Joelseff Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 In most (33 IIRC) states now, NPs have independence. I know, I know, most don't practice independently and I know, No One REALLY practices independently etc but the status of "Independent Practitioner" lifts a lot of restrictions. Sent from my S5 Active...Like you care... Edit: 22 states gave independence. More coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Collaborative is just how we are to describe ourselves and legally in every state we are still supervised/dependent wearing delegated to profession. When one state actually successfully changes their state laws to delete supervision/delegation/dependent status of PAs nothing will change how the government, insurance companies, employers, ACOs, and legislators etc. will view the PA profession. Parity with NPs will not occur from a technical and legal standpoint until PAs gain the LIP status (Licensed Independent Practitioner) which is a federal medicare term. I think we need to start advocating for ourselves from the top down and AAPA could use some creative think tanks to help them realize that they could best serve the PA profession by lobbying congress (not states) to designate PAs as LIPs. If we need to take our issue to the Supreme Court so they could by fiat tell the states they must allow parity with NPs by our legal status and definition, then we should do it. And this suggestion comes from me a very financially conservative free market capitalist who believes in the state's rights who is fed up with the state PA chapters who are so gosh darn afraid of asking the state medical societies for the ability to cut the apron strings and upset the so-called PA/Physician relationship. It needs to be done. I am now a marked woman on the forum!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelseff Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Collaborative is just how we are to describe ourselves and legally in every state we are still supervised/dependent wearing delegated to profession. When one state actually successfully changes their state laws to delete supervision/delegation/dependent status of PAs nothing will change how the government, insurance companies, employers, ACOs, and legislators etc. will view the PA profession. Parity with NPs will not occur from a technical and legal standpoint until PAs gain the LIP status (Licensed Independent Practitioner) which is a federal medicare term. I think we need to start advocating for ourselves from the top down and AAPA could use some creative think tanks to help them realize that they could best serve the PA profession by lobbying congress (not states) to designate PAs as LIPs. If we need to take our issue to the Supreme Court so they could by fiat tell the states they must allow parity with NPs by our legal status and definition, then we should do it. And this suggestion comes from me a very financially conservative free market capitalist who believes in the state's rights who is fed up with the state PA chapters who are so gosh darn afraid of asking the state medical societies for the ability to cut the apron strings and upset the so-called PA/Physician relationship. It needs to be done. I am now a marked woman on the forum!!!!! Amen Paula!✊ Sent from my S5 Active...Like you care... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
out_foxed Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I already admire the P.A. profession, nonetheless being in the applicant stages. So what is the crux of the matter? 1. Reinforce the collaborative provider model, and evolve with that idea; regardless of NP parity. This seems to have good benefits for patient and provider both. 2. Gain autonomy to practice. This might also benefit the current healthcare structure, it definitely secures P.A. reimbursement, and this is quite possibly much more practical and wise considering long term goals. Which one will balance regulation, balance competence, balance fair pay, and balance health care costs? I've heard Oregon has been dealing with P.A.s at the state level, and allowing higher reimbursements contracts; now also radiography capabilities. Washington is active too. At least the state laws will set a good precedent, priming the bullet for when P.A.s pull the trigger on a national level. When's that going to happen. Should it? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 19, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 19, 2015 I already admire the P.A. profession, nonetheless being in the applicant stages. So what is the crux of the matter? 1. Reinforce the collaborative provider model, and evolve with that idea; regardless of NP parity. This seems to have good benefits for patient and provider both. 2. Gain autonomy to practice. This might also benefit the current healthcare structure, it definitely secures P.A. reimbursement, and this is quite possibly much more practical and wise considering long term goals. Which one will balance regulation, balance competence, balance fair pay, and balance health care costs? I've heard Oregon has been dealing with P.A.s at the state level, and allowing higher reimbursements contracts; now also radiography capabilities. Washington is active too. At least the state laws will set a good precedent, priming the bullet for when P.A.s pull the trigger on a national level. When's that going to happen. Should it? :) practice autonomy must come to pass if PAs are to survive into the future and not be overshadowed by the ever-advancing NPs. We need parity with them both to deliver better service to underserved areas, but also to entice physicians and organizations to consider hiring us at all when their other option is an NP who requires no cosignatures and carries (at least in the minds of physicians) less liability. PAs working in rural and underserved areas as well as all other practice situations, need a mechanism to continue practicing if their collaborating physician of record dies, moves, retires, etc. Why should a community lose a provider just because another can no longer practice there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiggySRNA Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Why should a community lose a provider just because another can no longer practice there? I would like to know the logic behind this from those who write/enforce the laws for PA practice. This alone should help support the idea of labeling PAs as LIPs and the replacement of supervision with the notion of collaborative agreement. ...it's not rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.