Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How about we keep PA as is and just move on. Holy crap.

A simple observation from a retired, simple mind; you get a title past two words and things get complicated.  Physician, nurse, chiropractor, dentist, pharmacist, phlebotomist, sonographer, etc..  Two

Some were flat out weird.

2 hours ago, SamthePA said:

How about we keep PA as is and just move on. Holy crap.

Hello Patient, I am Adam your PA. Pat asks, what is a PA,  you respond, a PA, What?  I have been taking some  in house required classes, and the most recent two  discussed working with physicians and “Practitioners” sited Nurse Practitioners and oh yes,  Physician Assistants. One only mentioned Nurse Practitioner under APP heading ,it was an RN teaching. Now add to fact that either Missouri or Mississippi,has legislation that appears to be progressing, for Paramedic Practitioner, doing a lot of what NP’s and PA’s currently do. Even states the physician may only supervise 6 Paramedic or Practitioners, 6 Physician Assistants or currently 6 NP, or a combination of the 3 with a total of 6.   No, look down road a few years WHEN NP get independence and it remains Paramedic Practitioners and Physician Assistant, Physician Associate or just PA. While the heck do you think will then be viewed as better option? As a patient, I’d automatically say Paramedical “Practitioner”, sounds much more professional. If I were admin, Paramedic will likely cost less than PA and no way hire P unless willing to cut salary likely to current lowest end. So both Nurse and Paramedic Practitioners will have their niche. PA’s will be viewed as over educated assistants that require more money that Paramedic and more paperwork and time than NP. Best be thinking a long term title change and independence or at best each state pushing like crazy for absolute OTP everywhere, including VAMC where I hear comments of complacency. There are ridiculous amount of NP and PA programs and now what appears to be a push for an additional “Practitioner” But some of you still want to aspire for Associate and others Assistant and remained tied to physicians, legally and in title. Even title Paramedic Practitioners will have more clout for the uneducated don’t care legislation that pass bills. That “sounds” like a more independent provider than PA,  Associate or Assistant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel like this is beating a dead horse, and will be my last post on this discussion, however please, someone educate me on why Medical Science Practitioner  was not on the final 4? I am hoping the final 4 were, like someone said, just ways to get further info and not actual options(although Medical Care Practitioner not bad)It just appears to be so descriptive with excellent potential for future legislation.  Ties into Masters of Medical Science and Doctors of Medical Science.  Those in the know, please help me understand. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 2:32 PM, sas5814 said:

Let me play devil's advocate. I don't think those are the actual titles they are considering but rather a test of tolerance for something totally different vs something warm and familiar...but I could be wrong.

Lets say we land on Praxician (which to me sounds like something your would take for menstral cramps). It is totally unique. It is all ours. We aren't titled in any way that attaches us to any other profession (physician anything). 

Initially there would be a great hue and cry. There would be ridicule and complaints, threats of suicide and leaving the country. 20 years from now we would be Praxicians. Just us. Unique profession with a unique title that belongs to it alone. Some of us would be sitting in our rockers yammering about the old days when we were the physicina's assistant and the youngsters wouldn't know what we were on about.

Big change takes time. Our lizard brains are hard wired to resist and dislike change. First it seems crazy. Then it seems tolerable. Then it becomes the new normal.

Hearing this perspective makes me want to go back and change my vote on the name Praxician; I think it may allow the profession to keep the PA abbreviation since that's also a big issue to some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, deltawave said:

Hope2PA, I am in 100% agreement with you, but for the love... Can you please proof read your posts? 
You’re hard to follow. I’m not trying to be a grammar hammer, but for credibility and all... 

Thank you delta wave, I will be more cautious in the future. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2019 at 5:52 PM, Hope2PA said:

Feel like this is beating a dead horse, and will be my last post on this discussion, however please, someone educate me on why Medical Science Practitioner  was not on the final 4? I am hoping the final 4 were, like someone said, just ways to get further info and not actual options(although Medical Care Practitioner not bad)It just appears to be so descriptive with excellent potential for future legislation.  Ties into Masters of Medical Science and Doctors of Medical Science.  Those in the know, please help me understand. 

