Jump to content

New Mexico significantly updated practice laws


Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
36 minutes ago, Jchen14 said:

Wow this is incredible! Hopefully this development in NM serves as a catalyst for similar legislation in the near future! Congrats to all the PAs practicing in NM. Honestly, though, this is a huge win for this profession and everyone practicing in the US .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Further reading into the actual legislation, though the board rules make no mention that I can find, shows collaboration might be for primary care only, which extends to FM, IM, OB/Gyn, and peds. But there was still updates to even for supervision and the removal of physician liability goes for all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive my ignorance, but I am a little confused by this. Does this untie a PA from having a single supervising physician, or does it simply change that language to collaboration without any change in the requirements the PA/physician relationship actually entails?

I understand it is still a win, especially in that it puts the responsibility for the care that PAs provide on the PAs themselves, and updates the language on PA billing. I am just confused about how this will effect things going forward. I know many who advocate for OTP do so in the hopes that PAs won't be tied to a specific physician in order to practice (the example being that if that doctor retires/dies/falls ill, it puts the PA's livelihood at stake); also, so that PAs can be competitive with NPs in the hospital systems that hire NPs specifically because they won't have to be supervised.

Can someone who is smarter than me break down the potential beneficial effects this change in the law will have in NM and (potentially) elsewhere going forward?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, ProSpectre said:

Forgive my ignorance, but I am a little confused by this. Does this untie a PA from having a single supervising physician, or does it simply change that language to collaboration without any change in the requirements the PA/physician relationship actually entails?

I understand it is still a win, especially in that it puts the responsibility for the care that PAs provide on the PAs themselves, and updates the language on PA billing. I am just confused about how this will effect things going forward. I know many who advocate for OTP do so in the hopes that PAs won't be tied to a specific physician in order to practice (the example being that if that doctor retires/dies/falls ill, it puts the PA's livelihood at stake); also, so that PAs can be competitive with NPs in the hospital systems that hire NPs specifically because they won't have to be supervised.

Can someone who is smarter than me break down the potential beneficial effects this change in the law will have in NM and (potentially) elsewhere going forward?

 

It does not completely untie, unfortunately. There is still named a collaborating physician, though hand off of this title while one is away may be easier based on what I read. The good part is that with a collaborative physician, he simply has to be available for consultation. Otherwise, there is no restriction on your practice and no quality assurance program (chart review, quarterly meetings, etc). As long as your are qualified to perform the action and it’s in the accepted practice of your specialty (an IM PA shouldn’t be doing vaginal delivery), you go for it. For example, I do vasectomies, but not FP docs do and would have restricted me in the civilian world. Now it wouldn’t be a problem in NM.

This will significantly reduce administrative burden and with a guarantee that they aren’t held liable, puts us on much more equal footing with NPs.

it would be much easier to own a practice since finding a collaborative physician wouldn’t be such a burden on someone else or require you to pay them wads of money to come to your practice and rubber stamp charts.

ETA:

 

Actually, this may uncouple more than I thought. I see no regulation about how to submit your collaborative physician, it’s not in the qualifications or license requirements, and I see no limitation on the number (there is also no real limitation for supervision of PAs other than a vague “no more than appropriate”)

the legislation states the board can adopt rules about who is the collaborative physician and the Pa cannot practice until he has one, but the BOM makes no mention of it.

Link to comment
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.

