CAQ Results

[Contrarian]

"The Sky is Falling"...!!

"The Sky is Falling"...!!!

"The Sky is Falling"...!!!!

 

Oh my GOD... "The Sky is Falling"... !!!!!

 

:heheh:

 

I too think the CAQ is nonsense and a set-up for a loss of lateral mobility for ALL PAs... but the Hyperbole is a bit much...!!!

[andersenpa]

I'm not thinking "currently." Tomorrow the sun will rise and you will not notice a change. In three years however, this stuff will be a gamechanger.

 

And yes, that is exactly my logic - as more PAs drink the cool aid and want another paper to hang on the wall, CAQs will become widely recognized and no new grads will ever get hired.

See previous post. you need to address it in order to back up the statement that "no new grad will ever get hired":

 

With the natural process of attrition there will always be a need for new PAs and thus, by an extension, new grads. Practices could not lock themselves out of the hiring market by refusing non CAQ PAs since no new grad or PA w/ less than 1-2 yrs experience could ever get a job.

 

There would be a gradual depletion of candidates until there were only new grads....

 

 

The residency program admissions process will become a rat race so that people can get in to get their hours to take their CAQ. The rest? They will be stacking books at Barnes and Noble.

 

There will always be poisitions for new grads. Most practices prefer experience. But many hire new grads. This is an analagous situation. The need for PAs to "do the work" will keep those PAs employed because for MANY years to come the market will still be in demand and the supply of residency trained PAs will not be sufficient.

 

I haven't taken the CAQ; I'm on the fence about it for this year.

I can tell you that you are incorrect in assuming that PAs are chasing paper for the wall, however.

The appropriate decisions for planning the future of the profession can't be based on 1) erroneous assumptions or 2) ignorance of the current market for PAs and PA validation. This is an evidence based world we work in now, and that includes evidence of core knowledge/competency. If you use EBM for your clinical practice it must follow that standard competence assessment is needed as well.

[CAAdmission]

"The Sky is Falling"...!!

"The Sky is Falling"...!!!

"The Sky is Falling"...!!!!

 

Oh my GOD... "The Sky is Falling"... !!!!!

 

:heheh:

 

I too think the CAQ is nonsense and a set-up for a loss of lateral mobility for ALL PAs... but the Hyperbole is a bit much...!!!

 

 

 

I would be very happy to be proven wrong, but we will know for sure soon. As the saying goes, you can't put the s**t back in the horse.

 

As to who will be deciding to hire or not to hire PAs, you are living in the past if you think clinicians will decide. It will all be up to the payors. Once the insurance industry decides not to pay anyone without "specialty certification" no one will hire them. Would you hire a clinician that has no hope of generating revenue for your practice?

 

If you think the insurance companies won't do this, well, best of luck there, too. I would again be happy to be proven wrong. Just recall that insurance companies have entire teams of people dedicated to finding ways not to pay claims. This sure looks like low hanging fruit.

 

Fact of the matter is that most people who will be inclined to support the CAQs will be (relative) old-timers who are well settled into their specialty and intend to stay there until retirement. Best of luck to new grads who are still cutting their teeth and may jump a specialty or two until they settle into a career.

[CAAdmission]

I can tell you that you are incorrect in assuming that PAs are chasing paper for the wall, however.

The appropriate decisions for planning the future of the profession can't be based on 1) erroneous assumptions or 2) ignorance of the current market for PAs and PA validation. This is an evidence based world we work in now, and that includes evidence of core knowledge/competency. If you use EBM for your clinical practice it must follow that standard competence assessment is needed as well.

 

 

They are chasing the paper because they do not know any better.

 

I don't know anyone anywhere that thinks a standardized test is a good measure of clinical competence. I have no problem proving competence. If you really wish to do so, let's drop the pretense of jerking around with a meaningless method. Just because the docs have ensnared themselves in this idiotic world of meaningless tests and bureaucratic red tape doesn't mean we should blithely follow along. I always thought PAs were people who were frankly too smart to go to medical school. But now we have jumped on the bus driven by those idiots...

[EMEDPA]

Since residency is providing the knowledge tested in CAQ, the exam should be part of the completion requirements, not a prerequisite. EMED what's the status of that?