As far as I understood the survey and video from AAPA they whittled down hundreds of names (many of which were excluded for legal reasons) I’m guessing Medical Science practitioner was one of those that was excluded for legal/legislative reasons 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 11:22 PM, boli said:

As far as I understood the survey and video from AAPA they whittled down hundreds of names (many of which were excluded for legal reasons) I’m guessing Medical Science practitioner was one of those that was excluded for legal/legislative reasons 

I’d like to see why Science had to be excluded and Care is OK. There is NO other Medical Science Practitioner title, no one uses that to address themselves. Some programs for PA’s are  called Master of Medical SCIENCE, not Masters of Medical CARE. I feel like Medical Care Practitioner was picked because it not as acceptable as an attempt to make  Physician Associate a  default best option (MCP still better than PA). Only my opinion,  but that is what I will believe until proven otherwise.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hope2PA said:

I’d like to see why Science had to be excluded and Care is OK. There is NO other Medical Science Practitioner title, no one uses that to address themselves. Some programs for PA’s are  called Master of Medical SCIENCE, not Masters of Medical CARE. I feel like Medical Care Practitioner was picked because it not as acceptable as an attempt to make  Physician Associate a  default best option (MCP still better than PA). Only my opinion,  but that is what I will believe until proven otherwise.

 

I think Medical Care Practitioner is a better name than Medical Science Practitioner. 

MCP is much easier for the general public to understand our role. We need a name that can be understood to everyone without additional explanation. From a 6 years child all the way to an elderly demented patient, to a patient in the ED with a distracting injury, they will know immediately we are “qualify” to provide medical care just by our title. I feel Medical Science Practitioner adds that extra layer of confusion to most people. But this just my personal opinion. 

The word ‘Science’ also has two syllables, so it makes even harder to say it compares to ‘care.’

Lastly, you mentioned about the medical science degree. I think MMS or DMSc will integrate with Medical Care Practitioner title very well. I don’t see how that will create confusion.  I think eventually our title on paper (like a journal article) will just be “John Doe, DMSc” for short. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PACali said:

 

 

I think Medical Care Practitioner is a better name than Medical Science Practitioner. 

MCP is much easier for the general public to understand our role. We need a name that can be understood to everyone without additional explanation. From a 6 years child all the way to an elderly demented patient, to a patient in the ED with a distracting injury, they will know immediately we are “qualify” to provide medical care just by our title. I feel Medical Science Practitioner adds that extra layer of confusion to most people. But this just my personal opinion. 

The word ‘Science’ also has two syllables, so it makes even harder to say it compares to ‘care.’

Lastly, you mentioned about the medical science degree. I think MMS or DMSc will integrate with Medical Care Practitioner title very well. I don’t see how that will create confusion.  I think eventually our title on paper (like a journal article) will just be “John Doe, DMSc” for short. 

 

 

Regardless of my posts and preference for MSP, I would be very Thankful if this time next year bills were being written to change title to Medical Care Practitioner in each state  along with, at the very least, absolute OTP.  Keeping my fingers crossed that PA will be a thing of the past. New decade, new title and hopefully continued passion for making the profession viable in the future!  For all those  lucky enough to be off Tomorrow, Happy Thanksgiving! 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, traumajd said:

At the risk of sounding uninformed, what is OTP?

It is disheartening that many PA’s don’t have a clue about what is going on in their profession. Go to AAPA site and read about OTP,. It is not full independence, but for PA’s in the growing number of states that give NP’s Independence, it is vital for PA future. At least you are inquiring, that is a start. PLEASE become informed about how important getting a new title, one that will be appropriate long term. Plus importance of  participating in your state to promote Optimal Team Practice, which takes away requirement for physician service to supervise or technically be responsible for you. In many locations, PA’s have not been considered for jobs because of requirements. Instead they are only given to NP as they do not require same amount of paperwork, supervision etc. Join AAPA and State organization. Then encourage other PA’s/MCP:) to do the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I’m terribly sorry that I don’t keep up with every detail of every states practice issues. Here in Pennsylvania , I have to assume that it is not an issue. I work with several hundred PAs (as well as a lot of NPs) and have never heard the term OTP uttered. I’m sorry if there are PAs not getting jobs because of it and I’m happy to support anything that improves our practice overall. 
I, however, don’t appreciate the condescending attitude of your response, Hope2PA. I have been a PA for 21 years and don’t accept that kind of treatment from anyone. Save it for your five year old. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but we are colleagues and I have never spoken to a colleague like that. Just a simple answer would have been sufficient. 
 

