Jump to content
sas5814

TX, RI, and VA trying a back door attempt to change OTP

Recommended Posts

The AAPA conference is coming up and these 3 states have proposed changes to last years OTP resolution that will water down and/or materially change the national policy we have now, slowly, started moving towards. This is, in my opinion, a back door attempt to create a national policy change instead of just saying "no" to OTP in their home states and then justifying that decision to the people who voted them into office. It is, again one man's opinion, cowardice. 

Don't like OTP in your state? Fine. Don't do anything to move it forward and answer the questions from the PAs at home. But don't try to screw up every other state by changing the national dialogue via a weak back door attempt. If you live in these states and support OTP you need to be letting your state leadership know, loud and clear, what you think of their efforts. Other states that are moving forward need to call out this proposal for what it is.

Attached for your review.

OTP.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This came to me via one of my board members, who also happened to be on the original FPAR task force.

We have an emergency situation. There is a resolution being put forth by RI/TX/VA that will completely gut and reverse the language in the OTP policy passed last year. We need to do a similar campaign like we did last year, emailing and speaking to everyone we know to vote against this resolution.

To all of you who supported OTP last year in the historic vote, we need your help again.  Please contact your CO delegates and tell them to vote NO!.  

A resolution by several of the PAs who tried to fight OTP last year, is trying to completely gut the OTP policy passed at the AAPA May conference in New Orleans. You need to get your state HOD reps to vote NO to this resolution.

The resolution is 2018-B-15-RI-TX-VA

Vote NO, NO, NO. This resolution tries to change the meaning of OTP by removing its core language! Call and write your HOD members at your state chapters immediately and tell them to support OTP once again by voting against this new resolution and changes to the current language.

You can review the text of the letter and our new PAFT-owned OTP web page here

This is where we as PAFT have to draw the line in the sand and hold our ground together. If this is passed it will send us back to the dark ages. 

Dr. Frank Crosby, DrHSc, PA-C

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is a small group of people who were against OTP who are continuing to work against it in a very left handed fashion by claiming "lack of clarity" and "the door wide open for independence" when all that has been very clearly elucidated. They continue to state the physicians are going to push back which they are and will no matter what words we use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marinejiujitsu said:

How can assistants practice alone. Yall people are crazy.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

Let's hope title change gets talked about at this session. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get a web link to the actual policy proposal, please?  Or, failing that, an authenticated copy?  I dislike being against (or in favor of, for that matter) things I haven't read yet.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rev ronin said:

Can we get a web link to the actual policy proposal, please?  Or, failing that, an authenticated copy?  I dislike being against (or in favor of, for that matter) things I haven't read yet.

It's in the original Post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, corpsman89 said:

It's in the original Post. 

Ah, yeah.  I should notice links like that. Thanks.

OK, Now, having read it, I agree that it stakes OTP in the heart: it tries to get back to language limiting one PA to one physician.

Edited by rev ronin
adding more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you you hate America Mike

On 4/27/2018 at 11:14 PM, rev ronin said:

Ah, yeah.  I should notice links like that. Thanks.

OK, Now, having read it, I agree that it stakes OTP in the heart: it tries to get back to language limiting one PA to one physician.

rev,

could you please point out to me the specific specific language in the resolution that changes OTP by limiting 1 PA to1 physician? I'm trying to understand how some PAs feel this resolution is anti-OTP. You point that out and I'll show you something that I feel strengthens the bond between a PA and a collaborating physician. Thank you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jdtpac said:

if you you hate America Mike

rev,

could you please point out to me the specific specific language in the resolution that changes OTP by limiting 1 PA to1 physician? I'm trying to understand how some PAs feel this resolution is anti-OTP. You point that out and I'll show you something that I feel strengthens the bond between a PA and a collaborating physician. Thank you.

 

One of the points of OTP is that the role of the SP/CP physician is OPTIONAL and determined at the practice level. If the hospital for example says PAs don't require a supervisor/collaborator, then there isn't one. They could also say every chart must be reviewed and certain types patients presented. that's the point of the flexibility.  New grads or people new to a specialty could work in supervised environments and those not needing supervision could seek out jobs not requiring it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, EMEDPA said:

One of the points of OTP is that the role of the SP/CP physician is OPTIONAL and determined at the practice level. If the hospital for example says PAs don't require a supervisor/collaborator, then there isn't one. They could also say every chart must be reviewed and certain types patients presented. that's the point of the flexibility.  New grads or people new to a specialty could work in supervised environments and those not needing supervision could seek out jobs not requiring it. 

EMEDPA,

Thank you for the comment. But can you point out the specific language where the resolution changes the senerios you mentioned? I am trying to understand the issue better.

 

Edited by jdtpac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jdtpac said:

EMEDPA,

Thank you for the comment. But can you point out the specific language where the resolution changes the senerios you mentioned? I am trying to understand the issue better.

 

I was not commenting on the resolution, I was commenting on the desirability of a closer relationship with physicians. I have spoken with people on both sides of this issue and understand how both groups feel about this.  My understanding is that the folks who wrote the OTP resolution, who understand it far better than I do , are upset with the changes as they feel they weaken the case for diminishing the requirement for physician supervision or collaboration.  . Those in favor of this resolution believe it clarifies the intent of OTP. I feel the intent is understandable as is and the resolution is not needed and will only further confuse the issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jdtpac said:

could you please point out to me the specific specific language in the resolution that changes OTP by limiting 1 PA to1 physician? I'm trying to understand how some PAs feel this resolution is anti-OTP. You point that out and I'll show you something that I feel strengthens the bond between a PA and a collaborating physician. Thank you.

