An Open Letter to All PAs: The Time Has Come for a Professional Name Change

[Guest mikefunkpac]

I don't remember voting any of the above mentioned "leaders" into the positions. In any case, the time for this has long passed and while it's easy to get up on a soap box and make some noise about this name change, the reality is it ain't going to happen! Y'all are incredibly naive regarding the legislative process, and this would require state by state and national legislation. The amount of work and money that would be required is, simply, not worth it. Why don't we put our collective energies to work for something that will REALLY benefit the profession, like getting PAs to work in hospice. As a memberof the AAPA House of Delegates, if this idea comes up you can count on me to argue vigorously against it. In my state, we have much more important issues to work on. And, by the way, I have several old PA friends who graduated with the 's on their degree, the dreaded Physician's Assistant, and they are proud of that designation and do not want any changes. Personally, I don't have any problem telling my patients I'm a Physician Assistant, what I have a problem with is getting them to stop calling me doctor!

[Guest ESSmithPA]

Well said Michael!

[EMEDPA]

"Why don't we put our collective energies to work for something that will REALLY benefit the profession, like getting PAs to work in hospice."

 

this would effect what, 5% of pa's?

so you would have us throw money at an issue that is of ZERO importance to 95% of pa's and ignore issues( our name and PR to promote the profession regardless of what it is called) that are of great importance to many, if not a majority, of pa's.

that makes no sense at all.

(there must be something in the water in florida.....:) )

[andersenpa]

I don't remember voting any of the above mentioned "leaders" into the positions. In any case, the time for this has long passed and while it's easy to get up on a soap box and make some noise about this name change, the reality is it ain't going to happen! Y'all are incredibly naive regarding the legislative process, and this would require state by state and national legislation. The amount of work and money that would be required is, simply, not worth it. Why don't we put our collective energies to work for something that will REALLY benefit the profession, like getting PAs to work in hospice. As a memberof the AAPA House of Delegates, if this idea comes up you can count on me to argue vigorously against it. In my state, we have much more important issues to work on. And, by the way, I have several old PA friends who graduated with the 's on their degree, the dreaded Physician's Assistant, and they are proud of that designation and do not want any changes. Personally, I don't have any problem telling my patients I'm a Physician Assistant, what I have a problem with is getting them to stop calling me doctor!

 

Nobody is naive about the process, we are all aware of what it entails.

Several posts here have detailed the "worth" of this matter, which your post doesn't address.

I wonder what details your vigorous argument against it in the HOD would include. I bet it would be more than "It's not worth it"......

[Hemegroup]

BTW, this profession has been my life's work for thirty years, and I wish you all the best. You made a great choice when you chose to become a PA.

 

And my sincere respect to you, for all of your hard work. I wanted to say that earlier, but didn't want to detract. I can only hope for as much as you've accomplished, as I'm one year away from 40. Hey, my dad didn't retire until he was in his 70s (carpet installation), and he still works a job here and there at 85!

[CAdamsPAC]

And my sincere respect to you, for all of your hard work. I wanted to say that earlier, but didn't want to detract. I can only hope for as much as you've accomplished, as I'm one year away from 40. Hey, my dad didn't retire until he was in his 70s (carpet installation), and he still works a job here and there at 85!

 

"Hey, my dad didn't retire until he was in his 70s (carpet installation), and he still works a job here and there at 85!" God bless him , I salute your father.

[Joelseff]

just something I came across today: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos321.htm "Respiratory therapists—also known as respiratory care practitioners—evaluate, treat, and care for patients with breathing or other cardiopulmonary disorders. Practicing under the direction of a physician, respiratory therapists assume primary responsibility for all respiratory care therapeutic treatments and diagnostic procedures, including the supervision of respiratory therapy technicians. They consult with physicians and other healthcare staff to help develop and modify patient care plans."

 

I posted here before about other professions changing their titles almost seamlessly. Although I DO understand RT/RCP's are not held to the same medical/legal responsibilities as PA's, are we overestimating the probable backlash/resistance?

