Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I may be out of the loop here but did anyone see this?

 

https://www.aapa.org/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=548

 

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aapa/paprofessional_201508/#/9

 

AAPA model legislation document endorsing collaboration as the descriptive term (that's the old news), but also that 1) PAs are not required to document their collaborating physician with the state and 2) states develop an independent PA board which can be exclusively PA led?

 

This is a pretty progressive document and seems to mirror NP practice acts for all the big things PAs have been asking for.

 

Pasted summary below:

 

The updated model state legislation proposes an administrative process in which a PA presents his or her credentials to a state regulatory agency and receives a license in return. The license is renewable, based on meeting state requirements. The model legislation does not propose that the regulatory authority approve or register collaborating physicians. Any licensed physician or group of physicians (MD or DO) may collaborate with a PA unless the physician’s ability to collaborate has been limited by disciplinary action. The scope of PA practice under the model legislation is determined by what is within the PA’s skills, education and experience. Language describing PA scope of practice being determined by physician delegation has been deleted.

 

The model legislation authorizes PA prescriptive authority, including controlled substances in Schedules II through V, as well as limited dispensing authority. In modernizing the model legislation language, requiring the collaborating physician to assume responsibility for care provided by the PA was removed. Rather, the PA is responsible for their professional actions. The new model also removes the concept that a PA should be considered the “agent” of a physician. In the past, rather than amending health law outside the PA practice act, PAs sought to be able to perform specific regulated medical and surgical tasks as the “agent” of a physician. Current advocacy efforts seek to have PAs specifically named in all relevant health law, removing the need for “agency” language. It is stated quite clearly in the model legislation that a physician need not be physically present as long as the PA and physician can contact one another easily.

 

The details of collaboration are left to the PA physician team. Augmenting previous language that removed the requirement that PAs practice with physician collaboration when responding to a disaster situation, the new model state legislation extends the same authorization to PAs who are participating in volunteer activities. The new model legislation presents a list of options for regulatory models, with the preferred option being a separate and independent PA board. Because the revisions to the AAPA model legislation were adopted in May 2015, they are not yet extensively reflected in current state laws and regulations. Advocacy projects to adopt the modernized model law are underway across the country.

  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure lots of physicians would love to get us off their backs for liability..note when I say this take it lightly. We realize PA s don't get sued all that often, and of course the physicians of the practice would still have some professional liability, I.e in surgical sub specialties. Curious what that would do to our malpractice fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is a great template to start discussions among state chapters who want to try to change their practice act

unfortunately, most state chapters are not very progressive. my state folks didn't even vote yes at the recent HOD to allow individual PAs to call themselves either assistant or associate. they didn't even research the issue. they thought it was a distraction from other issues like pas billing 100% for services. I disagree.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've seen it and it has been posted previously.  All state PA chapters need to update to this model legislation and get support from their legislators to amend all the outdate PA laws.  

 

I'm proposing this for Wisconsin chapter to get behind.  Anyone else from WI on Forum who can help me with advocacy?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious as to how this will affect liability insurance and benefits offered to PAs within offices and hospitals.

We have always been given benefits by our employing physicians for licensure, memberships, insurance etc.

If the reimbursement doesn't change with this, though, we will still be paid less with way more expenses.

It doesn't sound like it means a PA can hang his/her own shingle, though.

Are we still employees, contract employees or practice partners now?

 

Lots to iron out. Hope it doesn't get bogged down in litigation or bureaucracy.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this as a start. Will any state take it on or will we still be discussing in 5 yrs?

 

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sitting in front of a local restaurant waiting for Senator Ron Johnson to arrive to discuss issues. I plan on asking him health care related questions. He's late.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did it!  I asked Senator Johnson why PAs are unable to order hospice and home health care services for our patients, yet we are allowed to prescribe the most powerful drugs available.   I piggy -backed that question onto a previous question from a veteran who asked about the issue with the VA in Tomah, WI where a patient died from a drug overdose and there was no effort to provide CPR, etc.  (you all might be aware of the issue as it has been in the papers and news).  It afforded me the perfect segue to my question. 

 

His answer was that CMS has too much power and needs to be changed and medicine should have local control, decisions made at the local or state level, and that the cost of care is increasing due to the continual government interference with the decisions medical professionals need to make.

 

He thanked me for my work as a PA and said professionals like me are appreciated and needed.   He did say physicians assistants, tho.  (frown face).