And, by the way, when I became a PA I knew fully that I would be licensed with physician supervision. If I wanted to be independent I would have gone to med school. I am quite fine in my position and in 21 years have never felt restrained by my position or my title. I’m sorry if others have. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, traumajd said:

At the risk of sounding uninformed, what is OTP?

I'll try to give an abbreviated version of what Optimal Team Practice (OTP) entails, and why it's important. It was voted on and approved by the AAPA House of Delegates at the 2017 annual conference, and aims to set the PA profession up for the future by working towards legislative changes to remove the antiquated administrative red tape that currently hinders PAs and puts us at a disadvantage relative to NPs in many areas.

The goal is to transfer the decision-making from state legislature to the practice level, allowing specific practices to function in the way that works best for them and their specific situation. One of the tenets of OTP includes eliminating the requirement that a PA be legally tied to a specific physician, while also reinforcing the PA commitment to team practice. This isn't so that PAs can be cowboys and start practicing independently, but rather to allow PAs to collaborate with any physician in the practice or group in which they work. This ensures that PAs are protected when their collaborating physician retires or changes jobs (or dies), and also streamlines the hiring process to bring PAs in-line with where NPs already are in many states. 

Other important tenets of OTP include working towards direct reimbursement of PAs by Medicare and private insurance in the same way physicians and NPs are, as well as working towards PA boards to govern PA practice, again just like physicians and NPs already have. 

Things like state-mandated supervision ratios, mandated chart review percentages, linkage of a PA to a specific physician, etc all currently take a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating PAs without any evidence that they improve patient safety. These are decisions that would better be made at the practice level. For instance, PAs like yourself that have been working for over 20 years don't require the same degree of supervision/collaboration as a PA that's only been practicing for 1-2 years, nor should you require the same amount of chart review. Having these things mandated at the state level place an undue administrative burden on practices, and put PAs at a disadvantage in some places where NPs have more favorable regulation with less red-tape. 

The statement you made about not seeing a problem doesn't mean there isn't one in other states/areas, so I encourage you to read up a bit about OTP. Notably, the ball is already rolling with North Dakota being the first state to pass OTP legislation earlier this year. I have some links for you here to get you started. 

AAPA Information Page on OTP 

AAPA Announcement on OTP Passage 

North Dakota OTP Legislation Passed

Article Outlining OTP

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ProSpectre said:

I'll try to give an abbreviated version of what Optimal Team Practice (OTP) entails, and why it's important. It was voted on and approved by the AAPA House of Delegates at the 2017 annual conference, and aims to set the PA profession up for the future by working towards legislative changes to remove the antiquated administrative red tape that currently hinders PAs and puts us at a disadvantage relative to NPs in many areas.

The goal is to transfer the decision-making from state legislature to the practice level, allowing specific practices to function in the way that works best for them and their specific situation. One of the tenets of OTP includes eliminating the requirement that a PA be legally tied to a specific physician, while also reinforcing the PA commitment to team practice. This isn't so that PAs can be cowboys and start practicing independently, but rather to allow PAs to collaborate with any physician in the practice or group in which they work. This ensures that PAs are protected when their collaborating physician retires or changes jobs (or dies), and also streamlines the hiring process to bring PAs in-line with where NPs already are in many states. 

Other important tenets of OTP include working towards direct reimbursement of PAs by Medicare and private insurance in the same way physicians and NPs are, as well as working towards PA boards to govern PA practice, again just like physicians and NPs already have. 