[andersenpa]

Maybe I need to clarify something, because the tone here sounds like you think I am speaking for the AAPA. The only person on this board who may be speaking for the AAPA would be Steve Hanson. I am speaking for me, a Family Practice PA of Florida for 9 years.... a PA who has been actively involved in his constituent organization because he was once disgruntled (like a few of you appear to be) about the direction of his association and decided to get involved and CHANGE the status quo rather than complain about it without actively climbing into the drivers seat and trying to do something about it. That is why I tell you to get involved in AAPA, not because it is some typical "leadership" response. Its simple logic. If you want something done, you step up yourself and lead the cause.

 

And Steve makes a great point in a later post. The AAPA Board and top leadership does not make policy, the HOD does. The HOD sets policy once a year and those delegates are elected by their constituent organizations. Which again brings up the point of getting involved in state organizations, a point I tried to make much earlier today. I have been a Florida delegate now for 5 years. We have year round contact with our membership through emails and newsletters and encourage input on issues that affect them most. No FAPA MEMBER in Florida has contacted FAPA asking for this issue to be advocated. Does that mean all the folks who want this to be dealt with in Florida are nonmembers? Well then, that brings up the question again as to whether their opinion should count. Harsh sounding or not, I say it should NOT. Those PAs who choose not to join and get actively involved in their own professional organization should not be asked how they want the organization to spend its efforts and members dues. If they want to have a say that should be counted, they need to be members.

 

As for your final question "by what measure do you place your confidence that the majority does not support this cause?", this I explained earlier. Supporting the cause means supporting the full manpower, time and cost that goes into the cause. It becomes a priority issue. Like Steve tried to point out earlier, asking PAs if they would like to be called Physician Associate is a bit too simplistic and unfair. It would be like the US Govt polling Americans asking them if they would like a stimulus check, then taxing their brains out when they say "yes" because you didn't tell them how you planned to get that stimulus money. AAPA dues paying members should understand that they are being asked whether they want the AAPA to devote their time and resources to this as a top priority issue for the Academy. Outside of this message board and the Clinician 1 message Board, I have spoken to no PAs who are willing to support this as such. This includes the 90 member polled Florida listserve that I referenced in my original post.

 

I directed my comments at "leadership", which in my mind includes both AAPA leaders as well as stae chapter folks, delegates and past presidents alike.

 

As this discussion has evolved over the past few weeks, there have been a growing number of our members who have made it clear that they would be willing to dedicate money to the state level if it were dedicated to this cause. The interest in this is matched only by those willing to donate to a nat'l marketing campaign (another cause that the AAPA has declined interest in.....just read the position statements of the current candidates).

 

Re membership: I have been either an AAPA and/or NYSSPA/WAPA member my entire PA career. I continue to pay these organizations for the representation that they provide. It makes the immediate dismissal of title change adovacacy that much more painful when I and others feel as if we're paying into the pot and not getting an ear when we need it. I would go on to argue that those that don't pay in at either level are STILL PAs and should be viewed equally. You feel their opinion "should not count". Really? This is two sides digging their heels in- nonmembers who don't see any return on their investment, and the state chapter with a "no pay, no play" attitude. I would hope the academies could be more inclusive and take the higher road here. You catch more flies with honey.

 

What we have here is one side (mostly academy types) citing no interest in the issue, and a groundswell of non-academy types in favor. A poll, survey, or objective measurement is in order. And that includes questioning the fiscal dedication of PAs who support the title change philosophically.

[underserved]

"Why don't we put our collective energies to work for something that will REALLY benefit the profession, like getting PAs to work in hospice."

 

this would effect what, 5% of pa's?

so you would have us throw money at an issue that is of ZERO importance to 95% of pa's and ignore issues( our name and PR to promote the profession regardless of what it is called) that are of great importance to many, if not a majority, of pa's.

that makes no sense at all.

(there must be something in the water in florida.....:) )

two thumbs up.

[marilynpac]

I agree completely with the above statement. I understand a couple states have proceeded forward with the name change and are including both Physician Assistant and Physician Associate. It may go state to state and it may go slow, but it also will move forward.

