State Medical Board Rep Opposing OTP

[rev ronin]

Folks, I'm reading this article (page 6 here) and not seeing the editorializing by a PA appointed to a state medical board as appropriate.  Am I just imagining things, or is this an unquestionably partisan piece?

https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/3000/MedicalCommissionUpdate!Spring2018.pdf

[EMEDPA]

this has also been brought up on the aapa huddle :

https://huddle.aapa.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthread?GroupId=31&MessageKey=2835d032-2e15-428e-9d63-415fdafef3f8&CommunityKey=e54b07fe-0e40-4c0c-a8e4-25d744d979b5&tab=digestviewer&ReturnUrl=%2fcommunities%2fcommunity-home%2fdigestviewer%3fcommunitykey%3de54b07fe-0e40-4c0c-a8e4-25d744d979b5%26tab%3ddigestviewer

[EMEDPA]

He has every right to his opinion of course, but I would think a person in his position would use that position to advance the profession, not drive us back to 1970. 

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

41 minutes ago, rev ronin said:

Folks, I'm reading this article (page 6 here) and not seeing the editorializing by a PA appointed to a state medical board as appropriate.  Am I just imagining things, or is this an unquestionably partisan piece?

https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/3000/MedicalCommissionUpdate!Spring2018.pdf

I think I vomited in my mouth a little after reading that.

[corpsman89]

No one will say it so I will. The guy who wrote this article, and who obviously opposes OTP, a title change, and any future that PAs may have, is James Anderson, PA-C. 

James Anderson PA-C opposes OTP. 

James Anderson PA-C opposes a title change

James Anderson PA-C opposes a positive future for PAs. 

James Anderson SUPPORTS David Jackson PA-C for AAPA president

The clear logic here is that we should NOT be voting for David Jackson. 

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

46 minutes ago, corpsman89 said:

No one will say it so I will. The guy who wrote this article, and who obviously opposes OTP, a title change, and any future that PAs may have, is James Anderson, PA-C. 

James Anderson PA-C opposes OTP. 

James Anderson PA-C opposes a title change

James Anderson PA-C opposes a positive future for PAs. 

James Anderson SUPPORTS David Jackson PA-C for AAPA president

The clear logic here is that we should NOT be voting for David Jackson. 

It's going to be an interesting election. If Jackson wins, I may consider not renewing my membership until he's done. Instead I'll funnel those dues into state organizations that are trying to pass OTP.

[corpsman89]

ummm, that link now says that the thread was deleted. What's going on here?

 

[EMEDPA]

aapa huddle censorship...

[corpsman89]

If that's true, that's pretty unethical. 

I say start another thread. 

[corpsman89]

And is it just me, or is this Anderson guy really becoming quite vindictive and cunning?

[Reality Check 2]

I am in Washington with Rev - I read that article and couldn’t figure out how it got in that publication. I don’t recall receiving a survey or being asked about my opinion before our board mouthpiece rattled off a very limiting, cowering, non progressive op ed piece. 

His opinion is certainly not mine nor most of the PAs I work with and around. 

Now I wonder if he really represents PAs well with the State Commission. 

Time to investigate his position, mission, term and boundaries.... I feel a letter coming on.

[corpsman89]

Someone posted a thread on the Huddle addressing the deleted thread. 

[EMEDPA]

17 minutes ago, corpsman89 said:

Someone posted a thread on the Huddle addressing the deleted thread. 

give it 5 minutes. it will probably get censored away as well. 

[rev ronin]

There are a couple of levels of "wrong" here.

First, I don't think taking a position on an issue and pushing it at taxpayer expense is ethical conduct.  I may file a complaint on that score.

Second, AAPA needs to get their act together with Huddle.  We don't censor things here, and we do that on purpose.  I haven't seen that thread, but I'm not hearing anything about what I've heard reported about it that suggests it merited removal.  If they want to have an AAPA mouthpiece, that's their right, but it just explains even more why a site like this is necessary: so that uncomfortable things can be said without being rapidly deleted.

[rev ronin]

Dear Washington Medical Quality Assurance Commission

In the latest Washington Medical Quality Assurance Commission (“commission”) Newsletter, James Anderson, PA-C, one of the two PA members on the commission, penned a full page article, featured on page 6 of the "Spring 2018 Medical Quality Assurance Commission Update!” https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/3000/MedicalCommissionUpdate!Spring2018.pdf

This concerns and troubles me. Mr. Anderson clearly has a right to his own opinion as a private individual, but that isn't what has happened here. The Medical Quality Assurance Commission Update! is not a general-purpose publication: all of its content is authored by commission board members and staffers. It neither solicits nor publishes content from licensed individuals or the public.

Using his status as a governor-appointed commission member and “Update!” editorial board member, Mr. Anderson caused his own opinion on multiple matters of professional governance--PA naming conventions and optimal team practice, the latter of which he characterizes as "Independent practice"--to be printed at government expense and distributed via the U.S. Mail (presumably to all "allopathic physicians and surgeons" and "allopathic physician assistants" licensed by the commission) and electronically made available to the general public via the Washington Department of Health website (URL above). While the article has a byline attributing it to Mr. Anderson, it contains language with the clear intent of influencing political discourse.