  • Similar Content

    • By JoePA314
      I live in a fairly decent size metropolitan area but work across state lines for a medical group with a small neurosurgery department. I am a salaried full time employee with the med group. There are now two surgeons who collaborate with me. But, the newer surgeon is actually paid by a local academic center and not the med group. The academic center has a business arrangement with the med group to provide 1 neurosurgeon 3 weeks a month. He is filling that role but also has agreements in place with the other surgeon in order to cover patients if an issue comes up.
      The medical group has furloughed most of the advanced providers across many specialties. Recently it sounds as if the med group does not want to keep my position. However the surgeon (who is paid by the academic center) is interested in continuing to have me work with him and hire me as a private assist to him. He is not in a position to provide benefits which is okay with me to negotiate around. It seems that being an independent contractor 1099 is not the correct way to be employed by him technically since I won't really determine my own hours or provide any materials etc. 
      Im looking for options on how to work with him. Does anyone have what appears to look like a standard supervisory arrangement with their surgeon but goes about it in an unconventional way? I really like the surgeon and he is loyal to me. He does his fair share of work and gives me the freedom to do a lot more than the other surgeon in the OR.
    • By surgblumm
      https://modernmeded.com/invisible-provider-invisible-war/
    • By ohiovolffemtp
      This month's ACEP Now has an article called "Optimizing our collaboration with Advanced Practice Providers".  It includes a statement: "Despite the publicized experiences of a few, the vast majority of APP's are, in fact, directly supervised for patients with Emergency Severity Index levels 1-3".
      While it's certainly not my experience in my current full-time job where I do solo coverage in a critical access hospital, it also wasn't my experience in my last full-time job in a level III trauma center staffed by one of the large national EM staffing companies.  I routinely saw mostly level 2-4, and only on some of the level 2's and 3's did I have "direct supervision".  Many of these patients I managed autonomously.  Sometimes the doc read the chart, other times it was a "do I need to see this patient?,  No, OK".  This even included patients I admitted.
      What are other folks experiences, especially those who aren't doing solo coverage?  Are folks running their patients by docs that much?  Are docs documenting face-to-face encounters that often?  A caveat, I have worked with docs who in an RVU based compensation environment pop in even on simple lacs.
      My concern is that ACEP isn't recognizing the difference between a new PA in their first few years of practice who's still learning EM vs a PA with 5+ years of experience who can and should practice largely autonomously using the EM doc as a consultant as needed, similar to how they should use other consultants like gen surg, cardiology, hospitalists, etc.
    • By pafrankc
      Optimal team practice (OTP) is a big deal these days.  It has been since last May when AAPA made it the official policy. 
      There is a reticence to accept OTP at the state level.  I was in a recent discussion with a fellow PA (and board member of PAs for Tomorrow) who is a military retiree.  As we discussed the benefits of OTP, we both expressed concern that it wasn't already the "norm."   We discussed OTP and the military and realized that those of us in military medicine have practiced OTP for quite some time.
      Take a quick look at the four pillars of OTP
      Emphasize PAs’ commitment to team practice; Authorize PAs to practice without an agreement with a specific physician—enabling practice-level decisions about collaboration; Create separate majority-PA boards to regulate PAs, or give that authority to healing arts or medical boards that have as members both PAs and physicians who practice with PAs; and Authorize PAs to be directly reimbursed by all public and private insurers. All members of military healthcare, whether PAs, Nurses, NPs, or technicians are committed to team practice. 
      Even as a "personal service contractor" I practice under the same Air Force Instructions (in particular AFI 44-119) as active duty and civil service PAs.  The AFI reads, "PAs are health professionals whose practice is centered on patient care and disease prevention and may include clinical teaching, patient education, research, and administrative activities. PAs are certified to practice independently and collaboratively in providing primary healthcare.(emphasis mine)." 
      The military does not include boards to regulate PAs.  At least with the AF, the credentials committee members are intimately familiar with PAs, and when a PA is up for privileges, a PA sits on the committee. In a former life, I actually chaired the committee as a PA and deputy chief of the medical staff.
      Reimbursement is not an issue for military providers.
      All of us eventually leave the military.  Most continue to practice as a PA.  Outside of the military, we come under a different set of rules and laws--and a change in HOW we practice.  If you know where your retirement location will be, consider having the best practice opportunity available to you--work with your future (or current) state to make OTP a reality.
    • By aimyhtixela
      Sharing an email for all of you Washington state PAs: 
×
×
  • 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