.

yes, the programs I know of who are planning on using this will have residents take it at the end of their year (or 18 mo).

[andersenpa]

They are chasing the paper because they do not know any better.

 

I'd hesitate to speak about the motives of others.

 

I don't know anyone anywhere that thinks a standardized test is a good measure of clinical competence. I have no problem proving competence. If you really wish to do so, let's drop the pretense of jerking around with a meaningless method. Just because the docs have ensnared themselves in this idiotic world of meaningless tests and bureaucratic red tape doesn't mean we should blithely follow along. I always thought PAs were people who were frankly too smart to go to medical school. But now we have jumped on the bus driven by those idiots...

Interesting....

So, testing should not be accepted as a tool to demonstrate core knowledge?

We should do away with PANCE?

Physicians are "idiots" for using their board exams as a measure of competency?

What about testing in PA school? College? High School?

What are your thoughts on the ""idiocy" of testing in these areas?

 

Testing is not the ONLY tool to demonstrate competency but it is a reliable component of the process.

[andersenpa]

I would be very happy to be proven wrong, but we will know for sure soon. As the saying goes, you can't put the s**t back in the horse.

 

As to who will be deciding to hire or not to hire PAs, you are living in the past if you think clinicians will decide. It will all be up to the payors. Once the insurance industry decides not to pay anyone without "specialty certification" no one will hire them. Would you hire a clinician that has no hope of generating revenue for your practice?

 

If you think the insurance companies won't do this, well, best of luck there, too. I would again be happy to be proven wrong. Just recall that insurance companies have entire teams of people dedicated to finding ways not to pay claims. This sure looks like low hanging fruit.

 

Fact of the matter is that most people who will be inclined to support the CAQs will be (relative) old-timers who are well settled into their specialty and intend to stay there until retirement. Best of luck to new grads who are still cutting their teeth and may jump a specialty or two until they settle into a career.

 

 

The only way this will happen is if PAs are trained in a specialty track from the beginning, like NPs.

Otherwise you still haven't gotten around the problem of new grad non-CAQ PAs.

 

Re: old timers, they stand the least to gain from attaining the CAQ. They have experience and contacts to get the jobs they need. The CAQ seems prime for PAs that have been in specialty 2-5 yrs and need to demonstrate specialty knowledge in the event that they change jobs.

[CAAdmission]

I'd hesitate to speak about the motives of others.

 

 

Interesting....

So, testing should not be accepted as a tool to demonstrate core knowledge?

We should do away with PANCE?

Physicians are "idiots" for using their board exams as a measure of competency?

What about testing in PA school? College? High School?

What are your thoughts on the ""idiocy" of testing in these areas?

 

Testing is not the ONLY tool to demonstrate competency but it is a reliable component of the process.

 

 

We are not talking about "core knowledge" we are talking about assessing clinical competence. Trying to liken what the CAQ presumes to demonstrate and what exams in high school and PA school attempt to achieve is frankly specious. The CAQs (and the entire new jackass CME/QI procedure from the AAPA) are held out to present that the holder is a more competent clinician, not merely a better holder of core knowledge. At the end of the day, the only real way to evaluate a clinician's competence is to look at patient outcomes. Since that is complicated and expensive, we instead invent these poor surrogates as a feel-good attempt. These feel-good measures are supported by those who stand to profit financially from them (ie NCCPA) and probably our generally dull-witted public that is easily wowed by a bunch of plaques on the wall.

 

I would also argue the reliability for any of this testing. Where's the data? We would like to believe in our hearts that people with higher PANCE/PANRE/CAQ scores are better clinicians. Since the "evidence-based" is the present craze, we should find a way to look at this instead of make assumptions.

 

As for our physician overlords being idiots, yep, I think many are. While there are certainly tons of great docs, as a whole organized medicine has become perhaps the most egotistical, self-interested segment of American society. They live under the illusion that there is no human endeavor that could possibly be harder than becoming a physician and that there is no profession with more innate nobility. You could sell them almost anything that would allow them to stroke their collective ego.