Things like state-mandated supervision ratios, mandated chart review percentages, linkage of a PA to a specific physician, etc all currently take a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating PAs without any evidence that they improve patient safety. These are decisions that would better be made at the practice level. For instance, PAs like yourself that have been working for over 20 years don't require the same degree of supervision/collaboration as a PA that's only been practicing for 1-2 years, nor should you require the same amount of chart review. Having these things mandated at the state level place an undue administrative burden on practices, and put PAs at a disadvantage in some places where NPs have more favorable regulation with less red-tape. 

The statement you made about not seeing a problem doesn't mean there isn't one in other states/areas, so I encourage you to read up a bit about OTP. Notably, the ball is already rolling with North Dakota being the first state to pass OTP legislation earlier this year. I have some links for you here to get you started. 

AAPA Information Page on OTP 

AAPA Announcement on OTP Passage 

North Dakota OTP Legislation Passed

Article Outlining OTP

 

Thank you very much taking the time to explain that. That is a much better answer than the one I got before. I suppose that the issues that are facing PAs elsewhere aren’t an issue in my area as none of my colleagues have ever mentioned OTP. I can certainly understand the usefulness of such legislation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

traumajd- 

 

I also practice in Pennsylvania , and I am urging you to get up to speed on what is going on here in our state.  Senate Bill  25 was passed this summer, removing mandatory collaboration of NPs with physicians. House Bill 100 is still pending for complete passage in the state. The Pa Medical Society is vigorously opposing the bill, but as in many states- the nursing lobby is powerful here. 

If the NPs gain independence here, we PAs will be edged out for jobs as happening in many other states.

We also have legislation pending to loosen up some of our restrictions to practice, the specific details are below: 

The PSPA has introduced Senate Bills 870 & 871 to modernize our practice Acts, giving the physician/PA team and institutions more flexibility in delivering care to our patients. The Prime sponsors for our legislation are Republican Senator Thomas Killion and Democratic Senator John Yudichak.
The legislation builds on our past efforts to:
1.  Eliminate countersignature
2.  Allow for filing of work agreements
3.  Allow for physician/PA ratios to be determined at the practice and/or facility level
4.  Remove the requirement for physicians to be on-site at satellite locations
5.  Creation of a permanent PA seat on both the medical and osteopathic boards.

Upon introduction of the legislation, Senator Killion stated that, “Physician Assistants are a critical piece of the healthcare team. Their education and training is in the medical model and provides both physicians and patients with an excellent resource for healthcare.”
He went on to say, “Pennsylvania is one of the premier states for Physician Assistant education, but lags behind legislatively for practicing Pennsylvania Physician Assistants. With this modernization, Pennsylvania will encourage a diverse range of medical professionals across the healthcare delivery system. This legislation will allow for modernization for physician assistants to practice.”
The PSPA and our lobbyists have worked hard setting the stage for a successful campaign. But YOU play the most vital role! Legislators want to hear from their constituents regarding legislative issues.
The Society is asking all PAs in the state to contact their Pennsylvania State Senators asking them to join Senators Killion and Yudichak in support of Senate Bills 870 & 871.  Call, write and/or email your Senator today and ask them to contact Senator Tommy Tomlinson to bring the bills up for a vote in the Senate Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure committee.

 
PLEASE visit the PSPA website and follow the links to support this important legislation.  And- please consider joining PSPA and stay informed of important issues related to practice in Pa.
 
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, traumajd said:

And, by the way, when I became a PA I knew fully that I would be licensed with physician supervision. If I wanted to be independent I would have gone to med school. I am quite fine in my position and in 21 years have never felt restrained by my position or my title. I’m sorry if others have. 

This is not okay. I had to read this a few times just to soak in what you’re saying here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, traumajd said:

Why is this not ok? If it’s not eventual independence driving this, then what is it?

Everyone else out there without 20 years experience will be struggling to get jobs vs NP's who have full independence.  It's not just about us, I have 26 years of experience, it's about the thousands of PA's with 0-5 years experience and those still in School. Without quick and massive changes to supervision, NP's are leaving us in the dust.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Cideous said:

Everyone else out there without 20 years experience will be struggling to get jobs vs NP's who have full independence.  It's not just about us, I have 26 years of experience, it's about the thousands of PA's with 0-5 years experience and those still in School. Without quick and massive changes to supervision, NP's are leaving us in the dust.