From the scaremongering title ("Rough Waters Ahead..."), dismissal of contrary opinions ("I get this, but I’ve never shared that concern."), and portrayal of dire consequences ("[...] the OTP effort by PAs has the potential to undermine the strong PA-MD partnerships that have been developed over the last 50 years.") one clearly sees Mr. Anderson advocating his personal beliefs on the topic.

I cannot see this partisan advocacy at the public expense as consistent with his status as a commission member. If intentional, misuse of appointed public office to influence professional issues is inappropriate. If unintentional, the lack of ethical acumen sufficient to understand that "taking sides" in an ongoing national conversation at government expense is also inappropriate. Ideally, the commission staff should have identified this issue, but the burden is squarely on Mr. Anderson as author, who clearly indicates through his writing that he understands this to be a contentious issue.

I call on Mr. Anderson to resign his position immediately and make restitution to the people of the State of Washington for 1/12th the cost of the Spring 2018 Medical Quality Assurance Commission Update! Should he fail to do so, I believe it would be appropriate for Governor Inslee to remove Mr. Anderson from the commission.

/s/ me

Thoughts?

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

22 minutes ago, rev ronin said:

Dear Washington Medical Quality Assurance Commission

In the latest Washington Medical Quality Assurance Commission (“commission”) Newsletter, James Anderson, PA-C, one of the two PA members on the commission, penned a full page article, featured on page 6 of the "Spring 2018 Medical Quality Assurance Commission Update!” https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/3000/MedicalCommissionUpdate!Spring2018.pdf

This concerns and troubles me. Mr. Anderson clearly has a right to his own opinion as a private individual, but that isn't what has happened here. The Medical Quality Assurance Commission Update! is not a general-purpose publication: all of its content is authored by commission board members and staffers. It neither solicits nor publishes content from licensed individuals or the public.

Using his status as a governor-appointed commission member and “Update!” editorial board member, Mr. Anderson caused his own opinion on multiple matters of professional governance--PA naming conventions and optimal team practice, the latter of which he characterizes as "Independent practice"--to be printed at government expense and distributed via the U.S. Mail (presumably to all "allopathic physicians and surgeons" and "allopathic physician assistants" licensed by the commission) and electronically made available to the general public via the Washington Department of Health website (URL above). While the article has a byline attributing it to Mr. Anderson, it contains language with the clear intent of influencing political discourse.

From the scaremongering title ("Rough Waters Ahead..."), dismissal of contrary opinions ("I get this, but I’ve never shared that concern."), and portrayal of dire consequences ("[...] the OTP effort by PAs has the potential to undermine the strong PA-MD partnerships that have been developed over the last 50 years.") one clearly sees Mr. Anderson advocating his personal beliefs on the topic.

I cannot see this partisan advocacy at the public expense as consistent with his status as a commission member. If intentional, misuse of appointed public office to influence professional issues is inappropriate. If unintentional, the lack of ethical acumen sufficient to understand that "taking sides" in an ongoing national conversation at government expense is also inappropriate. Ideally, the commission staff should have identified this issue, but the burden is squarely on Mr. Anderson as author, who clearly indicates through his writing that he understands this to be a contentious issue.

I call on Mr. Anderson to resign his position immediately and make restitution to the people of the State of Washington for 1/12th the cost of the Spring 2018 Medical Quality Assurance Commission Update! Should he fail to do so, I believe it would be appropriate for Governor Inslee to remove Mr. Anderson from the commission.

/s/ me

Thoughts?

Perfect

[EMEDPA]

2 hours ago, EMEDPA said:

give it 5 minutes. it will probably get censored away as well. 

and it's gone

[EMEDPA]

I think we need to send a rebuttal and ask it to be published as well. 

[rev ronin]

15 minutes ago, EMEDPA said:

I think we need to send a rebuttal and ask it to be published as well. 

Well, yeah, we can, but I don't recall it publishing opinion pieces, or anything from outside the commissioners and staff, in the years I've been getting it. Not that that can't change, but it would certainly look odd for it to do so now.

[ProSpectre]

How can the very obvious censorship on the Huddle be countered if they just simply go through and delete threads literally in the middle of the night? This is pretty ridiculous.

I read the first thread that was deleted, and while there was disagreement in it, everything was kept professional and tactful. There were no personal attacks or mudslinging, but the poster raised very real concerns about the above article and the intentions of the author, James Anderson. 

Then when others noticed the deletion of the first thread (de facto censorship) and raised that concern in another thread, it too was just deleted. I am pretty appalled that this is allowed to occur in a members-only forum of a professional organisation. 

Are the moderators of the forum known? This is something that needs to be addressed, as neither thread violated the forum rules in any way I could see (and they could have simply deleted individual posts if there were violations, rather than entire threads). 

