State Medical Board Rep Opposing OTP

[pafrankc]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 2:39 PM, EMEDPA said:

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. 

I agree he is entitled to his opinion, but as an appointed member of the medical commission, his opinion should be kept to himself--he is on the commission to represent PAs, not himself.

[pafrankc]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 10:56 PM, LT_Oneal_PAC said:

Perfect

Did anyone note that this publication also lists Mr. Anderson as a member of the editorial board?  That being said, there was nothing in his "article" the indicated it was purely an editorial.

[rev ronin]

Ok, called the Medical Quality Assurance Commission today. They have a rather opaque phone tree, but I was able to get to a live human, and thence into another specific person's voicemail.  I noted that I had not even received acknowledgement that anyone at the commission had read my complaint yet, gave my phone number and email address.  We'll see what happens.

[pafrankc]

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 10:24 AM, pafrankc said:

I agree he is entitled to his opinion, but as an appointed member of the medical commission, his opinion should be kept to himself--he is on the commission to represent PAs, not himself.

PAs for Tomorrow sent a letter (email) to the medical commission calling for the removal of Mr Anderson from his position.

 

[lkth487]

Did anyone bother to look at past issues?

 

There was a pro-OTP article in the state board newsletter too.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but are you guys opposing him because he had an opinion, or because you dislike the opinion?  There are other newsletters if you look at old ones with articles that are opinions of people.

"Possible changes to team practice for Physician Assistants? Let’s talk about it!"

https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/3000/MedicalCommissionUpdate!Winter2017.pdf

For the record, I do support OTP, but I think maybe the pitchforks against this guy aren't fair?

 

[EMEDPA]

he just put it in clinical advisor:

https://www.clinicaladvisor.com/the-waiting-room/rough-waters-for-independently-practicing-pas/article/749767/

[sas5814]

Mr. Anderson was there to be a spoiler for the AAPA elections and spent his time "politely" smearing candidates and organizations that strongly support OTP by parsing his smears as concerns and questions. The elections are over so he has crawled back in the hole.

However his cronies are now on the Huddle starting their campaign to walk back OTP and the some state chapters are participating. I am STUNNED (not) to find Texas being one since I have maintained for years they were the whipping boys of organized medicine.

James Carney is, once again, leading the charge against OTP because he loves loves loves our precious relationships with the physicians. Sorry for the tone but I am over caffeinated and in a mood this morning.

[rev ronin]

On 4/26/2018 at 12:04 PM, lkth487 said:

Did anyone bother to look at past issues?

[...]

For the record, I do support OTP, but I think maybe the pitchforks against this guy aren't fair?

Fair question.  I did not.  I normally ignore the PA-focused articles, because they tend to be bland and parrot things i heard here six months ago--no slam on the newsletter, but it's quarterly.  The title drew me in while I was reading the hardcopy version, weeks after the PDF had arrived in my inbox.

The issues that bothered me most were the lack of forthright discussion: it's a whisper campaign piece, sowing FUD, and really isn't a worthy contribution to the topic no matter what side it happened to favor.  But yeah, I'd be lying if I said I would have been equally mad if had been pro-OTP.

[rev ronin]

The Washington State Medical Commission has responded to the feedback they got last issue:

https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/3000/MedicalCommissionUpdate!Summer2018.pdf

I'll refrain from comment at the moment, as I'm still digesting how to most appropriately address their response.

[EMEDPA]

10 hours ago, rev ronin said:

The Washington State Medical Commission has responded to the feedback they got last issue:

https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/3000/MedicalCommissionUpdate!Summer2018.pdf

I'll refrain from comment at the moment, as I'm still digesting how to most appropriately address their response.

saw that. not a fan of their response. They seemed to think it was a fair and balanced article and even went so far as to have a seperate article on "professionalism" to castigate those of us who complained about the article...no mention of allowing anyone else to post a response. 

[Reality Check 2]

I read Dr. Howe's response.

If THAT MANY people responded negatively then he should have realized a few things:

1. PAs DO read their publication

2. PAs do care about their profession and future

3. Mr Anderson's article was not appreciated for content or tone and for being in a state publication

4. The article was NOT labeled editorial

I don't understand how the author is allowed an opinion but the rest of us are 'unprofessional' for responding. 

None of us are allowed to reply or present a rebuttal article. We have been disinvited in participating in our own state board. 

I find it shameful and a poor representation of the PAs in the State of Washington as I do not believe the PAs ascribe to the article or response. 

[EMEDPA]

1 hour ago, Reality Check 2 said:

I read Dr. Howe's response.

If THAT MANY people responded negatively then he should have realized a few things:

1. PAs DO read their publication

2. PAs do care about their profession and future

3. Mr Anderson's article was not appreciated for content or tone and for being in a state publication

4. The article was NOT labeled editorial

I don't understand how the author is allowed an opinion but the rest of us are 'unprofessional' for responding. 

None of us are allowed to reply or present a rebuttal article. We have been disinvited in participating in our own state board. 

I find it shameful and a poor representation of the PAs in the State of Washington as I do not believe the PAs ascribe to the article or response. 

you should tell them exactly this...

[JWB77]

It seems like quite the coincidence that after AAPA James Anderson posted a topic on Huddle about bullying online and at the HOD...