[huskymed]

I understand both sides of the argument. I appreciate the many views that have been put out there. For the record, I'm staunchly in favor of a name change. There's something I just don't get.

 

Both sides agree that our current name doesn't reflect our role in the big scheme of things. Both sides seem to agree that "physician associate," would more accurately reflect our profession. Both sides, for the most part, agree that the overwhelming majority of us would be in favor of the change. Why is this issue turning into such a huge point of contention?

 

One of the arguments I keep hearing is that this will cost us a huge amount of money, time, and effort. I ask what it will cost us, in the long-run, not to address this issue now. Certainly, at the very least, not addressing it it will cause a great majority of our members to go on working a job with a great deal of responsibility, with a name we don't like. Not only that we don't like, but one that makes us feel invaluable and unappreciated. Not good for the masses. Ask any war veteran about morale. Above the hardships they endure, above the death of their friends and loved ones, their brothers in arms, I would be willing to bet that they'd rank morale at the top of the list. It's amazing what one can endure if he or she feels respected and valued. It's frightening what lack of morale will do to any group of people.

 

I keep hearing that changing our name will put the profession in great peril. That a change will open our practice acts, possibly allowing their desecration. I hardly believe this will happen. The country is amidst the biggest changes we've ever seen on the healthcare front and people, the government, our patients are asking for and seeking radical change. If anything, I see opening our practice acts as an opportunity to expand our practice. Not to seek autonomy, but to get some of the things for which we've been fighting for so long. Things like Hospice rights and expanded prescriptive rights. Things that truly do matter. There is no better time. The country is in too much medical uncertainty and the politicians and legislators are under too much pressure to address that uncertainty to do anything but advance our practice.

 

Waiting ten years for this debate to again rear its ugly head is not a wise road to travel. And if history has taught us anything, it has taught us time and again that this issue will not be put to rest. The name is too demeaning to our profession to simply accept and move on. We all agree on that. In ten years we will not have the opportunity with which we are now faced. If anything, we will be at a great disadvantage. You think our physician colleagues and the AMA are apprehensive now? Wait until NPs are practicing to their fullest independent capacity and billing at 100% for it. They will want to keep us in our place even more so.

 

Given these things, again, there's something I just don't get. Why wait? Why, if we're all in agreement that the "associate" title would better suit us, that the majority of us want that change, do we not take care of it now? Why not take advantage of the current situation? Why sit idle only to have to face this same beast again, down the road when the time may not have the same opportunities? It makes no sense to me. For the life of me, I can't understand why we'd be willing to run in that circle, round and round, without addressing the problem now. We will not find a better time.

 

David Pellin, PA-C

Washington

[underserved]

I understand both sides of the argument. I appreciate the many views that have been put out there. For the record, I'm staunchly in favor of a name change. There's something I just don't get.

 

Both sides agree that our current name doesn't reflect our role in the big scheme of things. Both sides seem to agree that "physician associate," would more accurately reflect our profession. Both sides, for the most part, agree that the overwhelming majority of us would be in favor of the change. Why is this issue turning into such a huge point of contention?

 

One of the arguments I keep hearing is that this will cost us a huge amount of money, time, and effort. I ask what it will cost us, in the long-run, not to address this issue now. Certainly, at the very least, not addressing it it will cause a great majority of our members to go on working a job with a great deal of responsibility, with a name we don't like. Not only that we don't like, but one that makes us feel invaluable and unappreciated. Not good for the masses. Ask any war veteran about morale. Above the hardships they endure, above the death of their friends and loved ones, their brothers in arms, I would be willing to bet that they'd rank morale at the top of the list. It's amazing what one can endure if he or she feels respected and valued. It's frightening what lack of morale will do to any group of people.