Line 111-112 of the proposed language:

THE DETAILS OF THE PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A PHYSICIAN AND A PA

There you go.  It could just as easily say "between healthcare team members" but doesn't.  It puts a 1:1 relationship back in, when OTP has intentionally taken it out.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rev ronin said:

Line 111-112 of the proposed language:

THE DETAILS OF THE PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A PHYSICIAN AND A PA

There you go.  It could just as easily say "between healthcare team members" but doesn't.  It puts a 1:1 relationship back in, when OTP has intentionally taken it out.

 

rev,

thank you for sharing what you feel this is a big issue with the amendment to OTP. I was recently asked a question from David Mittman where I responded to both this and other parts of the amendment I thought strengthened rather than weakened OTP. My responses on the Huddle. I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to cut-and-paste that response onto this forum. You can check it out on the AAPA's website.

Edited by jdtpac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jdtpac said:

thank you for sharing what you feel this is a big issue with the amendment to OTP. I was recently asked a question from David Mittman where I responded to both this and other parts of the amendment I thought strengthened rather than weakened OTP. My responses on the Huddle. I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to cut-and-paste that response onto this forum. You can check it out on the AAPA's website.

I'm not an AAPA member, so I don't get to use huddle.  You wrote it, you can copy/paste it here, you have the right to reuse your own stuff. Self-plagiarism is only a big deal if you're an academic. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rev ronin said:

I'm not an AAPA member, so I don't get to use huddle.  You wrote it, you can copy/paste it here, you have the right to reuse your own stuff. Self-plagiarism is only a big deal if you're an academic. :-)

David asked this question:

Please correct me if I am wrong but do the changes in the new resolution echo no mandatory collaboration?

Here is my response:

With that said, to answer your question, I do believe 2018-B-15 does state “non-mandatory collaboration” stronger than the original language in 2 areas:

1)      Therefore, the manner in which PAs and physicians work PRACTICE together should be IS determined at the practice level.

The word “is” in legal terms is much stronger than should be, “should be” in legal terms allows an entity to decide if they want to do something. I also prefer the word “practice” over the term work, I believe many of my colleagues might agree.

 

2)      State law should not require a specific relationship between a PA, and physician, or any other entity MANDATE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE PRACTICE OF THE PA in order for a PA to practice to the full extent of their education, training and experience.

We do not want our State laws to continue to legislate a relationship between a PA and physician which is currently the norm in most states whereby PAs are required to have a supervising/collaborating physician, but we’d much rather prefer state law refer to granting authority to scopes of practice and professional self-regulation.

Why I asked the question, “has the resolution gone far enough”, is because of what I haven’t seen in the amendment. I believe the amendment needs to go further:

1)      THE DETAILS OF THE PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A PHYSICIANS AND A PAS should MUST be determined at the practice level in accordance with the practice type and the experience and competencies of the practicing PAS.

The word “MUST” is a much stronger legal term. Removing the word “A” in making physician and PA plural by adding an S does not give the appearance as it must be 1 PA and 1 physician practicing together as some states have required.

2)      WHEN PAS ARE GRANTED FULL PRACTICE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY, like every clinical provider, PAs are responsible ACCOUNTABLE for the care they pro­vide.

I believe this finalizes everything in OTP up to this point and leads into the statement of removing liability from the physician and places accountability on the PA for the services they provide. And we are describing what PAs have been granted when their state practice act achieves “the 6 key elements” and “the 4 pillars” of PA practice without using FPAR as our moniker for the future of PA practice.

rev,

Your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jdtpac said:

My responses on the Huddle. I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to cut-and-paste that response onto this forum. You can check it out on the AAPA's website.

But many of us can't check it out cause were not AAPA members.

 

Thank you for reposting here....what you posted makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ArmyMedOfficerInNY said:

So which office does jdtpac represent?

Lets call out anyone opposing OTP movement like that guy PAs for OTP on facebook. Post the names of PA's and delegates and even their pics and call them out

he is an Ohio PA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ArmyMedOfficerInNY said:

Lets call out anyone opposing OTP movement like that guy PAs for OTP on facebook.

How about we all meet at their houses and scream invectives at them?  

How about we shame them in front of their kids?  These kids deserve to know what kind of parents they have, right?

What KIND OF CREATURE would POSSIBLY have any concerns with this?  They must be EVIL!

How about we find them, and then remove them from office!

Better yet, how about we find a way to remove their license!!

Then, just to make sure we know who they are, we can make them wear an armband. 

Or better yet, we can tattoo them!  What could possibly be next!!

In case you miss the sarcasm there, what I'm trying to say is CHILL OUT ArmyMedOfficerInNy & others who are seemingly ready to flog anyone not ready to jump on the OTP bandwagon (whatever that means).  These are professional PAs who may, or may not, simply have a different opinion than you.  I'm one of them.  If you want to try to come "call me out", be prepared, cause I wasn't a candy-ass medical officer during my 20 years in the military.

This seems a little appropriate here (obviously not  perfect analogy):
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/liberal-outrage-machine-america-powerful-force/

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • 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