HLReed Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I had Robert Wooten's ear for 20 seconds during an escalator ride Monday evening. Not often a 1st year student has an unopposed 20 seconds with the president of the AAPA and I didn't have my 20 second speech constructed nor rehearsed. So I winged it... I repeated what I have heard in the hallways.. "what has the AAPA specifically done for us?" Whenever that question is asked the answer comes in broad generalized phrases like "advocate for the profession". I don't like those broad, vague phrases. So I told Mr Wooten that "if the AAPA could disseminate a bullet list of specific things that they have done to bolster the PA profession... real things, tangible things, things that make a difference in our practice ability, then I could convince my fellow students to join". He was polite, smiled that far, distant, "I have other things on my mind" political smile and replied "thanks, I'll work on it". Better than the expected "You're such a sweet boy, now run along". So I got that going for me... I had AAPA CEO Jenna Dorn's ear for about 20 minutes on Monday. She was really receptive to new ideas to make the AAPA more useful to students. If you can come up with specific things to change, we (students) can make them happen. PM me sometime if you wanna discuss more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coloradopa Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Worrying about "opening a law" is absurd. It is simple fear mongering used by those opposed to a name change. In the United States, all of our laws are always "open." Any bozo can propose any change at any time. Some laws might be harder to change than others (like things requiring a consitutional amendment) but nothing is beyond change. In my state (and I suspect, most others) "Physician Assistant" is a legally protected term. Its use is confined to one who is licensed as a PA. It would be a simple matter to create a new law thus: "The use of the terms "physician assistant," "PA," and "physician associate" shall be confined to those healthcare professionals who are licensed by the state to practice as a physician assistant." Presto! People can call themselves whatever they desire, no laws are "opened" (whatever that means), and there is no need to update the 25,000 laws that everyone is having apoplexy over. This does nothing. The name change is not about "calling ourselves something different". Its about changing the perception of the profession associated with the term assistant. If it does nothiing for the profession but make a few people feel good about the name then I won't spend a dime. This was the discussion in the house. Change the title of the profession involves substantiative change to the law. If its not going to be in a positive way then its not worth doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAAdmission Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 This does nothing. The name change is not about "calling ourselves something different". Its about changing the perception of the profession associated with the term assistant. If it does nothiing for the profession but make a few people feel good about the name then I won't spend a dime. This was the discussion in the house. Change the title of the profession involves substantiative change to the law. If its not going to be in a positive way then its not worth doing. The above is the only painless way to make the "assistant" go away. Your "substantive change" is unnecessary. If you know of any way to legislatively "change someone's perception" you are in the wrong line of work, Svengali... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I have been following the discussion here and on C1. Like most others, I was at work and not the HOD. I wasn't there so I'm piecing this together from posts.... It seems there is much hesitation about the potential cost of the legislative change. And....there is also much hesitation about the cost of finding out the cost. And....there is concern about the vaildity of the recent poll....which would be to costly to redo in a way that is unbiased and significant. There were three motions, two were withdrawn. The TX motion was the one that remained, which was resubmitted and shot down more than once. In looking at the poll numbers by state, it would be enlightening to see the delegate vote breakdown and if it reflected the census breakdown. I spoke w/ my delegates prior to the meeting and they said they planned to vote based on those numbers. It's hard to see that the delegates are giving fair shake to the census results when the support was stronger than the house debate reflects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 There are really two things that needs to be examined (and hopefully will be during the year) is what is the cost of changing and not changing the title? We can speculate on the lobbying costs to change the title. I've heard Dave Mittman state that all we have to do is put in the law where it says Physician Assistant change to Physician Associate. Does anyone know if that is true or in the case of Georgia do we have to open up 43 laws, the medicaid and Workman's comp laws? One thing that either AAPA or the name change committe could collect from the states is the mechanism to change the title. Each state may have a different mechanism and obviously a different cost. This is what gets me.....the numbers are so deeply in question. In one breath I hear that it will be too costly to change and therefore why waste resources, and in another hear that the costs are so unknown that it will waste resources to determine the costs. NO ONE KNOWS. At least everyone I have spoken to. I think the name change committee has done a good job of explaining the reasons why the title is better changed to associate, but you may be right that it is lacking in concrete examples of how it will change individual PA practice. Perhaps that is something that those individual PAs will determine for themselves. For those who haven't seen it recently or at all, http://associatenamechange.com/statement.