[CAAdmission]

The only way this will happen is if PAs are trained in a specialty track from the beginning, like NPs.

Otherwise you still haven't gotten around the problem of new grad non-CAQ PAs.

 

Re: old timers, they stand the least to gain from attaining the CAQ. They have experience and contacts to get the jobs they need. The CAQ seems prime for PAs that have been in specialty 2-5 yrs and need to demonstrate specialty knowledge in the event that they change jobs.

 

 

We are not connecting well on this point. I am saying that there is not going to be a way around the "problem of new grad non-CAQ PAs." I have no solution to propose - these people are eventually going to be screwed. The NCCPA does't give a rat's hiney if these poor slobs can find a job. They will still be taking the PANCE and paying their tithe. One CAQs are widespread, the competition by new grads to get into residency programs is going to make the competition to get into PA school look like a proverbial tiptoe through the tulips.

 

Re: old timers, they stand to keep their jobs if they get the CAQ. If the insurance industry eventually refuses to reimburse non-CAQ people (which they have no good reason not to do) non-CAQ PAs are going to have very limited job options. It won't matter if you are fresh from school, mid-career or old timer. No CAQ, no joy. There are not many physicians that will be thrilled with laying out a $75,000 salary with no return. The only place non-CAQers will be working is likely the VA and the penal system.

 

PA education was designed to be fast, efficient and effective, based on the nuts and bolts of what you need to provide quality care for most people. As we make it less so, many talented people that would have been good PAs will simply say screw it, for all that hassle I'll go to med school instead...

[Contrarian]

CJ...

GREAT last two posts...!!!

Well done!

 

:wink:

 

The only disagreement I have is with your notion that the old-timers will be screwed.

They will be fine because even in a CAQ world, their 15-20yrs experience actually practicing will trump the new kid wih no experience and a CAQ. Unless... as you stated... the third party payers demand a CAQ for reimbursement. Then yes, they are screwed.

 

And Yes.... standardized tests are poor tools for evaluating "clinical competence."

They merely evaluate ones ability to regurgitate info... or better yet... ones ability to pick the right answer out of 4 choices.

[andersenpa]

We are not talking about "core knowledge" we are talking about assessing clinical competence. Trying to liken what the CAQ presumes to demonstrate and what exams in high school and PA school attempt to achieve is frankly specious. The CAQs (and the entire new jackass CME/QI procedure from the AAPA) are held out to present that the holder is a more competent clinician, not merely a better holder of core knowledge. At the end of the day, the only real way to evaluate a clinician's competence is to look at patient outcomes. Since that is complicated and expensive, we instead invent these poor surrogates as a feel-good attempt. These feel-good measures are supported by those who stand to profit financially from them (ie NCCPA) and probably our generally dull-witted public that is easily wowed by a bunch of plaques on the wall.

 

I would also argue the reliability for any of this testing. Where's the data? We would like to believe in our hearts that people with higher PANCE/PANRE/CAQ scores are better clinicians. Since the "evidence-based" is the present craze, we should find a way to look at this instead of make assumptions.

 

As for our physician overlords being idiots, yep, I think many are. While there are certainly tons of great docs, as a whole organized medicine has become perhaps the most egotistical, self-interested segment of American society. They live under the illusion that there is no human endeavor that could possibly be harder than becoming a physician and that there is no profession with more innate nobility. You could sell them almost anything that would allow them to stroke their collective ego.

 

Core knowledge IS a component of competency. The two are part of the same whole, and cannot be considered separately. The national board determines your knowledge base as one element of competency. Your employer and SP evaluate your clinical acumen, communication skills, and technical ability as other measures of competency. An exam OR patient outcomes are not sole measures of competence; they are intertwined, and one cannot exist without the other. If it were the case that outcomes were the only thing that mattered, we could have apprenticeships all over again and forgo formal standardized schooling. Your mentor would teach you his/her way and the outcomes for a PA could be just as good.

 

Of the clinicians I've worked with- PA or MD- the ones who had a strong core knowledge basis were the best since they made decisions based on sound principles and evidence of what best serves the patient. The lesser folks were those who did things "because thats the way I was taught/always been done" with no fundamentals behind it. This is not competence.

