We fall behind again

[Joelseff]

To clarify, the California MA supervision bill was supported by NPs but not the Calif Nurses Assoc. NPs were on our side on that one and we won.

 

The problem the CNA had with the bill was a perception (from their point of view) that MAs would replace LVNs and RNs in outpt clinics from what I could gather.

 

The Bill gave authority to PAs (and NPs) to supervise MAs when the physician is out of the office. Anyhoo we won that one.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

Nursing board opposes everything in CA. Most recently they opposed SB352 which allowed MAs to be supervised by a PA.

Since I was originally mistaken, I investigated SB352. I found they actually supported the bill

 

http://canpweb.org/canp/assets/File/Lobby Day 2013 Resources/SB 352 Fact Sheet.pdf

 

ETA: joelseff beat me to it

[KMD16]

Um, the bill in the OP was initially opposed. Is that recent enough?

It appears we both are talking about totally different topic. Never mind.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

It appears we both are talking about totally different topic. Never mind.

I don't see how that's possible, but okay.

[ToppDog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought MAs were overseen by the Nursing Board?

 

Not the Nursing Board.  Nurses aren't MAs, & therefore aren't qualified to regulate them as a profession.  MAs are usually regulated by each state's medical board or dept. of health, etc.  They may or may not be required to be nationally certified or have a state licence, depending on the state.

 

And, yes, nurses are feeling threatened by MAs because they are starting to be hired to work in hospitals/inpatient facilities, & they are also administering narcs in some places, & there is much pressure to allow them to start IV's & push IV meds.

 

In Washington state the nurses really screwed up recently & left things wide open for a change where MAs can start IV's if anybody calls them on their screw up.