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If you know of any way to legislatively "change someone's perception" you are in the wrong line of work, Svengali... +++100+++ LMAO...!!!:heheh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelseff Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 With all the talk of how the title change "would open up practice laws in every state," does anyone have any evidence that this is exactly what would have to be done and a "cosmetic change" is insufficient? Also, of all the other medical professions who have changed their titles (Respiratory Care Practitioners, Clinical Lab Scientists, Surgical Technologists, Licensed Practicing Nurse, and so on) was opening up their practice laws also necessary for their apparently successful title changes or were they merely cosmetic changes? If its the latter then why is a cosmetic change insufficient again? I'm genuinely curious because thus far, whenever the argument is brought up, its never backed up with actual precedents. It's like that movie "The Village." The villagers were so convinced they could not leave the village and actually never spoke of it yet no one ever tried or even looked into trying. If there are precedents, can someone point me/us to them so I/we can review them and be enlightened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIPPER Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 With all the talk of how the title change "would open up practice laws in every state," does anyone have any evidence that this is exactly what would have to be done and a "cosmetic change" is insufficient? Also, of all the other medical professions who have changed their titles (Respiratory Care Practitioners, Clinical Lab Scientists, Surgical Technologists, Licensed Practicing Nurse, and so on) was opening up their practice laws also necessary for their apparently successful title changes or were they merely cosmetic changes?? are any of those professions as intertwined in health law, insurance regulation and reimbursement as The Physician Assistant? I forgot to mention...I am sure Stephan or Dave will correct me if I am wrong but I believe I heard that 31,000 surveys went out regarding the name change. 6100 were returned speaking in favor. There are close to 90,000 PAs. My loose extrapolation of numbers leads this uneducated pundit to round things out to about 20% of PAs were willing to speak in favor of the name change. In the rules of the democracy, 20% doesn't make a majority. The Board has a duty to support the majority of the PAs. If that 20% is to become 51% then either more people who are indeed in favor of the name change need to send in their ballot/make their vote, or those who are currently in favor need to convince those opposed why they are mistaken in their opinion. off? is this accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelseff Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 are any of those professions as intertwined in health law, insurance regulation and reimbursement as The Physician Assistant? I dunno, but how about Chiropodists? You know, now known as Podiatrists? They prob are if not moreso as intertwined as we are. Did they have to open up and change every practice act? Please cite evidence, not another question to answer my question. Not being a hard *** but are you just perpetuating what youve heard about the detrimental effects of a title change? Or you actually looked into this and saw/read it for yourself? Are those opposed merely giving knee jerk responses spawned from what the leadership has told them all these years without examining the evidence? I am sincerely asking someone to explain the actual process not what they think or what they heard is the process. I'm not a lawyer so I dont know.... Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpac Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 is this accurate? All I can tell you is that approximately 15,000 were returned. All I know is that the AAPA census is sent out to a very large group of members and nonmembers. The respondents are "self-selected" in that you have to actively fill out the survey to be included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpac Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 This is what gets me.....the numbers are so deeply in question. In one breath I hear that it will be too costly to change and therefore why waste resources, and in another hear that the costs are so unknown that it will waste resources to determine the costs. NO ONE KNOWS. At least everyone I have spoken to. I think the name change committee has done a good job of explaining the reasons why the title is better changed to associate, but you may be right that it is lacking in concrete examples of how it will change individual PA practice. Perhaps that is something that those individual PAs will determine for themselves. For those who haven't seen it recently or at all, http://associatenamechange.com/statement.php In the interest of informing the discussion, here are the documents distributed by staff and CEO Jenna Dorn regarding changing the title. You will find a wealth of detail into the magnitude of this issue from a legislative and regulatory standpoint, compiled by state and federal staffers who do this for a living and have a high level of expertise in legislation, regulation, and reimbursement. http://www.aapa.org/about_aapa/governance/resources/item.aspx?id=817&terms=house%20of%20delegates (four documents at top of page) Accessing these documents on the HOD page requires and AAPA Member login. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I dunno, but how about Chiropodists? You know, now known as Podiatrists? They prob are if not moreso as intertwined as we are. Did they have to open up and change every practice act? Please cite evidence, not another question to answer my question. Not being a hard *** but are you just perpetuating what youve heard about the detrimental effects of a title change? Or you actually looked into this and saw/read it for yourself? Are those opposed merely giving knee jerk responses spawned from what the leadership has told them all these years without examining the evidence? I am sincerely asking someone to explain the actual process not what they think or what they heard is the process. I'm not a lawyer so I dont know.... Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk Ive been asking the same question for a few yrs now and have not gotten an informed response yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.