Ok. Got ya. I didn’t realize it was such an issue. Thanks for clearing it up for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2019 at 12:50 PM, traumajd said:

Well, I’m terribly sorry that I don’t keep up with every detail of every states practice issues. Here in Pennsylvania , I have to assume that it is not an issue. I work with several hundred PAs (as well as a lot of NPs) and have never heard the term OTP uttered. I’m sorry if there are PAs not getting jobs because of it and I’m happy to support anything that improves our practice overall. 
I, however, don’t appreciate the condescending attitude of your response, Hope2PA. I have been a PA for 21 years and don’t accept that kind of treatment from anyone. Save it for your five year old. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but we are colleagues and I have never spoken to a colleague like that. Just a simple answer would have been sufficient. 
 

And, by the way, when I became a PA I knew fully that I would be licensed with physician supervision. If I wanted to be independent I would have gone to med school. I am quite fine in my position and in 21 years have never felt restrained by my position or my title. I’m sorry if others have. 

1.Never even crossed my mind that the words disheartening that so many are unaware and Please educate yourself was condescending. Maybe I should say it is very frustrating that so many do not have a clue what is going on in their profession. Now that ProSpectre and PAin Penna have fought you up, I sincerely hope you share the info with the hundreds of PA’s you work with. I am sure PAinPenna would be thrilled to suddenly have so many more new members of your state organization.

2.I did explain things to my children, when they were five,  At this  point, they know how to find and learn about area of interest on their own. They are grown professionals with their own nearly 5 yr olds.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 1:53 PM, charlottew said:

I agree praxician has some potential, although initially acceptance will be difficult. On reflection, I think one of the reasons I liked it, is because it echoes 'physician'.

 

Praxician is an easy target for any organized medicine who are opposed to our profession. Praxician can easily be mislabeled as someone who is not practicing “real” medicine. Think of it as chiropractors and naturopathics, some people may have negative connotations because something they have heard. The AMA (or others) can label ‘Praxician’ any way they want because there is no clear meaning for the general public to understand that title.  Praxician is “Fake physician” “pseudo-physician” and they don’t practice medicine...however they want to call it. This is why we need a title that has the word “medicine” in it. 

For Medical Care Practitioners, yes we are NOT physicians. We never said we were, but we do provide medical care. Easy comeback.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished the survey and it got me thinking of alternatives. What about titles such as Collaborative Medical Provider/Practitioner, Collaborative Clinician, Practice Associate, Medical Practice Associate, or Clinical Provider/Practitioner?

I fear that Medical Care Practitioner still places us PAs in competition with or at the level of NPs rather than placing us in our own category. It is vague but does help associate our role with medical training versus NPs and nursing. And as a superficial point, Medical Care Practitioner is a little on the long side.

Praxician is reminiscent of Magician although unique. 

Clinicist is vague and reminiscent of scientist although simple. 

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

Just finished the survey and it got me thinking of alternatives. What about titles such as Collaborative Medical Provider/Practitioner, Collaborative Clinician, Practice Associate, Medical Practice Associate, or Clinical Provider/Practitioner?

I fear that Medical Care Practitioner still places us PAs in competition with or at the level of NPs rather than placing us in our own category. It is vague but does help associate our role with medical training versus NPs and nursing. And as a superficial point, Medical Care Practitioner is a little on the long side.

Praxician is reminiscent of Magician although unique. 

Clinicist is vague and reminiscent of scientist although simple. 

Right now, you better hope Medical Care Practitioner and OTP is accomplished quickly so you can be on level with NP’s in he eyes of administration. The possibility of Collaborative Anything Practitioner/Associate sound sounds like a dependent practitioner that must collaborate with physicians or Nurse Practitioners.  You say Medical Care Practitioner is vague, but plenty clear for patients.

  • Upvote 1
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