TWR Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 https://app.box.com/s6f6567b1fobkvvo1g7egfd2gp6irljx7 This was on Clinician 1 this morning. Excellent paper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 22, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 22, 2015 saw this as well. I know the author. very strong work. Hope it goes somewhere. what a precedent that would be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LKPAC Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 is the link broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timon Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Here's an updated link to the white paper: https://app.box.com/s/6f6567b1fobkvvo1g7egfd2gq6ir1jx7 Here's a link to the facebook page if you want to see more postings: https://www.facebook.com/primarycarepa?fref=ts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator ventana Posted July 23, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2015 amazing this needs to get nationwide attention how about sending this to our congress people?? get them to allow us to practice the way we all can..... kudos to a job well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The author, Brian Sady has asked for support from PAs and to share this paper with your state boards. I think if you send it to the stakeholders in your area it is ok. We need the national discussion to happen and for state legislators to be aware that PAs are due for parity/equity with NPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 23, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2015 Just shared with my state pa society... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelseff Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 About Dang Time! Maybe PAFT can write a letter of support for this? AAPA and state chapters need to back this too. I sent CAPA an email with the white paper. Sent from my S5 Active...Like you care... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 The goal should be to send this to every state chapter. So far WI. CA and WA are covered. Let's keep track. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrsmurf Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 my only issue with the paper is "affectively" should be "effectively" sry i ams a grammar nazi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2015 The goal should be to send this to every state chapter. So far WI. CA and WA are covered. Let's keep track. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk oregon actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 25, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2015 it's funny how many folks are ok with independence for PAs who are against name change...both will be hard, but name change is likely the easier of the two to accomplish. maybe tie them both together in legislation? Those PAs who want to take advantage of optional independence will be called physician associates. those who prefer the status quo will remain assistants....RC Davis and I have discussed on here before how the future for PAs will likely involve 2 classes of PAs. maybe this will be that future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted July 25, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 25, 2015 Page 9, typo, veterans association should be administration... right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 25, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2015 Page 9, typo, veterans association should be administration... right? Don't know if he meant this: http://vetsaa.org/ in the same sentence he talks about other non-governmental organizations like aarp, etc. I tried to send him an email today on another topic and it bounced back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Hey guys....I sent edits to Brian and most of those errors you found were corrected. You all might be reading the first draft that went around. The affectively vs effectively is still up for debate. I suggested effectively although my handy dandy dictionary made me believe either could be used. Yes, I still have one of those large and heavy bound tomes called a dictionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalPA Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Why not just go for straight independence for all settings not just Primary Care? Seems like a big challenge why not just go for it all at once? Including the name change. Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 ^^^^ The paper addresses primary care and my reading of the definition means it could apply to all areas. I agree that autonomy is all settings is needed. PAs first have to address the old PA guard who see us as assistants and change will come when the state PA academies elect forward thinking PAs. It is time for the younger PAs to rise up to the challenge and to run for positions. We also need PAs in academia who support autonomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted July 26, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 26, 2015 You know, I'm tempted to throw the old guard under the bus and outright say "Only PAs with masters' degrees should have independent practice." I know there's little functional difference between the old programs and the new, but the PR value of saying "Masters' degrees or higher only", combined with the fact that we have had bridge programs to masters' level for years, makes me think it's an acceptable cost to force older graduates to get a masters' if they want to take advantage of a rename and independent practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 26, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 26, 2015 You know, I'm tempted to throw the old guard under the bus and outright say "Only PAs with masters' degrees should have independent practice." I know there's little functional difference between the old programs and the new, but the PR value of saying "Masters' degrees or higher only", combined with the fact that we have had bridge programs to masters' level for years, makes me think it's an acceptable cost to force older graduates to get a masters' if they want to take advantage of a rename and independent practice. I could live with that compromise (says the guy 8 weeks away from his doctorate....:) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LKPAC Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 You know, I'm tempted to throw the old guard under the bus and outright say "Only PAs with masters' degrees should have independent practice." I know there's little functional difference between the old programs and the new, but the PR value of saying "Masters' degrees or higher only", combined with the fact that we have had bridge programs to masters' level for years, makes me think it's an acceptable cost to force older graduates to get a masters' if they want to take advantage of a rename and independent practice. I disagree, which I rarely do with you rev. For decades our profession said that we are competency-based. A PA is one who graduates from an approved program and passes NCCPA. We should not have levels of PAs: some deserve autonomy, some don't. Many of the best PAs I know graduated in the days before master's degrees. They are highly experienced, well-trained and competent, and deserving of autonomy. Also, let's not compromise before the debate even begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted July 26, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 26, 2015 LKPAC, what I've seen in the press, year after year, is people assuming the least possible level of education in discussions about PAs: "Nurse practitioners must have been practicing nurses before going back for a Masters' Degree [sic], while PAs often have some experience as a CNA or EMT before graduating from a certificate program". That's hyperbole and nonsense, of course, since all of the certificate (and associate and most of the bachelor's) grads had 10,000+ hours direct patient care experience before school, but it cannot be an accident or simply poor reporting to see the sub-Masters' levels batted around so easily in the press when those haven't been mainstream options for years. I agree in principle with not compromising before opening a negotiation, but we're dealing not with a single entity, but politics based on public opinion. And public opinion, like it or not, places value on degrees. It's also fickle and has an inappropriately long memory sometimes, so if we're going to make a grand foray into the public arena, the things opponents of such a move would highlight can become a liability not easily jettisoned--like the "assistant" moniker. I have no doubt that every sub-Masters'-degree holding PA is at least as good, or better, clinically, than any of us Masters'-holding PAs, and it pains me to advocate a style-over-substance move like this, but it's not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalPA Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 ^^^^ The paper addresses primary care and my reading of the definition means it could apply to all areas. I agree that autonomy is all settings is needed. PAs first have to address the old PA guard who see us as assistants and change will come when the state PA academies elect forward thinking PAs. It is time for the younger PAs to rise up to the challenge and to run for positions. We also need PAs in academia who support autonomy. Paula I will read it again. I think I must have missed that. I thought it was only Primary Care. If what you said is the case, I'm even more ecstatic!! P.S. I was thinking specifically about autonomy in Emergency Med. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsady Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Forgot to let everyone know... I am in possession of a letter from a CEO of a large and prominent malpractice insurance company that states if PAs gain autonomy in Nevada, or any other state, they will be insured and supported. This letter is from March 2015. Hope this brightens your day PA profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted July 30, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 30, 2015 Forgot to let everyone know... I am in possession of a letter from a CEO of a large and prominent malpractice insurance company that states if PAs gain autonomy in Nevada, or any other state, they will be insured and supported. This letter is from March 2015. Hope this brightens your day PA profession. you are so the MAN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick87 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Any update on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.