New Mexico significantly updated practice laws

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

https://www.aapa.org/news-central/2018/01/new-mexico-medical-board-adopts-improved-pa-practice-rules/

 

Didnt even know this was in the works! Implemented several components of OTP! Congrats NM!

[SoCal_PA]

Nice! I wish there was a way to see what legislation is in the pipelines per state 

[Miaow]

I literally live in NM and had no idea that this was enacted and it applies directly to me! Thank you for posting!

[Jchen14]

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

 

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

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

[ProSpectre]

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?

 

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

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.

[Hemmingway]

Let me add this effort was largely driven by the current president of PAFT (PAs for Tomorrow). They are one of the most progressive, aggressive constituent organizations out there. If You aren't a member you should be.

[Cideous]

1 hour ago, sas5814 said:

Let me add this effort was largely driven by the current president of PAFT (PAs for Tomorrow). They are one of the most progressive, aggressive constituent organizations out there. If You aren't a member you should be.

Do they have a website?

[Hemmingway]

7 minutes ago, Cideous said:

Do they have a website?

http://www.pasfortomorrow.org/