NCCPA News Blast ID: 1008499

[physasst]

See below...I'm not wild about the phase in...so I have to take PANRE this year, and then again in 2018, AND THEN be phased in....WTF??

 

Also, I need more information on the PI-CME.....Not sure how they are defining this.

 

10-Year Certification Maintenance Cycle and New CME Requirements Coming Soon

Beginning in 2014, certified physician assistants will transition to a 10-year

certification maintenance cycle, a change from the current six-year

certification maintenance and retesting requirement that has been in effect

since recertification was first introduced in 1981.

That change is accompanied by the institution of new, more specific continuing

medical education (CME) requirements: 20 of the 50 Category I CME credits

certified PAs are already required to obtain every two years must be earned

through self-assessment CME or performance improvement CME (PI-CME).

PAs who pass PANCE or PANRE in 2014 will be the first to move to the new

certification maintenance process. Others will transition to the new 10-year

cycle over the following five years as they recertify.

These changes are the result of discussions that spanned eight years, as NCCPA

leaders worked first to define the set of competencies critical for effective

PA practice and then to determine how to effectively integrate appropriate

competencies into the certification maintenance process. That effort included

multiple discussions with leaders of the American Academy of Physician

Assistants (AAPA) and the Physician Assistant Education Association (PAEA), a

public comment period during which all certified PAs were invited to respond

to potential changes, and a pilot study.

"We know that the majority of medical boards have now implemented similar

changes that licensing authorities feel will serve both the public and the

medical profession. The NCCPA initiative is consistent with the medical

community's movement toward this practice," said AAPA President Robert L.

Wooten, PA-C. "I appreciate that NCCPA's leaders have taken their time with

these discussions and have sought input from AAPA and others throughout their

consideration of changes to the certification maintenance process."

Later this spring, NCCPA will launch a new information-gathering system that

will help measure the impact of these changes. Certified PAs will receive more

information about the new "PA Professional Profile" in the coming weeks and

will be prompted to complete it within the next couple of months to establish

the baseline for later impact studies. Then they will be prompted to update it

at least once during every two-year CME cycle.

Watch a short video or read more about these changes online, read more in our

Q&A, and read future NCCPA News messages for additional details as they become

available.

 

 

Certification Maintenance Fees

 

With the new changes to the certification maintenance process, one thing that

will not change is the $130 certification maintenance fee, which is one of the

current requirements to maintain certification. We are pleased to be able to

maintain the current fee for all PAs, even during a time when costs are

increasing at a rapid pace.

 

However, to maintain the current fee and streamline the process, NCCPA is

phasing out the discount option. Less than half of certified PAs take

advantage of the $50 discount by earning and logging their CME credits by June

30 of the certification expiration year. By eliminating the June 30 deadline,

PAs will only have one deadline to remember for earning and logging their CME

credits and paying the certification maintenance fee - December 31, their

certification expiration date.

 

Though there will no longer be a financial incentive to earn and log CME

early, keep in mind that NCCPA begins updating PA certification records in

September of the certification expiration year. So the sooner you complete all

requirements, the sooner your certification record will be updated to the next

cycle, and the sooner employers, state boards, and others can verify that you

have completed all requirements.

 

The discount structure is still in effect for the 2010-2012 and 2011-2013 CME

cycles that are already in progress.

[EMEDPA]

Actually I'm thinking about taking panre year 5 in my cycle next yr to avoid the new changes for another 6 yrs....unless they decide to count the caq as fulfilling the self assessment activity.....

[terripa]

I agree that PI-CME needs more clarification. Especially on how it is graded. And I just took my PANRE 2 weeks ago so I will recertify again in 6 years before I am phased into the new cycle. I would've like to see clarification if we are going to be able to recertify in 9th and 10th year and if we will have more opportunities or still only have 4 exams. And if the cost of the exam will increase (which it has over the last five years already). What will the cost of logging our self-assessment and PI-CME cost- since NCCPA is now charging everyone 130.00 to log our own CME's.

 

I see positive and negative to this change. It seems to follow MD's path. But those doctors also got grandfathered in - I see that hasn't happened for us. And now 10 years is even further apart for that knowledge to be purged from our memories.