 

I keep hearing that changing our name will put the profession in great peril. That a change will open our practice acts, possibly allowing their desecration. I hardly believe this will happen. The country is amidst the biggest changes we've ever seen on the healthcare front and people, the government, our patients are asking for and seeking radical change. If anything, I see opening our practice acts as an opportunity to expand our practice. Not to seek autonomy, but to get some of the things for which we've been fighting for so long. Things like Hospice rights and expanded prescriptive rights. Things that truly do matter. There is no better time. The country is in too much medical uncertainty and the politicians and legislators are under too much pressure to address that uncertainty to do anything but advance our practice.

 

Waiting ten years for this debate to again rear its ugly head is not a wise road to travel. And if history has taught us anything, it has taught us time and again that this issue will not be put to rest. The name is too demeaning to our profession to simply accept and move on. We all agree on that. In ten years we will not have the opportunity with which we are now faced. If anything, we will be at a great disadvantage. You think our physician colleagues and the AMA are apprehensive now? Wait until NPs are practicing to their fullest independent capacity and billing at 100% for it. They will want to keep us in our place even more so.

 

Given these things, again, there's something I just don't get. Why wait? Why, if we're all in agreement that the "associate" title would better suit us, that the majority of us want that change, do we not take care of it now? Why not take advantage of the current situation? Why sit idle only to have to face this same beast again, down the road when the time may not have the same opportunities? It makes no sense to me. For the life of me, I can't understand why we'd be willing to run in that circle, round and round, without addressing the problem now. We will not find a better time.

 

David Pellin, PA-C

Washington

 

Well said David. The only thing that I got from the opposition is that the name change will cause problems. Guess what? The world is full of problems; let's work together to find solutions and agreeing to disagree is certainly not the solution. On a side note, in less than a month, the FB group "PA for Physician Associate" have grown to over 2,200 members strong. These voices should count for something.

[CAdamsPAC]

I understand both sides of the argument. I appreciate the many views that have been put out there. For the record, I'm staunchly in favor of a name change. There's something I just don't get.

 

Both sides agree that our current name doesn't reflect our role in the big scheme of things. Both sides seem to agree that "physician associate," would more accurately reflect our profession. Both sides, for the most part, agree that the overwhelming majority of us would be in favor of the change. Why is this issue turning into such a huge point of contention?

 

One of the arguments I keep hearing is that this will cost us a huge amount of money, time, and effort. I ask what it will cost us, in the long-run, not to address this issue now. Certainly, at the very least, not addressing it it will cause a great majority of our members to go on working a job with a great deal of responsibility, with a name we don't like. Not only that we don't like, but one that makes us feel invaluable and unappreciated. Not good for the masses. Ask any war veteran about morale. Above the hardships they endure, above the death of their friends and loved ones, their brothers in arms, I would be willing to bet that they'd rank morale at the top of the list. It's amazing what one can endure if he or she feels respected and valued. It's frightening what lack of morale will do to any group of people.

 

I keep hearing that changing our name will put the profession in great peril. That a change will open our practice acts, possibly allowing their desecration. I hardly believe this will happen. The country is amidst the biggest changes we've ever seen on the healthcare front and people, the government, our patients are asking for and seeking radical change. If anything, I see opening our practice acts as an opportunity to expand our practice. Not to seek autonomy, but to get some of the things for which we've been fighting for so long. Things like Hospice rights and expanded prescriptive rights. Things that truly do matter. There is no better time. The country is in too much medical uncertainty and the politicians and legislators are under too much pressure to address that uncertainty to do anything but advance our practice.

 

Waiting ten years for this debate to again rear its ugly head is not a wise road to travel. And if history has taught us anything, it has taught us time and again that this issue will not be put to rest. The name is too demeaning to our profession to simply accept and move on. We all agree on that. In ten years we will not have the opportunity with which we are now faced. If anything, we will be at a great disadvantage. You think our physician colleagues and the AMA are apprehensive now? Wait until NPs are practicing to their fullest independent capacity and billing at 100% for it. They will want to keep us in our place even more so.

