ONLY logical and viable solution to the often heralded impending "GREAT PCP DROUGHT." Most of my classmates who are working practice in specialty medicine. I am holding out for an IM/FP job but I have seen (Now this is anecdotal so dont kill me) MORE specialty openings in my area compared to IM/FP. And moving for me is NOT an option unless I no longer want to live with my wife (who has an excellent 6 figure salary and career) and kids (who are in GREAT schools and have the benefit of our family to help take care of them). I managed to find ONE IM position and awaiting word on that...

 

I honestly think that the reason for the scarcity of PA IM positions is that in my area, the solo practitioner or smaller practices are going by way of the dodo and are being swallowed up by IPA's. These IPA's tend to hire NP's more than PA's for FP/IM.

[Fairmeadow]

Physasst:

 

I hope your data and projections are right. I want the PA profession to continue to be successful. It has been so good to me. I would love for all the young PA's today to have had the wonderful experiences that I have had as a PA. I sometimes to be a sort of doom and gloom projector, but, in reality, as I look back, we always have had to fight to secure our place. And things have never been better than they are right now. I want us to continue to move forward, but we all have to fight for our rights.

 

As a side note, I also do think that complacency will be a big enemy of our profession. As they used to teach us in Army aviation safety, "Complacency kills!"

[discogenic]

I am a prospective PA student, currently considering leaving my current profession to pursue PA as a second career. I've been reading along various forums for several months now and getting a good feeling about the PA profession. Until just recently. The Tennessee issue mentioned in a different thread, along with some comments in this thread, are making me pause a bit. I'm new to all of this, so perhaps it's just my lack of perspective relative to the future of the PA profession. But one could get the impression that PAs won't have the same quality of opportunities as NPs in the (near?) future. Is this just a tempest in a teapot, or is there potentially a real downside to entering the PA profession now?

 

I'm not taking a side and don't mean to inflame. But some of the negativism of late has caught me off-guard. Some honest opinions (and I realize they are only opinions, as no one has a crystal ball) as to where PAs may be headed from those who are already in the game would be helpful.

[Hemegroup]

I think this is a VERY good point! NP's dont have the supervisory restriction to practice and can theoretically (and have already begun to do so) push themselves as the ONLY logical and viable solution to the often heralded impending "GREAT PCP DROUGHT."

 

Heck, you can even get your NP online!

[Guest cabkrun]

 

Why not ask yourself how many potential PA's will we lose because we are not Doctorate level? How many will instead become DNPs, Pharmacists, DPTs. While the title may not mean much to you, it means alot to most people. I have talked with several college students who have rotated through this ER to "shadow" and have mentioned they may not pursue the PA degree b/c it is not doctoral level.

As far as how many people will go to inner cities and HIV clinics...come on...the people that are interested in that work are going to do it regardless.

 

 

Then I would venture to guess they didn't want to be PAs to begin with. Very different areas of practice, and if the doctorate is the only thing driving a decision... well :=-0:

A "devil's advocate" take on your question is, how many PAs would be lost because OF the requirement to obtain a doctorate?

 

If they want to be doctor, why don't they just become an MD? Even with the doctorate for other clinicians, MD is king in the minds of a patient and that will not change. I've seen it first hand working with both PAs and DNPs. Patients still said "I ONLY saw the NP". They didn't give a hoot about the DNP, they were still an NP to the patient. And guess what, the docs I've worked for signed off on the charts and scripts of the NPs as well... and were very vocal about PAs being trained much better and better able to hit the ground running. Vocal right in front of the patients about it. So, isn't it kind of state and practitioner specific?

 

Secondly, I really must respectfully disagree with you in your thought that those that want to go into inner city clinics or rural practice will do so no matter what... that is not the feedback/information I have gotten. The more you push out the amount of time in school and the amount of debt people take on, the more likely they are to go into a specialty... and the highest paying they can. The places that are filling these voids are by and large the community colleges that don't require a student to take on a hundred grand in debt.

 

I know DNPs, DPTs OTs, etc. and not one single one of them felt the degree made a difference. What is driving it is the chasing of more $$$ (DPTs do not want a doc to prescribe PT, they wanna see patients w/o a doctor seeing the pt first....scary!!), and the lobbying groups making it seem like it matters. (and probably the schools wanting more moolah)

 

If it involved something USEFUL (writing a couple of papers doesn't seem so useful to me) then possibly I could see a point, but then why not just go to med school.