[CAAdmission]

There is nothing positive in this. They took something that was not broke (and arguably worked better than the "medical system" they are trying to emulate) and created bizzarre requirements that even the NCCPA doesn not understand. Go ahead and call them and ask about PI - you will get a response like "we are working out the details." It is akin to walking past an OR and seeing a surgeon paging through a text over an open wound...

 

Why are there more physicians than PAs on the NCCPA?

[physasst]

There is nothing positive in this. They took something that was not broke (and arguably worked better than the "medical system" they are trying to emulate) and created bizzarre requirements that even the NCCPA doesn not understand. Go ahead and call them and ask about PI - you will get a response like "we are working out the details." It is akin to walking past an OR and seeing a surgeon paging through a text over an open wound...

 

Why are there more physicians than PAs on the NCCPA?

 

1st, because we are dependent providers and we work under physician licensure. Whether you like that or not, they have a large role to play in our certification/recertification process.

 

It seems that the PI-CME is all the rage for physicians, and has been for a couple of years. It also seems like it is essentially a QI project in another form.

 

http://www.performanceimprovement-iq.com/

 

http://www.ncqa.org/tabid/1014/Default.aspx

 

I can see one rather glowing problem with this. What do you do with PAs who are teaching, doing research, or working in non clinical capacities? How do they obtain or maintain certification with this new PI-CME?

 

Interesting....

[Contrarian]

1st, because we are dependent providers and we work under physician licensure....

 

Naaaah...

Maybe YOU "work under physician licensure"... but here, I have my own license, and work with physician Sponsorship/Supervision.

[primadonna22274]

My recert is due this year too. Hopefully the last one I ever do before learning the hula hoop that is DO licensure and maintenance...ai-yi-yi....

;)

[TWR]

Plain and simple. I feel the whole written test she be abolished after initial certification upon graduation. Maintain 100 hours of CME every 2 years. Period.

[jdtpac]

There is nothing positive in this. They took something that was not broke (and arguably worked better than the "medical system" they are trying to emulate) and created bizzarre requirements that even the NCCPA doesn not understand. Go ahead and call them and ask about PI - you will get a response like "we are working out the details." It is akin to walking past an OR and seeing a surgeon paging through a text over an open wound...

 

Why are there more physicians than PAs on the NCCPA?

 

 

I personally agree with you that we have taken something that has been working quite well since the first exams were given in the late 1970s. I took by original exam in 1979 and PANRE 5 times since then. Unfortunately for you and I (and others like us) , we are in the minority of the profession. This issue of the 10 year recertification cycle and alternative methods of CME has been discussed and debated in the AAPA HOD for greater than 10 years that I can remember. Because there has been such a demand by the majority in the profession NCCPA, AAPA and PAEA have been working together over the last 5 years more to come to this point. After reviewing the NCCPA website I am not as anxious about the process for a couple reasons. For one, because I took my recertification in 2010 these new standards did not apply to me until 2016. And for 2, 20 hours of category I CME is optional self-assessment or PI-CME. For me, based on that alone self-assessment would be my choice.

 

You asked a question, why they are there so many physicians on the NCCPA? Well I could give you a history lesson about the NCCPA however it would probably be easier for you to go to their website and listen to the short video they have on that subject. NCCPA is a freestanding organization that was originally created by 12 physician organizations in 1975 to create a certifying process for PAs. Since then PAs have been incrementally added to the commission. We now have 11 PAs on the commission. So we do have good representation. As a matter of fact, a PA has served as chair of the commission on multiple occasions. Just as we are regulated in most states by a medical boards(made up mostly of physicians) whose mission is to serve and assure the public that we are properly licensed, NCCPA’s mission is the same for our certification.

[CAdamsPAC]

Just add my 25 years as a PA-C and 60th year of life to the six years my recert this year will give me...............you will see the tail lights of my PA career, fading long before I need to worry about these changes.I've gritted my teeth over the NCCPA flogging of the PA serfs under it's domain for more than a few years, and with the onset of the autum of my career I wish those remaining well in their efforts to throw off the yoke of the NCCPA!!!!