 

Given these things, again, there's something I just don't get. Why wait? Why, if we're all in agreement that the "associate" title would better suit us, that the majority of us want that change, do we not take care of it now? Why not take advantage of the current situation? Why sit idle only to have to face this same beast again, down the road when the time may not have the same opportunities? It makes no sense to me. For the life of me, I can't understand why we'd be willing to run in that circle, round and round, without addressing the problem now. We will not find a better time.

 

David Pellin, PA-C

Washington

 

"Both sides agree that our current name doesn't reflect our role in the big scheme of things."

Would you please cite how you can make this statement, please? I do not recall seeing anything that led me to believe "both sides agree".

 

Both sides, for the most part, agree that the overwhelming majority of us would be in favor of the change. Why is this issue turning into such a huge point of contention?

 

Would you please provide the numbers that support this and basis for the statement "the overwhelming majority" are in favor of the change???

 

 

"The name is too demeaning to our profession"

Says who??

 

Why, if we're all in agreement that the "associate" title would better suit us, that the majority of us want that change, do we not take care of it now? Why not take advantage of the current situation?

Again who are "we" that all agree?

 

Thanks in advance for clarifying these points.

[huskymed]

Thanks in advance for clarifying these points.

 

The majority, if not all of the posts I've read, and all of the people with whom I've spoken seem to agree that the "assistant" title does not represent us as a profession, whether opposed or in agreement to the issue.

 

From Steve Hanson, "I'm opposed to the name change but share everyone's perception and belief that a different name would be more appropriate for our profession." & "Surveying the PA population on 'would you prefer another name?' is a waste of time and money as I already know the answer."

 

From Eric Smith, "To begin with, I have to agree that Physician Assistant is not the proper way to describe how we want patients and other healthcare team members to perceive us."

 

Do I really need to go back and cut and paste the consensus from naysayers that have stated things like, while the name doesn't reflect our role, we have bigger battles to fight? I can understand that stance. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. It has merit. I can't understand anyone who would suggest there's a majority of PAs that feel our name, our identity, means nothing.

 

Are you going to be the first to come out and say that our name truly doesn't make a bit of difference? That it has no worth whatsoever? That the fact it misrepresents us, confuses patients, doesn't garner respect from people that pass laws and make legislation shouldn't mean anything to us? That we should just go on doing our jobs and be thankful that we have them?

[EMEDPA]

why is it that many pa's in connecticut call themselves physician associates and jobs advertisements say "physician associate wanted for position in emergency medicine", etc and yet the world still continues to spin there with pa's calling themselves associates at many facilities despite the official state name being assistant. I imagine their claims are being paid and their sp's and the state are aware of the tradition there. I have never heard of a lawsuit based out of ct because a pa called themselves an associate.

this is what I meant by a cosmetic name change several posts ago. I am aware this is because yale is a physician associate program but as far as I know the official ct state title is still assistant......

[Guest ESSmithPA]

Re membership: I have been either an AAPA and/or NYSSPA/WAPA member my entire PA career. I continue to pay these organizations for the representation that they provide. It makes the immediate dismissal of title change adovacacy that much more painful when I and others feel as if we're paying into the pot and not getting an ear when we need it. I would go on to argue that those that don't pay in at either level are STILL PAs and should be viewed equally. You feel their opinion "should not count". Really? This is two sides digging their heels in- nonmembers who don't see any return on their investment, and the state chapter with a "no pay, no play" attitude. I would hope the academies could be more inclusive and take the higher road here. You catch more flies with honey.

 

What we have here is one side (mostly academy types) citing no interest in the issue, and a groundswell of non-academy types in favor. A poll, survey, or objective measurement is in order. And that includes questioning the fiscal dedication of PAs who support the title change philosophically.

 

First of all, I truly commend you on your devotion by remaining a member of both your state and national organization. It certainly makes a difference when members rise up and stand for a position that they strongly believe in. However, I still must strongly disagree that nonmember PAs should be viewed "equally." I think we all know the potential financial burden of paying both state and national membership, particularly for newer graduate PAs. Members have endured that burden for representation and for a voice. By saying we should do what the masses want whether or not they are members is like telling members, like yourself, that your dedication really doesn't count any more than the guy getting the free ride and reaping the benefits of all of the members dollars and the volunteers hard work.