(https://huddle.aapa.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthread?MessageKey=216f633e-0f29-40a2-8900-b160323a52d6&CommunityKey=e54b07fe-0e40-4c0c-a8e4-25d744d979b5&tab=digestviewer&UserKey=b2154136-e1ba-46d1-9d18-216fdaca024e&sKey=6c81afc09d3c4780914d#bm216f633e-0f29-40a2-8900-b160323a52d6) 

And now he writes an article that the majority of PAs disagree with and in the next publication there is an article on bullying (page 6) with the quote "We post things on social media sites condemning the opinion a colleague expresses."  Hmmm, quite the coincidence. Disagreement is not bullying.

[camoman1234]

22 hours ago, JWB77 said:

It seems like quite the coincidence that after AAPA James Anderson posted a topic on Huddle about bullying online and at the HOD...

(https://huddle.aapa.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthread?MessageKey=216f633e-0f29-40a2-8900-b160323a52d6&CommunityKey=e54b07fe-0e40-4c0c-a8e4-25d744d979b5&tab=digestviewer&UserKey=b2154136-e1ba-46d1-9d18-216fdaca024e&sKey=6c81afc09d3c4780914d#bm216f633e-0f29-40a2-8900-b160323a52d6) 

And now he writes an article that the majority of PAs disagree with and in the next publication there is an article on bullying (page 6) with the quote "We post things on social media sites condemning the opinion a colleague expresses."  Hmmm, quite the coincidence. Disagreement is not bullying.

Get over it Mr. Anderson, just cause we do not agree with you, doesn't mean you have to belittle everyone else with articles about being professional. Seems like he gets butt hurt too easily, not MY problem most of us don't agree with you. Maybe make it easier on yourself to drop down a few ranks and let the majority take over to help this profession move forward. You are a life force that sucks energy from all the hard work we put in and you make the entire profession look bad as well as make others think we actually agree with your vomit. Please use your time wisely by not writing articles cause your are butt hurt. 

[rev ronin]

In addition to what Reality Check 2 said, I think there are a couple of other points or slight variations I want to make:

1) While the rest of the Washington State MQAC may not realize it, James Anderson is a political activist within the AAPA, unsuccessfully campaigning against the election of the current president.  He is clearly an advocate against PA practice modernization, as its proponents would term it, and his words are best understood within this context.

2) It's unprofessional not to respond to a written complaint.  I received no acknowledgement that the MQAC had received my email until I actually called and talked to a staffer.

3) The fact that MDs serving on the editorial board did not realize that Mr. Anderson's piece was a political advocacy piece demonstrates that two PAs is insufficient representation on the MQAC: he has their ear, and so they are out of touch with what the rank and file actually think.  A PA board with broad representation would clearly be superior.

... Still thinking more on this.

[ProSpectre]

6 hours ago, rev ronin said:

In addition to what Reality Check 2 said, I think there are a couple of other points or slight variations I want to make:

1) While the rest of the Washington State MQAC may not realize it, James Anderson is a political activist within the AAPA, unsuccessfully campaigning against the election of the current president.  He is clearly an advocate against PA practice modernization, as its proponents would term it, and his words are best understood within this context.

2) It's unprofessional not to respond to a written complaint.  I received no acknowledgement that the MQAC had received my email until I actually called and talked to a staffer.

3) The fact that MDs serving on the editorial board did not realize that Mr. Anderson's piece was a political advocacy piece demonstrates that two PAs is insufficient representation on the MQAC: he has their ear, and so they are out of touch with what the rank and file actually think.  A PA board with broad representation would clearly be superior.

... Still thinking more on this.

Another possibility  is that the MDs that serve with Mr. Anderson know full well that his piece was a political advocacy piece against OTP, and that they simply support his actions and viewpoints against PA practice modernization.

What better way to attempt to silence those who oppose his views on OTP than to take the approach they did in the latest issue and call them unprofessional bullies? 

[lkth487]

1 hour ago, ProSpectre said:

Another possibility  is that the MDs that serve with Mr. Anderson know full well that his piece was a political advocacy piece against OTP, and that they simply support his actions and viewpoints against PA practice modernization.

If that were true, how come the same publication published editorials supporting PA practice modernization in the past?

[ProSpectre]

1 hour ago, lkth487 said:

If that were true, how come the same publication published editorials supporting PA practice modernization in the past?

I hope it's not true. I hope it is as they said, that they simply allowed one of the two appointed PA members of the commission to write an opinion piece without denoting it as such.

However, in the front page article of this month's newsletter, the commission chair describes the article Mr. Anderson wrote as "discussing current controversies swirling around the idea of physician assistants moving toward more independent practice". That's the issue, and is why there was such negative response to it among PAs -- it mischaracterized what OTP is about, and puts the idea that it is about independent practice in the heads of the commission members and the MD readership. 

The commission chair then goes on to state that they allowed it because it was seen as a "good exposition of current thought". Which begs the question, whose current thought? 

[lkth487]

9 hours ago, ProSpectre said:

I hope it's not true. I hope it is as they said, that they simply allowed one of the two appointed PA members of the commission to write an opinion piece without denoting it as such.

However, in the front page article of this month's newsletter, the commission chair describes the article Mr. Anderson wrote as "discussing current controversies swirling around the idea of physician assistants moving toward more independent practice". That's the issue, and is why there was such negative response to it among PAs -- it mischaracterized what OTP is about, and puts the idea that it is about independent practice in the heads of the commission members and the MD readership. 

The commission chair then goes on to state that they allowed it because it was seen as a "good exposition of current thought". Which begs the question, whose current thought? 

Some PAs, I suppose.  Because they did post (https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/3000/MedicalCommissionUpdate!Winter2017.pdf) just this winter which was pro OTP.  So it seems they gave both sides.