 

Your may dismiss the majority of medicine based on personal opinion, but disregarding the value of core knowledge testing is more extreme than the way you characterize the NCCPA et al.

 

The exam is a demonstrable example of the knowledge the PA has gained in that specialty. There is irrefutable value in that, just as the boards for our physician colleagues have.

[andersenpa]

We are not connecting well on this point. I am saying that there is not going to be a way around the "problem of new grad non-CAQ PAs." I have no solution to propose - these people are eventually going to be screwed. The NCCPA does't give a rat's hiney if these poor slobs can find a job. They will still be taking the PANCE and paying their tithe. One CAQs are widespread, the competition by new grads to get into residency programs is going to make the competition to get into PA school look like a proverbial tiptoe through the tulips.

 

Re: old timers, they stand to keep their jobs if they get the CAQ. If the insurance industry eventually refuses to reimburse non-CAQ people (which they have no good reason not to do) non-CAQ PAs are going to have very limited job options. It won't matter if you are fresh from school, mid-career or old timer. No CAQ, no joy. There are not many physicians that will be thrilled with laying out a $75,000 salary with no return. The only place non-CAQers will be working is likely the VA and the penal system.

 

PA education was designed to be fast, efficient and effective, based on the nuts and bolts of what you need to provide quality care for most people. As we make it less so, many talented people that would have been good PAs will simply say screw it, for all that hassle I'll go to med school instead...

 

 

If you believe the NCCPA is going to create a system by which new grads without 1-2 yrs experience will NEVER be able to get a job, then I guess there is no sane ground on which this topic can be discussed.

[Contrarian]

If you believe the NCCPA is going to create a system by which new grads without 1-2 yrs experience will NEVER be able to get a job, then I guess there is no sane ground on which this topic can be discussed.

 

............... :;;D: :heheh: :;;D:..............

[CAAdmission]

If you believe the NCCPA is going to create a system by which new grads without 1-2 yrs experience will NEVER be able to get a job, then I guess there is no sane ground on which this topic can be discussed.

 

 

What would lead you to believe otherwise? As has been accurately noted by numerous people on numerous threads, the NCCPA ostensibly exists only to forward public safety and the public interest (as well as to apparently generate tremendous revenue). It is not their function to care whether anyone ever gets a job.

 

It is troubling to me that this single agency (that is predominated by physicians and not PAs) has, at a whim, decided to take steps that irrevocably alter the very nature of our profession. And they have taken these steps without addressing the very legitimate potential problems raised by both individual PAs and some of our professional organizations. The unifrom response from the NCCPA has been some euphemistic version of "f*** you."

 

Since you are test gung-ho, why don't you petition the physician board in your specialty to make you an exam to take? They are the universally recognized experts in their field and have been giving the test a lot longer than these reportely poor efforts cobbled together by the NCCPA. You have argued that we do the same stuff as physicians. Why take a different test? Let's do what they do and take the same test. The NCCPA could use some healthy competition. And physicians would be much more impressed by someone who passed a test from their own well-known board organization than the NCCPA. I would think whoever writes the physician board exams would be happy to take money from the 80,000 PAs around. I would be happy to give it to someone other than NCCPA.

 

As to the value of testing in general, I can tell you this with no false humility: I have scored at or very near to 800 every time I have taken the PANCE/PANRE. Clinically, I am very much Joe Average. The test is a joke.

[Contrarian]

Hey CJ...

Did you take your meds this morning...??? You seem to be decompensating, Cause your posts are becoming bizzare and out of touch with reality.

The NCCPA will NOT set up a situation where new grads can't be gainfully employed. Why, because buearacracies are self protective... the NCCPA can't exist without them and therefore wouldn't endorse a situation that would jeapardize their existence.

 

I was with you on a few previous posts, and actually agree that the CAQ is nonsense, as I believe that my patients and SP determines whether or not I'm functioning in appropriate ways, and whether or not MY knowledge base and competence is "clinically excellent"... a multiple guess test is meaningless.

 

For instance, It makes NO sense to me to take the CAQ in Psychiatry...

Especially... since I have a MASTERS DEGREE and transcript with PSYCHIATRY written directly on them.