 

Then the local newspaper editor got my name, where I worked, what does PA stand for?  I explained and he knew the term.  I asked him to put only PA in the paper, but he said that they spell out acronyms initially.  I expect there will be an article in our paper that comes out on Tuesday or Friday.  There were only a handful of locals present  and the interview by the paper was done outside.  It was cool.  Inside the restaurant I expect he will meet all the vacationers from Illinois.  It  was packed for breakfast and lunch.  

 

BTW: Ron had been fishing at one of the best musky lakes in the area. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be out of the loop here but did anyone see this?

 

https://www.aapa.org/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=548

 

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aapa/paprofessional_201508/#/9

 

AAPA model legislation document endorsing collaboration as the descriptive term (that's the old news), but also that 1) PAs are not required to document their collaborating physician with the state and 2) states develop an independent PA board which can be exclusively PA led?

 

This is a pretty progressive document and seems to mirror NP practice acts for all the big things PAs have been asking for.

 

Pasted summary below:

 

The updated model state legislation proposes an administrative process in which a PA presents his or her credentials to a state regulatory agency and receives a license in return. The license is renewable, based on meeting state requirements. The model legislation does not propose that the regulatory authority approve or register collaborating physicians. Any licensed physician or group of physicians (MD or DO) may collaborate with a PA unless the physician’s ability to collaborate has been limited by disciplinary action. The scope of PA practice under the model legislation is determined by what is within the PA’s skills, education and experience. Language describing PA scope of practice being determined by physician delegation has been deleted.

 

The model legislation authorizes PA prescriptive authority, including controlled substances in Schedules II through V, as well as limited dispensing authority. In modernizing the model legislation language, requiring the collaborating physician to assume responsibility for care provided by the PA was removed. Rather, the PA is responsible for their professional actions. The new model also removes the concept that a PA should be considered the “agent” of a physician. In the past, rather than amending health law outside the PA practice act, PAs sought to be able to perform specific regulated medical and surgical tasks as the “agent” of a physician. Current advocacy efforts seek to have PAs specifically named in all relevant health law, removing the need for “agency” language. It is stated quite clearly in the model legislation that a physician need not be physically present as long as the PA and physician can contact one another easily.

 

The details of collaboration are left to the PA physician team. Augmenting previous language that removed the requirement that PAs practice with physician collaboration when responding to a disaster situation, the new model state legislation extends the same authorization to PAs who are participating in volunteer activities. The new model legislation presents a list of options for regulatory models, with the preferred option being a separate and independent PA board. Because the revisions to the AAPA model legislation were adopted in May 2015, they are not yet extensively reflected in current state laws and regulations. Advocacy projects to adopt the modernized model law are underway across the country.

That is very progressive and sounds like a great plan. Implementation will, no doubt, be a grind. Here in Texas TMA, the state's biggest physician organization, spent several million dollars this past year for the sole purpose of lobbying to stop any expansion of non-physician privileges. The medical board is generally considered an extension of TMA by most folks and has been and is currently being sued again for exceeding its mandate by taking actions that are outside its scope and merely protect physician's control and financial interest.. The PA board is supposedly an independent board but still falls under the medical board. We need licensing completely separate from the medical board and a truly independent PA board.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sas58, We have a similar problem in my state. but we only have one board for dos and PAs. its made up of people from several different professions (that they license/oversee) a few dos, public member, EMT, and one PA. the board is largely a "good ol' boys club" as most have been on the board for years and years. IMO the PA is the single biggest obstruction to PA practice in the state. Here's an example. A past requirement for any PA getting their FIRST state license was (prior to being able to practice mind you) to have an interview with the board PA and the PA's doc. A few years latter Said PA put forth the idea (which the board endorsed and enacted) ) that said interview should be required EVERY time the PA gets a new collaborating/supervising doc. As you might imagine this has done wonders for hospitals/clinics wanting to hire PA's over NP's

 

As for our state chapter, well they are firmly in the back pocket..... that's not quite right..... they have their noses so far up the state medical societies posterior they could screen for colon Ca. the med society gives them an office and provides them with the use of their front desk people (at minimal to no charge charge). So I don't see anything happening regarding the above any time soon.         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifying that we need a collaborative physician and the identification of an appropriate scope seems reasonable and my be enough to keep physicians appeased, BUT it needs to be specified that once our scope is identified we work INDEPENDENTLY of the physician!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I think we work on getting the expanded practice rights before we go after the name change.  We really shouldn't sow ill will with physicians when trying to get independent practice.  Once we accomplish independent practice then it will be easier to get physician assistant changed to physician associate (or medical practitioner or whatever).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More