 

Perhaps my view on the membership issue is biased because I am one of the "Academy types." I have spent 7 years in some volunteer capacity in my state. I started out angry about the direction of my Academy and got involved. In those past 7 years, I've become aware of how truly naive I once was. The volunteers, like myself, who spend hours on end either in between patients or while at home missing out on family time making conference calls or answer 30+ emails a day to help PA members with issues... or who use personal vacation time from work to go to Academy related functions, all comprehend the gruelling committment that goes into giving back to our profession. And after 7 years of doing this, nothing ticks me off more than people who have not so much as contributed membership dollars to their Academy but demand for their voice to be heard. This past year I learned another valuable lesson in Florida to this extent. Members and nonmembers alike screamed for "no more cosignatures." Nonmembers were very vocal and cited our lack of movement on the issue as their #1 reason for not being a FAPA member. Our Academy took up the two year fight and after all the hefty PAC contributions, volunteer man hours, extra lobbyist help we had to hire, and after putting ourselves nearly into a budget crisis in the process, the bill passed last summer. We announced our accomplishment, likely the greatest in our profession's history in Florida, to the state's nonmembers to show them we fought for their needs and asked them to return the favor by joining. The response? This year our fellow membership actually DROPPED nearly 10%. I guess I shouldn't have been so surprised. If you are getting the milk for free, why would you buy the cow? I always listened to old leaders of our Academy speak with disdain about the membership problems and thought they were just cranky bitter folks. This year for the first time ever, I seem to understand why they were always so angry, and I sincerely don't blame them.

 

I stand by my belief 100%. If you are serious about making a change, you do it from within your own Academy. You shouldn't expect countless hard working volunteers working for free plus staff members who are paid on Academy member dues money to do it for you when you aren't a member. It just isn't right.

[huskymed]

I stand by my belief 100%. If you are serious about making a change, you do it from within your own Academy. You shouldn't expect countless hard working volunteers working for free plus staff members who are paid on Academy member dues money to do it for you when you aren't a member. It just isn't right.

 

Eric - I see your point and agree 100%

[Hemegroup]

I understand a couple states have proceeded forward with the name change and are including both Physician Assistant and Physician Associate.

 

Hey, do you know which ones?

[Febrifuge]

For the record, I was mistaken the other day, when I said Minnesota's practice act includes verbiage to cover "Physician Associate." I just re-read it, and it covers "PA," "PA-C," "Physician Assistant," "Licensed Physician Assistant," and some others like OPA-C, but not Associate. Which is a bummer, and something I need to write to my state Senator about.

 

Seems like it would be easy enough to do this, state by state. Just include "Physician Associate" among those terms and titles that cannot be used except by people who meet the requirements for PA practice in that state.

[physasst]

For the record, I was mistaken the other day, when I said Minnesota's practice act includes verbiage to cover "Physician Associate." I just re-read it, and it covers "PA," "PA-C," "Physician Assistant," "Licensed Physician Assistant," and some others like OPA-C, but not Associate. Which is a bummer, and something I need to write to my state Senator about.

 

Seems like it would be easy enough to do this, state by state. Just include "Physician Associate" among those terms and titles that cannot be used except by people who meet the requirements for PA practice in that state.

 

Do you belong to MAPA? Don't write to your state Senator only, that will get a nice form letter response. Call up Gene Beavers. Join MAPA, and start working within the state organization.

 

I was going to correct you the other day, but got busy and kinda forgot about it to be honest.

 

OH, and it will be anything by easy. For example, we just lobbied last year, and put an INCREDIBLE amount of time and money into changing the practice act slightly. We went from registered to licensed, changed the supervision limits to allow physicians to supervise up to 5 PA's (used to be only 2), and allow PA's to respond to a disaster without a clear practice agreement, or delegation agreement (formerly known as a supervisory agreement).