[physasst]

I personally agree with you that we have taken something that has been working quite well since the first exams were given in the late 1970s. I took by original exam in 1979 and PANRE 5 times since then. Unfortunately for you and I (and others like us) , we are in the minority of the profession. This issue of the 10 year recertification cycle and alternative methods of CME has been discussed and debated in the AAPA HOD for greater than 10 years that I can remember. Because there has been such a demand by the majority in the profession NCCPA, AAPA and PAEA have been working together over the last 5 years more to come to this point. After reviewing the NCCPA website I am not as anxious about the process for a couple reasons. For one, because I took my recertification in 2010 these new standards did not apply to me until 2016. And for 2, 20 hours of category I CME is optional self-assessment or PI-CME. For me, based on that alone self-assessment would be my choice.

 

You asked a question, why they are there so many physicians on the NCCPA? Well I could give you a history lesson about the NCCPA however it would probably be easier for you to go to their website and listen to the short video they have on that subject. NCCPA is a freestanding organization that was originally created by 12 physician organizations in 1975 to create a certifying process for PAs. Since then PAs have been incrementally added to the commission. We now have 11 PAs on the commission. So we do have good representation. As a matter of fact, a PA has served as chair of the commission on multiple occasions. Just as we are regulated in most states by a medical boards(made up mostly of physicians) whose mission is to serve and assure the public that we are properly licensed, NCCPA’s mission is the same for our certification.

 

Yep, and the whole argument that so many on this and other forums have against the NCCPA is a logical fallacy.

 

One of things that I have heard consistently is that the NCCPA doesn't represent PAs......Guess what? THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO. They represent, as John noted above, our physician organizations, and even more importantly, the public. I've heard that the NCCPA doesn't answer to the profession.....AGAIN, they are not supposed to. The NCCPA IS NOT, I repeat, NOT an advocacy organization, that is not their job. That is what the AAPA is supposed to be for. The NCCPA is supposed to develop, with oversight from physician organizations and the FSMB, a certifying and standardized process to ensure that only qualified, educated PAs are practicing....

 

You don't have to like the NCCPA, but as this who our Medical Boards look to, you do have to deal with them.

[CAAdmission]

They represent, as John noted above, our physician organizations, and even more importantly, the public.

 

I call bull**** on this one. They represent only their own economic self-interest.

[TWR]

OK "physasst", I find it shocking that you would say that the NCCPA testing "ensures that only qualified,educated PAs are practicing". I guess after 26 years and 3 recerts later, (expired 12/31/11), I am no longer educated or qualified to practice? I have no intention at this time of my career to sit and take a 3 hour test most of which does not test what I have done for the past quarter century. There are many ways to test for competency beside written tests. I suggest you pick your words more carefully.

 

PS Doesn't anyone know someone who took the recert that is anything but "qualified" to practice?

[physasst]

Sorry, those words were paraphrased from our State Board of Medical Practice. They weren't intended as a "slam" against a PA who has practiced for decades... As far as the recertification process, I know of several PAs I wouldn't trust to treat my dogs, let alone my family, same with some physicians. There are great providers, and there are some not so great providers.

 

As far as the validity of the written test, no, it's not the only way, but it's what we have now. For example, NCCPA certification is a condition of employment at many institutions. I know of one PA who failed the PANRE this last year, and his certification expired 12-31-2011. I don't believe he is working at his institution anymore, as I believe he was let go.

[jdtpac]

Let's be realistic.To pass the recertification examination you have to have a score of 55% or higher. It doesn't matter what specialty you are practicing in at the time of your tests. When you graduate from you PA program you were tested on your knowledge of general medicine and you needed a score of 75% or higher to pass that exam. You knew after you took the entry-level exam that 6 years later you were going to be required to take another test that was going to measure your retention of the general medical knowledge you received in your basic training but this time you were only required to have a score of 55% or higher. Regardless of what specialty you practice in, how hard was it to actually to retain 55% of your basic knowledge over that 6 year period. All you need to do was read a few journals like JAAPA or Clinical Advisor, or any of the other free medical journals. Go to grand rounds at your hospital. Be taken out to a lecture and a dinner sponsored by one of the pharmaceutical reps, and so on, and so on….