 

It also makes NO sense for me to take a CAQ in Internal Medicine or FP... as I can already do that without it, the PANRE already covers that material and it really serves no purpose... except of course for giving me another piece of paper/"atta-boy" for my wall.

 

The rest of your last post is simply bizzare...

 

Titrate to effect bro... :wink:

[CAAdmission]

Why is that? The pro-CAQ folks argue that since we do the same things that docs do, we should be assessed the same. If we are going to have to take a test, why not take an exam from the same organization that the docs do? Their board organizations are certainly a more legitimate authority thatn the NCCPA.

 

For example, who made up the NCCPA ER exam? Someone earlier in this thread said it looked a lot more like a hospitalist exam. NCCPA professes to be worried about quality, but they rolled out this effort half-a**ed. Why are we to belive that the NCCPA is a legitimate authority on emergency medicine? And surgery? And nephology? And everything else? If we are going to have to take a test, why turn to these chuckleheads when we have organizations like ACEP and ABEM that are the legitimate experts in their field? I'm sure they have tons of validated questions around they would be happy to sell. If you work in ER and have a choice between a certificate from NCCPA and ABEM, it probably would not be a hard choice.

 

If I seem crazy, that is fairly accurate. In case you missed it, I am consumed by seething hatred of the NCCPA. All the rest of you should be, too. They could not screw up more if they made a concerted effort. I am still waiting for the tagline to appear on their website: Sponsored by the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners.

[CAAdmission]

The NCCPA will NOT set up a situation where new grads can't be gainfully employed. Why, because buearacracies are self protective... the NCCPA can't exist without them and therefore would endorse a situation that would jeapardize their existence.

 

 

Then we will have to agree to disagree on this, tough guy. I argue that this situation has already been set in motion. The ultimate consequence will be that every new grad will soon have to go through a residency program to be CAQable and hireable. This will be a boon to residency programs which will have to greatly expand to accommodate demand. NCCPA makes a fortune on all these extra exams. ARC-PA makes a fortune accrediting all the new residency programs. The public are comforted by all the stupid certificates. The only losers in the whole thing are the poor slobs who follow in our footsteps.

[andersenpa]

What would lead you to believe otherwise?

 

Because the NCCPA needs working PAs in order to exist.

 

As has been accurately noted by numerous people on numerous threads, the NCCPA ostensibly exists only to forward public safety and the public interest (as well as to apparently generate tremendous revenue). It is not their function to care whether anyone ever gets a job.

 

It is against their interest to oversee the certification of PAs who will be unable to work.

It is troubling to me that this single agency (that is predominated by physicians and not PAs) has, at a whim, decided to take steps that irrevocably alter the very nature of our profession. And they have taken these steps without addressing the very legitimate potential problems raised by both individual PAs and some of our professional organizations. The unifrom response from the NCCPA has been some euphemistic version of "f*** you."

 

Since you are test gung-ho, why don't you petition the physician board in your specialty to make you an exam to take?

 

I am in favor of specialty based recert. The PANRE is a terrible tool to assess my knowledge since it doesn't cover the maerial relevant to my practice. I'd rather take a specialty focused exam on my field than re-learning the peds immunization schedule every 6 yrs.

 

I don't know how involved the physician boards were in making the CAQ exams. Sounds like a good idea. But we should be tested by our own organization.

 

They are the universally recognized experts in their field and have been giving the test a lot longer than these reportely poor efforts cobbled together by the NCCPA. You have argued that we do the same stuff as physicians.

 

I did not. I say we both practice medicine. But we come from different training background and employ different practical scope. Sometimes the scope is VERY similar (peds, IM, occ med) and sometimes it is starkly different (My area, CT surgery). I do NOT do the "same stuff" as my surgeons.

 

Why take a different test?

 

Because they are docs and we are PAs. Just like we wouldn't have NPs take PANRE. NPs took the physician exams (believe it was USMLE? Can't recall) but it was a raging failure.

 

Let's do what they do and take the same test. The NCCPA could use some healthy competition. And physicians would be much more impressed by someone who passed a test from their own well-known board organization than the NCCPA.