[rev ronin]

22 minutes ago, ProSpectre said:

How can the very obvious censorship on the Huddle be countered if they just simply go through and delete threads literally in the middle of the night? This is pretty ridiculous.

I read the first thread that was deleted, and while there was disagreement in it, everything was kept professional and tactful. There were no personal attacks or mudslinging, but the poster raised very real concerns about the above article and the intentions of the author, James Anderson. 

Then when others noticed the deletion of the first thread (de facto censorship) and raised that concern in another thread, it too is deleted. I am pretty appalled that this is allowed to occur in a members-only forum of a professional organisation. 

Are the moderators of the forum known? This is something that needs to be addressed, as neither thread violated the forum rules in any way I could see (and they could have simply deleted individual posts if there were violations, rather than entire threads). 

You know, if *I* was a paying AAPA member, I would be quite outraged that civil posts by paying members in good standing were removed.

Here, we have a free board, no dues paid to join, and on average the mods probably delete less than 2 posts or threads per week.  You'll notice we do a lot of thread locking and counseling, rather than disappearing stuff--Except for Korean Language spam, that stuff we kill with fire.  Oh, and Pre-PA posts in the wrong sections--those get moved without warning back to the Pre-PA section.

Honestly, this isn't really to the staff's credit: you all have been, with a few occasional lapses, awesome posters, self-controlled, focused on issues rather than personalities.  Compared to other Internet-based communities, the PA Forum is pretty awesome.

I would encourage those of you who ARE AAPA members to expect accountability from Huddle: You're paying more (than free) and getting less (opaque censorship) than you are from this site.

On the other hand, I am proud to volunteer my time (the ads don't even fully cover hosting costs, as I understand it. Banuchi has paid a lot of money over the last 20 years into this labor of love) for a website that is dedicated to the profession.  You will never find the staff censoring people because we disagree with them--heck, we don't always agree with each other.

For those of you who are posting to Huddle, know that you can always come here for a free and open dialogue.  Between the Scylla and Charibdes of censorship and anarchy (think Huddle and SDN), we will be here, trying to act professional because we believe in doing the right thing.  When AAPA announced Huddle, I knew it would draw some away form this site, but it appears that we still have a very important role to play in keeping free and open discussion available without agenda-based censorship.

[corpsman89]

I'm pissed about this. I will be positing about this on the huddle. 

Here is the email I received regarding the 2nd huddle censorship. 

"Dear Greg and Julie,

Apologies for the group email, but I wanted to quickly relay that I will be deleting Mr. Elliot’s Huddle post, “Deleted Posts,” because calling a colleague’s publication “garbage” is a personal attack and in violation of our Huddle Code of Conduct. As a result, the subsequent responses that were made will automatically be deleted as well. I invite you to wait to see if Mr. Elliot re-posts, to join in another conversation, or to start a new conversation.

I know that you are not happy with some of the recent moderation decisions. I assure you that Huddle moderators are not deleting posts based on the positions being shared in conversations – we focus on the Huddle rules regarding professionalism, advancing the conversation, letting others have a view or opinion, no personal attacks, keeping personal arguments private, etc. I can give you nothing other than my word that we are not trying to control the content of conversations, and I hope that my word has value. We are simply doing the best we can to keep the Huddle professional.

While it may not seem that way, we delete very few posts. And almost all posters we moderate choose to repost following the Huddle guidelines, and their opinions are heard.

I encourage you to repost – including if you like your dissatisfaction with the Huddle moderation – all opinions are truly welcome. But do so in a way that will allow your comments to remain for all to read.

If you wish to discuss further, or are seeking advice on the best way to stay in compliance with the Huddle rules to get your thoughts heard, please do feel free to reach out to me.

Best regards,

Catherine Gahres

Vice President, Membership Development & Services

AAPA

cgahres@aapa.org"

[Guest Paula]

I would love to see the letter written by Rev published on the Huddle.  It's disturbing to get the email about the removing of the post right before I went to bed last night.  I did not think anyone was being disrespectful and the conversation was not inflammatory. 

 

Was it a snowflake response? 

[Guest Paula]

P.S.  If I remember right, the Washington Medical Quality Assurance Commission was the organization that developed the Federation of State Medical Board resolution to request the FSMB to support OTP.  In the resolution was the word "independent" and a request to allow PAs to take step one USMLE.   It caused a huge controversy and was a bit problematic for those states who are working toward OTP.  I do not understand the disconnect there by Jim Anderson if it was in fact WMQAC who submitted the resolution to FSMB.  It has been withdrawn now and we may see it again in a year or two.  I do know it was not the Washington Medical Association who sponsored the resolution. 

[sas5814]

Mine was one of the posts deleted because I said Anderson was carrying the physician's water and pandering. I didn't call him an asshole. But that constitutes a personal attack. 

It seems the HUDDLE rules allow snark and insinuation as long as it is subtle and polite.