 

I think about it, was it really that difficult. Apparently so because a very loud majority of the profession voiced their displeasure with having to retain 55% of their basic general medical knowledge every 6 years, so this is what you end up with. You didn't get specialty examinations, you got self-assessment and practice improvement. Now which one would you prefer? Give me that recertification test. I scored over 90% on my entry-level exam and have taken the recertification 5 times and had never gotten a score lower than 72%. And in all my years of practice, I only know one PA that failed the recertification exam twice in their last year of eligibility and loss there certification. That person was 65 years old and decided to retire because he felt that at his age if he couldn't retain 55% of the basic knowledge required for him to know it was time for him to move on.

 

This new method puts on these extraneous and more difficult requirements on the newer generation of PAs but in the end every 6 years they are still going to be tested on their basic knowledge of general medicine and will still be required to score 55% or higher. All the complaining accomplished nothing more than to make the whole process more cumbersome, confusing and difficult. And in the long run does this new method measured competency?

 

Did I emphasize the 55% enough.....

 

And the majority of PAs want a title change…. more nightmares on the horizon… be careful what you wish for…

[physasst]

John,

 

This was coming regardless of what PAs wanted or wished for. This is a huge quality push.

 

For example, at my institution, we have an entire Quality Academy with different levels of fellowship..

 

This past year, it was made mandatory that ALL providers (nurses, physicians, PA/NP, etc.etc.etc) had to achieve bronze status by 12-31-2011. This was accomplished by taking a test on quality metrics, QI principles, and statistical methods. I've heard that the institution will require silver status by 2015, which involves a quality improvement project.

 

Furthermore, the FSMB is going to make this a cornerstone of competency, which means physicians who do not or have not maintained their board certification are going to be faced with a much more rigorous licensure maintenance process.

 

This isn't just us. And it isn't just the NCCPA, this is an ACROSS the board move to quality improvement in providers.

[Contrarian]

... [brevity edit]... And the majority of PAs want a title change… [brevity edit]...

 

So you acknowledge this fact... and still actively obstructed and continue to oppose what the majority wanted/wants...???

 

Oh... Yeah... that's right, YOU know better than the "majority."

 

:heheh:

 

Which is probably why YOU seem compelled to reply to every post with how looooooooong you been a PA, then like clock-work, you make condencending statements and declarations that usually conclude with the notion that YOU know better, and consider yourself smarter and wiser than the majority of the PAs you were supposed to be serving/representing.

 

Physasst is spot on... QI/PI projects have been the "buzz" that ALL clinical professional boards have been moving to for atleast a decade.It was gonna happen regardless. But of course YOU felt the need to tie it negatively to the views and wants of the "majority" of PAs that aren't as smart as you.

 

Whats next...? When the gravitational poles shift in Dec 2012...

I'm sure you will then concoct some relational tie of that event with something that the "majority" of PAs want... that YOU... in your infinate wisdom, and loooooong PA working experience... don't think they should have/do... :wink:

 

Its classically algorithmic...

 

Carry-On... !!

[jdtpac]

So you acknowledge this fact... and still actively obstructed and continue to oppose what the majority wanted/wants...???

 

Oh... Yeah... that's right, YOU know better than the "majority."

 

:heheh:

 

Which is probably why YOU seem compelled to reply to every post with how looooooooong you been a PA, then like clock-work, you make condencending statements and declarations that usually conclude with the notion that YOU know better, and consider yourself smarter and wiser than the majority of the PAs you were supposed to be serving/representing.

 

Physasst is spot on... QI/PI projects have been the "buzz" that ALL clinical professional boards have been moving to for atleast a decade.It was gonna happen regardless. But of course YOU felt the need to tie it negatively to the views and wants of the "majority" of PAs that aren't as smart as you.

 

Whats next...? When the gravitational poles shift in Dec 2012...