 

Docs would be more impressed if they had a part in the content of the specialty exams, definitely. They would laugh to think that their CT surg PA is "reboarded" by taking an exam on DUB, the latest RA tx, and how to w/u chronic diarrhea.

 

I would think whoever writes the physician board exams would be happy to take money from the 80,000 PAs around. I would be happy to give it to someone other than NCCPA.

 

As to the value of testing in general, I can tell you this with no false humility: I have scored at or very near to 800 every time I have taken the PANCE/PANRE. Clinically, I am very much Joe Average. The test is a joke.

 

the generalist PANRE is a joke for specialty PAs. Specialty testing (in theory) is not. I don't know the content of the current CAQ to say either way.

[CAAdmission]

I worked in CT surgery for a while in the pre-scoping days. My "generalist" knowledge fund saved a lot of dumb consults. As an example, I worked for a great surgeon, but he was completely baffled by how to treat one of our old ladies that developed vaginal candidiasis. If the future of the profession lies in specialties, I will go you one better - don't just get rid of the generalist exam, get rid of generalist programs. If you work in CT surgery, it was probably a waste of your time to rotate in behavioral health and ob/gyn.

 

Again, you're not quite getting me. The NCCPA has set this in motion, but they are no longer in control of how it will play out - third party payers and employers are. Imagine that we were told in 24 months every PA without a CAQ in their field would be fired. The NCCPA would jump for joy, greedily rubbing their hands. They are in a happy place. Have you seen their salaries? They make more money than they can spend right now. Even if the pool of PAs never increases they will continue to reap the millions they already make, and then the additional millions they will make on CAQs. They don't need there to be a million PAs. They are fat and happy having only 80,000. As long as they have a trickle of PAs coming in to replace those retiring, they have no need to change. They can already fill a swimming pool with cash and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.

 

Based on your statements, it seems that you think it is impossible that the NCCPA's action could have a serious adverse effect on the PA job market. I can see how you might think it was unlikely, but to discount it as impossible is very risky.

 

And suppose that disaster does occur? How can the NCCPA possibly respond? They can't un-CAQ us.

[andersenpa]

I worked in CT surgery for a while in the pre-scoping days. My "generalist" knowledge fund saved a lot of dumb consults. As an example, I worked for a great surgeon, but he was completely baffled by how to treat one of our old ladies that developed vaginal candidiasis. If the future of the profession lies in specialties, I will go you one better - don't just get rid of the generalist exam, get rid of generalist programs. If you work in CT surgery, it was probably a waste of your time to rotate in behavioral health and ob/gyn.

 

Just as surgeons begin their training as generalists in med school and residency, PAs should continue to do so. It is important to get broad exposure early on. Repeated testing on generalist topics that are no longer applicable to specialty practice is a waste of MY continuing education.

 

Again, you're not quite getting me. The NCCPA has set this in motion, but they are no longer in control of how it will play out - third party payers and employers are. Imagine that we were told in 24 months every PA without a CAQ in their field would be fired.

 

So insurers are going to all of sudden negate thousands upon thousands of (non PC PA) providers based on a non-mandatory recognition exam? Uh-huh.

 

If the specialty recognition became specialty certification, then you may have an argument for changes from payors. But then only if the spec certification was open to all PAs, new grads included. Like most major changes this would have a phase in period over many years, so as not to overstress the health care system which is buckling already. Continuity would be maintained for the many PAs who practice in setting where they are sole providers; underserved, corrections, remote, military. Settings under state and federal oversight.

 

But why ignore the fact that such an undertaking which would cripple major portions of our health care system when you can serve your argument that the NCCPA will bring PA practice to a screeching halt?

 

The NCCPA would jump for joy, greedily rubbing their hands. They are in a happy place. Have you seen their salaries?

 

Yes.

 

They make more money than they can spend right now. Even if the pool of PAs never increases they will continue to reap the millions they already make, and then the additional millions they will make on CAQs. They don't need there to be a million PAs. They are fat and happy having only 80,000. As long as they have a trickle of PAs coming in to replace those retiring, they have no need to change.

 

They won't- you said no new grad will be able to find a job.

