"Sponsoring Physician""

[haeriphos]

Umm...

 

That was already covered...

 

Here in WA state... there already IS a difference.

"Supervised" PAs can not work in remote sites and ALL of their charting MUST be co-signed within 2 days.

"Sponsored" PAs can work in remote sites and there is NO chart co-signature requirement.

 

So there already IS a difference and I think the point of the discussions was that the change could "flesh-out" differences and later used to increase autonomy/independence of "Sponsored" versus "Supervised" PA-Cs.

 

Thanks for the clarification -- I missed that post. Seeing as how the sponsored PA would get more privileges and overall efficiency would be improved (less or no cosigning requirements) I think it's a good idea.

[haeriphos]

To external groups....compare NP and PA. Who is perceived as more competent/autonomous - one who works with supervision or one who works with sponsorship/collaboration?

 

Some argue we don't compete with NPs but stories here differ.

 

I see your point, but I would rather the money be spent on studies comparing quality of care. I think these would go farther in demonstrating that PA care is equal/better to care by an NP/resident/whatever.