I'm sure you will then concoct some relational tie of that event with something that the "majority" of PAs want... that YOU... in your infinate wisdom, and loooooong PA working experience... don't think they should have/do... :wink:

 

Its classically algorithmic...

 

Carry-On... !!

 

And your point on certification is? I am sure the readers would much rather hear that than your constantly berating my thoughts. Don't you have better things to do? But it's OK, I have thick skin. Anyway, I think you should add a picture of a goat below becaused apparently I have got your's!

[jdtpac]

John,

 

This was coming regardless of what PAs wanted or wished for. This is a huge quality push.

 

For example, at my institution, we have an entire Quality Academy with different levels of fellowship..

 

This past year, it was made mandatory that ALL providers (nurses, physicians, PA/NP, etc.etc.etc) had to achieve bronze status by 12-31-2011. This was accomplished by taking a test on quality metrics, QI principles, and statistical methods. I've heard that the institution will require silver status by 2015, which involves a quality improvement project.

 

Furthermore, the FSMB is going to make this a cornerstone of competency, which means physicians who do not or have not maintained their board certification are going to be faced with a much more rigorous licensure maintenance process.

 

This isn't just us. And it isn't just the NCCPA, this is an ACROSS the board move to quality improvement in providers.

 

Michael,

Credentialing and measuring competency belongs in the institutions which has the staff and the resources to do so. Medical boards should not be in the business of measuring competency their role is licensure and oversight and not credentialing.

I'm waiting for the day where a medical board will be named in a suit because they credentialed a physician or PA. They want regulate in office quality care which they never have in the past

 

The only reason you're seeing this at the medical board level, or from the NCC PA is because either group cannot figure out how to develop competency measurements on private practice or office -based practices like joint commission.

 

If I am off base on this I would like to hear your thoughts.

[Contrarian]

... [brevity edit]... Anyway, I think you should add a picture of a goat below becaused apparently I have got your's!

 

 

Pssst...!!!! Smart guy... " Got your goad" is the correct experssion... :kiss:

[jdtpac]

Pssst...!!!! Smart guy... " Got your goad" is the correct experssion... :kiss:

 

Again, and your point on certification is?

 

Get your goat - The meanings and origins of sayings and phrases

Meaning. Make you annoyed or angry. Origin. The dictionary definition of goat is 'a ruminant quadruped of the genus Capra'. What's that got to do with being angry?

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/get-your-goat.html

 

Can we please move on and discuss the issues?

[Contrarian]

My point on certification is:

 

Physasst is spot on... QI/PI projects have been the "buzz" that ALL clinical professional boards have been moving to for atleast a decade. It was gonna happen regardless.

 

________________________________________

________________________________________

Ha..ha...

Funny how you half read then "cherry-picked" the definition.

Careful, your integity is showing.

 

The other day Chuck and I were discussing the phrase “get your goat.” I said, “It’s not goat, it’s goad."

He replied, “What? It’s goat."

 

"No. Think about it; how many people do you know who have a goat to get?"

He quickly tried to change the subject knowing that it is pointless to argue with me. We’ve been down this road before and he has learned that when it comes to language and history, what I don’t know as fact I invent.

So, who's right? Is the phrase "get my goat" or "get my goad"?

 

I decided to do a little research by submitting to the only bastion of authority and light and truth: I Googled both phrases, “Get your goat” and “Get your goad."

 

Here are theories:

The phrase “get your goat” comes from a formerly common but now outdated practice in horse racing where the owners would stable their horses with goats to calm them down. Thus, to get someones goat would anger the horses and, I suppose, render them ineffective.

 

Is that true? Will the presence of a goat really pacify an agitated horse? Sounds like a question for MythBusters. Anyway, I don't buy it.

 

Another post refers to a dictionary definition of “goat” as prison slang meaning “anger.” This doesn't sound plausible. I've never been inside a prison, but I suspect that when inmates are goading one another, "goat" isn't the first bit of slang to roll off the tongue.

 

Here is the most compelling explanation, I think: aside from “goad” as a verb - to goad someone into doing something, a goad is a pointy stick used to urge an animal into obedience.