 

They can already fill a swimming pool with cash and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.

 

Based on your statements, it seems that you think it is impossible that the NCCPA's action could have a serious adverse effect on the PA job market. I can see how you might think it was unlikely, but to discount it as impossible is very risky.

 

Very unlikely. The NCCPA wants to keep many many PAs certified and employed. Pushing PAs out of work is simply against their financial interest. Paranoia is sure route around simple logic0 follow the paper trail. NCCPA needs more PAs, not less.

 

And suppose that disaster does occur? How can the NCCPA possibly respond? They can't un-CAQ us.

 

They can refuse to take the test and negate the market for it. Unless they are all the dumb degree/certificate chasers you dismiss them as.

[CAAdmission]

Hey Contrarian and Andersen -

 

This was posted on Clinician 1 by someone that was heavily involved in the AAPA House of Delegates this week:

 

 

"...the NCCPA has created Certificates of Advanced Qualifications(CAQ’s). One delegate from TX mentioned that 3rd party payers in their state wanted a list of all those who had completed the CAQ’s (somewhere around 230 nationwide if my memory serves me correctly) so they could determine who was qualified to be paid. This would be disasterous. Think how fast NP’’s would get our jobs. The issue of CAQ’s is a whole other conversation on detrimental forces on our profession."

 

 

Any time you two want to kiss my hiney, there is no wait - both cheeks are available. Time to start taking your meds, Contrarian. You are going to need them...

[Just Steve]

Hey Contrarian and Andersen -

 

This was posted on Clinician 1 by someone that was heavily involved in the AAPA House of Delegates this week:

 

 

"...the NCCPA has created Certificates of Advanced Qualifications(CAQ’s). One delegate from TX mentioned that 3rd party payers in their state wanted a list of all those who had completed the CAQ’s (somewhere around 230 nationwide if my memory serves me correctly) so they could determine who was qualified to be paid. This would be disasterous. Think how fast NP’’s would get our jobs. The issue of CAQ’s is a whole other conversation on detrimental forces on our profession."

 

 

Any time you two want to kiss my hiney, there is no wait - both cheeks are available. Time to start taking your meds, Contrarian. You are going to need them...

 

HHmmmmm I was there at the HOD during some of this discussion... lots of concerns were voiced over the possibility of 3rd party payers refusing to pay non CAQ PAs but I have no recall of anyone mentioning this actual event.

 

Lots of speakers, lots of things being said, lots of hype, fear, confusion, opinions... easy for the Clinician 1 poster or myself to be mistaken. I'd probably hold off on doing the booty dance offering up cheeks to be kissed

[EMEDPA]

my understanding was that there was talk(in maryland I think) of requiring a caq for state reimbursement but it was shut down before it went anywhere.

[andersenpa]

Hey Contrarian and Andersen -

 

This was posted on Clinician 1 by someone that was heavily involved in the AAPA House of Delegates this week:

 

 

"...the NCCPA has created Certificates of Advanced Qualifications(CAQ’s). One delegate from TX mentioned that 3rd party payers in their state wanted a list of all those who had completed the CAQ’s (somewhere around 230 nationwide if my memory serves me correctly) so they could determine who was qualified to be paid. This would be disasterous. Think how fast NP’’s would get our jobs. The issue of CAQ’s is a whole other conversation on detrimental forces on our profession."

 

 

Any time you two want to kiss my hiney, there is no wait - both cheeks are available. Time to start taking your meds, Contrarian. You are going to need them...

 

 

Right now I'm not too worried about 1) an isolated hearsay comment on an online discussion forum, or 2) NPs taking my job since CTS is HEAVILY dominated by PAs.

 

I'd like to see how the state medical societies (doc$) react when they hear that insurers won't pay their PAs.

 

And I read that post earlier today. She is one of a handful of PAs, delegates, who are on C1 bashing the name change. They are raising CAQ as a distraction to point attention away from the associate name change.

[CAAdmission]

Hmmmm... In summary:

 

1. A situation that you flippantly dismissed as utterly impossible is now at least being discussed in TX and MD

 

2. You don't care if the above occurs due to unlikely personal consequences for you.