 

Okay, I'm only a future PA-S, so I shall respectfully remain silent on this from this point. :=D:

[Fairmeadow]

I am a prospective PA student, currently considering leaving my current profession to pursue PA as a second career. I've been reading along various forums for several months now and getting a good feeling about the PA profession. Until just recently. The Tennessee issue mentioned in a different thread, along with some comments in this thread, are making me pause a bit. I'm new to all of this, so perhaps it's just my lack of perspective relative to the future of the PA profession. But one could get the impression that PAs won't have the same quality of opportunities as NPs in the (near?) future. Is this just a tempest in a teapot, or is there potentially a real downside to entering the PA profession now?"END OF QUOTE

 

 

 

Well, when the first PA's graduated, there were no jobs. There was no licensing of PA's. Anyone could call themselves a physician assistant if they worked in health care. There were no prescriptive privileges. The doctor had to sign every scrip. Nurses would not take orders from PA's. Those PA's had to go create jobs for themselves with doctors by convincing those doctors how valuable they were.

 

Those pioneers built this profession into what it is. In Tennessee, there was no legislation for PA's until 1986. The law that passed then said that the doctor had to see the patient on the first visit, and every third visit thereafter, and at least once a year. The PA could not see any new problems, only follow up visits. We did not get prescription privileges until 1994, and no DEA privileges until 2001. I don't remember what year we got the ability to work in a clinic without the doctor being present. Without going into excessive detail, this is what our situation is now: We can own our clinic, we have unlimited Sch II-V privileges, unlimited prescription privileges, 20% chart review, pretty much anything that is needed to run a successful practice.

 

I am not one of the original PA's, but I have been at it 30 years. The reason that PA's have it so good in Tennessee is because of the hard work put in by a few of the PA's in Tennessee, way above and beyond what they were obligated to do. We are challenged now by the optional provider moniker put on us by CMS. But we have been through much tougher tests, and have emerged stronger. Challenge is a good thing. I just want younger PA's to realize that this wonderful profession didn't just happen. Next to meeting my wife, being a PA is the best thing that every happened to me.

 

Back in the old days, the AAPA seemed to have our back. I'm not so sure about now. But the work and progress was done at state level. I would like the younger PA's to realize what has been done in the past to put them where they are, and to not become complacent. We will always have challenges, just as the MD's and NP's have their challenges. We just have to meet them.

 

DON'T BE DISCOURAGED!

[Evan]

I think this is a VERY good point! NP's dont have the supervisory restriction to practice and can theoretically (and have already begun to do so) push themselves as the ONLY logical and viable solution to the often heralded impending "GREAT PCP DROUGHT."

Brevity edit...

 

There is, of course, another way NPs can be the solution to the "GREAT PCP DROUGHT" and that is to become Supervising NPs to all of the left-over PAs. Once the DNP is suitable situated as equal to the MD and DO supervision of dependant practitioners (PAs) is the next logical step...

 

I respectfully submit that PAs as a profession must evolve or risk becoming irrelevant in the future.

 

The easiest form of evolution would be to match the aforemented (and greatly maligned) degree creep... It's just too simple a solution, you know... All we have to do is offer those higher letters: DPA...

 

There are other options but too many of them, like the PA-MD/DO bridge will require too much work...

 

I like being a PA. And I hate idea of going back after a higher degree in order to stay competative. But I have had a couple of guys (business guys, not in medicine at all) ask me how my profession will compete with doctorally trained nurses. I tried to explain the degree creep but they (both) expressed the idea that the actual training didn't matter to some employers as much as the percieved advantage of having a doctorally trained mid-level...

 

So there it is: evolve or ????

[blueridge]

physasst: (below taken from another thread on health policy, but the following questions fit well here) Did the topic of the professional title of physician assistant vs. physician associate come up during the course of your conversation with Timothy Johnson? Did he mention any comparison of PAs to NPs? Also, how do you think he perceives the PA profession? And, any hope for a plug on ABC World News?

 

"On a bright note, I had a 30 minute conversation with Tim Johnson, MD from ABC news about PA' s and our contributions to healthcare...It was a great talk. I actually talked with him for about 3 hours, but only 30 minutes on PA's.....better than nothing...."

[andersenpa]

Nationally, the data doesn't bear that out. Feelings don't matter. Data does. There has been an increase in the number of PA schools and applicants every year for the past decade. Unless you have some data to show that there are a decrease in the number of applicants to PA school, that argument doesn't hold water.

 

You're saying two different things. The argument was losing primary care workforce. More PA matriculants does not mean more PAs and it certainly doesn't mean more primary care PAs; the trend is toward specialization.

 

No matter what level of education or degree people attain, they will go to where the security and jobs are; specialties.

[Grinder993]

Cabkrun

The humanitarian types will go to rural and inner city clinics if they TRULY believe in the humanitarian cause. A difference of 25k in student loans shouldn't shake your foundation of altruistic beliefs.

Do not respond so flippantly with "If a PA wants to get a doctorate then why not just become an MD". Shows a lack of understanding of the argument, the topic and what is at stake for PAs. This is about market viability and competition against the DNP and we are losing.