 

 

A goad is a stick with a pointed or electrically charged end that is used to move animals, or is something that urges someone to do

something. (noun)

1. An example of a goad is a tool used to drive cattle into a special area.
   
2. An example of a goad is money promised to someone if they complete a certain action.
   

 

To goad means to urge someone or an animal to take a specific action by providing an incentive. (verb)

An example of to goad is to herd sheep into a pen/

 

Definition of GOAD

 

1 a: something that pains as if by pricking b: something that urges or stimulates into action

 

2 a: a pointed rod used to urge on an animal

 

 

 

 

I further submit that the Bible provides very early references to a “goad” as something one could “get.” See Judges 3:31, 1 Samuel 13:21, Ecclesiastes 12:1. Also, see what Jesus said to Paul “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” Acts 8:5,28:14)

 

IN BIBLE times, an oxgoad—a long rod, usually tipped with a sharp metal spike—was used for driving and guiding draft animals. If the animal stubbornly resisted the prickings of the goad by pushing against it, what was the result? Rather than gaining relief, it only inflicted pain on itself.

 

The resurrected Jesus Christ spoke of goads when he appeared to a man named Saul, who was on his way to arrest some of Jesus’ disciples. Out of the midst of a blinding light, Saul heard Jesus say: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? To keep kicking against the goads makes it hard for you.” By maltreating Christians, Saul was actually fighting against God, pursuing a course that could only harm himself.—Acts 26:14.

 

Could we also unintentionally be “kicking against the goads”? The Bible likens “the words of the wise ones” to oxgoads that prod us to move forward in the right direction. (Ecclesiastes 12:11) The inspired counsel in God’s Word can motivate and guide us correctly—if we let it. (2 Timothy 3:16) Resisting its proddings can only harm us.

 

Saul took Jesus’ words to heart, changed his course, and came to be the beloved Christian apostle Paul. Our heeding divine counsel will likewise bring us eternal blessings.—Proverbs 3:1-6.

 

 

Conclusion is that the phrase, properly used, is “get your goad.” But don’t mind me, I’m stubborn. Like a goat.

[physasst]

Michael,

Credentialing and measuring competency belongs in the institutions which has the staff and the resources to do so. Medical boards should not be in the business of measuring competency their role is licensure and oversight and not credentialing.

I'm waiting for the day where a medical board will be named in a suit because they credentialed a physician or PA. They want regulate in office quality care which they never have in the past

 

The only reason you're seeing this at the medical board level, or from the NCC PA is because either group cannot figure out how to develop competency measurements on private practice or office -based practices like joint commission.

 

If I am off base on this I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

John,

 

Possibly, I think that the FSMB is getting involved because many states do not require that a physician maintain BC. They are concerned that non boarded physicians have no real process in place outside of CME requirements. I think that they also note much of the work that CMS did showing that quality metrics were still so poor, despite existing certifcation/licensure maintenance processes.

 

I'm in the middle of writing an RO3 grant right now, and when you look up the PAR, all of the funding priorities could be thought of as being related to quality...Heck here it is, this is part of the Value Portfolio in the research objectives...I've bolded all of the quality words...but if you read the rest...the entire objective is about quality....and this only one PAR.....

 

Value Portfolio

AHRQ seeks to support research to develop, disseminate, and translate rigorous evidence that can be used by public and private policymakers, by health system and community leaders, and by managers of healthcare organizations who want to improve the delivery of healthcare services by reducing unnecessary costs (waste) and increasing efficiency, while maintaining or improving healthcare quality, i.e., increasing the value of health care for all Americans. In addition to applications of systematic quantitative research methods, qualitative and mixed-methods research are also encouraged. Research priorities include:

 

 

• Identifying practices and organizational arrangements (designs) that reduce waste, and/or enhance efficiency while improving or maintaining the quality of health services.
  
• Investigate organizational, cultural, socio-technical, and behavioral factors affecting the value -- quality, cost, and efficiency -- of care.
  
• Identifying ways to improve these factors and identifying strategies and techniques for improving the delivery of health care services -- including redesign of administrative and care processes (e.g., Lean, reengineering, improvement collaboratives) and redesign (reorganization) of entire care systems.
  