 

You want to know how much MAPA spent on this? A LOT. And the biggest concern when we visited the state capitol wasn't the practice act stuff, it was the change in verbiage....EVERY politician had questions and was, at least to me, somewhat anxious about the change from registered to licensed. We hired a full on lobbyist to help us.

 

Now, we want to change the entire profession. We need everyone who wants this to join their state societies, and BECOME ACTIVE. Don't just be a dues payer.....GO to the meetings, volunteer to sit on the BOD....become involved.

 

THAT's how this will happen.

[CAdamsPAC]

The majority, if not all of the posts I've read, and all of the people with whom I've spoken seem to agree that the "assistant" title does not represent us as a profession, whether opposed or in agreement to the issue.

 

From Steve Hanson, "I'm opposed to the name change but share everyone's perception and belief that a different name would be more appropriate for our profession." & "Surveying the PA population on 'would you prefer another name?' is a waste of time and money as I already know the answer."

 

From Eric Smith, "To begin with, I have to agree that Physician Assistant is not the proper way to describe how we want patients and other healthcare team members to perceive us."

 

Do I really need to go back and cut and paste the consensus from naysayers that have stated things like, while the name doesn't reflect our role, we have bigger battles to fight? I can understand that stance. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. It has merit. I can't understand anyone who would suggest there's a majority of PAs that feel our name, our identity, means nothing.

 

Are you going to be the first to come out and say that our name truly doesn't make a bit of difference? That it has no worth whatsoever? That the fact it misrepresents us, confuses patients, doesn't garner respect from people that pass laws and make legislation shouldn't mean anything to us? That we should just go on doing our jobs and be thankful that we have them?

 

"Are you going to be the first to come out and say that our name truly doesn't make a bit of difference? That it has no worth whatsoever? That the fact it misrepresents us, confuses patients, doesn't garner respect from people that pass laws and make legislation shouldn't mean anything to us? That we should just go on doing our jobs and be thankful that we have them?"

 

 

 

Obviously you haven't read my post on this subject in the current and past threads on the subject. The stated views remain my position on YOUR generalizations.

[CAdamsPAC]

why is it that many pa's in connecticut call themselves physician associates and jobs advertisements say "physician associate wanted for position in emergency medicine", etc and yet the world still continues to spin there with pa's calling themselves associates at many facilities despite the official state name being assistant. I imagine their claims are being paid and their sp's and the state are aware of the tradition there. I have never heard of a lawsuit based out of ct because a pa called themselves an associate.

this is what I meant by a cosmetic name change several posts ago. I am aware this is because yale is a physician associate program but as far as I know the official ct state title is still assistant......

 

 

Having practiced in Connecticut for over 20 years and having worked at every major hospital and five smaller ones in the state , I can say my title in all hospitalsl except one was /is Physician Assistant. The Yale-New Haven Hospital uses the title of Physician Associate , but less than a mile away the other hospital in town use the title Physician Assistant as does a nearby VA hospital. I do not know of any other hospitals in the state using the title of Physician Associate. So please don't tell me about the titles used in Connecticut. As I've said many times before my title doesn't do a thing to improve or change how I deliver care to my patients.

[delco714]

Having practiced in Connecticut for over 20 years...

 

Adams, do you happen to know the CT legislation? What I mean is, is associate and assistant both used in regards to our practicing rights? If not, do you know how Yale and its hospital can go about using (and training for that matter) Associate officially? Figuring this out might help us discover a loop-hole of sorts. For example, how does Yale train phys assoc who are "actually" phys asst. that upon completion of the program can sit for the PANCE? This whole thing is very interesting and intriguing.

[EMEDPA]

there are several other "associate" programs out there, total 5 or so. stanford and others.

what I want to know is why isn't the world doesn't end every time a pa at yale new haven says, "hi' I'm tom one of the physician associates here".

[AlmostDone2011]

there are several other "associate" programs out there, total 5 or so. stanford and others.

what I want to know is why isn't the world doesn't end every time a pa at yale new haven says, "hi' I'm tom one of the physician associates here".

 

Yale new haven name tags and white coats say physician associate on them.