• Identifying designs and improvement practices that are adaptable and scaleable to diverse care settings, delivery systems, and patient populations; identifying forces affecting the spread and sustainability of these designs and practices.
  
• Developing, assessing, testing, and disseminating methods, measures, data and tools needed by decision makers to track, report and improve cost and efficiency as well as quality -- to include special emphases on such issues within and across sites of care.
  
• Understanding and projecting effects of policy, payment, insurance, organizational and market conditions and changes on provider and other healthcare sector participants' behavior and on healthcare value, efficiency and quality – including methodological advances in risk adjustment for payment purposes, organizational, delivery system, and community wide strategies to improve value and efficiency.
  
• Providing evidence of effects of Federal and State regulatory and legal changes on the organization, financing, accessibility, delivery, quality and cost of health care, to include the effects of Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP benefit provisions.
  
• Assessing effects of consumer incentives on consumer behavior, to include methods of increasing prevention and wellness behaviors, factors consumers consider when choosing health plans, and the effects of public reporting strategies and diverse purchaser strategies to improve value.
  
• Assessing (from multiple stakeholders' points of view) the organizational and societal costs and the rates of return for direct investments required to achieve more value in health care.
  
• Developing, testing, analyzing, and diffusing successful health care management strategies to improve value, including building, synthesizing and implementing an evidence base for evidence based management and policy making.
  
• Generating policy relevant evidence about the effects of leadership, management, organizational culture, cultural competence and health literacy interventions on improving organizational performance, efficiency and outcomes, including outcomes for diverse population groups.
  
• Addressing related and similar issues in the context of safety net institutions and AHRQ's priority populations.
  

[jdtpac]

My point on certification is:

 

Physasst is spot on... QI/PI projects have been the "buzz" that ALL clinical professional boards have been moving to for atleast a decade. It was gonna happen regardless.

 

________________________________________

________________________________________

Ha..ha...

Funny how you half read then "cherry-picked" the definition.

Careful, your integity is showing.

 

 

Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe, To-may-to, To-mah-to!

Let's move on and discuss issues. One day we need to get a beer, I may find out you are a nice person.

[LIPPER]

Let's be realistic.To pass the recertification examination you have to have a score of 55% or higher. It doesn't matter what specialty you are practicing in at the time of your tests. When you graduate from you PA program you were tested on your knowledge of general medicine and you needed a score of 75% or higher to pass that exam. You knew after you took the entry-level exam that 6 years later you were going to be required to take another test that was going to measure your retention of the general medical knowledge you received in your basic training but this time you were only required to have a score of 55% or higher. Regardless of what specialty you practice in, how hard was it to actually to retain 55% of your basic knowledge over that 6 year period. All you need to do was read a few journals like JAAPA or Clinical Advisor, or any of the other free medical journals. Go to grand rounds at your hospital. Be taken out to a lecture and a dinner sponsored by one of the pharmaceutical reps, and so on, and so on….

 

I think about it, was it really that difficult. Apparently so because a very loud majority of the profession voiced their displeasure with having to retain 55% of their basic general medical knowledge every 6 years, so this is what you end up with. You didn't get specialty examinations, you got self-assessment and practice improvement. Now which one would you prefer? Give me that recertification test. I scored over 90% on my entry-level exam and have taken the recertification 5 times and had never gotten a score lower than 72%. And in all my years of practice, I only know one PA that failed the recertification exam twice in their last year of eligibility and loss there certification. That person was 65 years old and decided to retire because he felt that at his age if he couldn't retain 55% of the basic knowledge required for him to know it was time for him to move on.

 

This new method puts on these extraneous and more difficult requirements on the newer generation of PAs but in the end every 6 years they are still going to be tested on their basic knowledge of general medicine and will still be required to score 55% or higher. All the complaining accomplished nothing more than to make the whole process more cumbersome, confusing and difficult. And in the long run does this new method measured competency?

 

Did I emphasize the 55% enough.....

 

And the majority of PAs want a title change…. more nightmares on the horizon… be careful what you wish for…

.Well said