PA Title Change Debate at AAPA Impact 2012 HOD

[andersenpa]

Have the elected officials that ran on a platform of title change (hint: they're haven't been any prior to last week) not followed thru on their campaign promises to lobby for title change? If the HOD and any other groups aren't pushing/lobbying for change then they are doing what they were elected to. This survey you're quoting is new. Perhaps the newly elected officials will now make their voices heard. If they don't THEN you'd be able to make a valid argument. the AAPA doesn't have to do much until then...

 

From my standpoint, the system is working, protecting what the majority has wanted.

 

Only one of the candidates won, Larry Herman, and he supports the idea but was not running on it as a campaign issue or as an active advocate. Those that ran but were defeated OR were not allowed on the ballot ARE actively lobbying.

 

The Name Change Committee is the main group doing the advocacy.

The HOD wouldn't be lobbying the issue, since they're on the recieving end. We know for sure that many of the delegates went INTO the Toronto meeting with firm notions on how they felt about it, and I don't think the AAPA Analysis changed many minds. This was, for lack of a better term, set up from the beginning.

 

The argument is that the HOD effectively ignored two things:

The AAPA census, which is not new. The results were made available to ALL delegates prior to Toronto

The write in campaign from associatenamechange.com, which was the first large tally of support

 

So when you say MAJORITY it is still not clear who you are referring to. The majority of delegates, their personal opinions? Perhaps.

The majority of AAPA/state chapter members? I haven't seen those numbers teased out.

The majority of PAs on a state-by-state basis? Not likely. The AAPA census showed that in 16 states the name change won majority approval. In another 21 states in won a plurality.

 

IF you want to dismiss the census for any statistical reason, then you must favor a further formal analysis to accurately determine where the support lies. But that has NOT been done. The house has used their own interpretation of a home-grown analysis to decide what is in the best interest of a nation of PAs who have voiced differently by numbers.

[andersenpa]

Have the elected officials that ran on a platform of title change (hint: they're haven't been any prior to last week) not followed thru on their campaign promises to lobby for title change? If the HOD and any other groups aren't pushing/lobbying for change then they are doing what they were elected to. This survey you're quoting is new. Perhaps the newly elected officials will now make their voices heard. If they don't THEN you'd be able to make a valid argument. the AAPA doesn't have to do much until then...

 

From my standpoint, the system is working, protecting what the majority has wanted.

 

Only one of the candidates won, Larry Herman, and he supports the idea but was not running on it as a campaign issue or as an active advocate. Those that ran but were defeated OR were not allowed on the ballot ARE actively lobbying.

 

The Name Change Committee is the main group doing the advocacy.

The HOD wouldn't be lobbying the issue, since they're on the recieving end. We know for sure that many of the delegates went INTO the Toronto meeting with firm notions on how they felt about it, and I don't think the AAPA Analysis changed many minds. This was, for lack of a better term, set up from the beginning.

 

The argument is that the HOD effectively ignored two things:

The AAPA census, which is not new. The results were made available to ALL delegates prior to Toronto

The write in campaign from associatenamechange.com, which was the first large tally of support

 

So when you say MAJORITY it is still not clear who you are referring to. The majority of delegates, their personal opinions? Perhaps.

The majority of AAPA/state chapter members? I haven't seen those numbers teased out.

The majority of PAs on a state-by-state basis? Not likely. The AAPA census showed that in 16 states the name change won majority approval. In another 21 states in won a plurality.

 

IF you want to dismiss the census for any statistical reason, then you must favor a further formal analysis to accurately determine where the support lies. But that has NOT been done. The house has used their own interpretation of a home-grown analysis to decide what is in the best interest of a nation of PAs who have voiced differently by numbers.

[andersenpa]

Have the elected officials that ran on a platform of title change (hint: they're haven't been any prior to last week) not followed thru on their campaign promises to lobby for title change? If the HOD and any other groups aren't pushing/lobbying for change then they are doing what they were elected to. This survey you're quoting is new. Perhaps the newly elected officials will now make their voices heard. If they don't THEN you'd be able to make a valid argument. the AAPA doesn't have to do much until then...

 

From my standpoint, the system is working, protecting what the majority has wanted.

 

Only one of the candidates won, Larry Herman, and he supports the idea but was not running on it as a campaign issue or as an active advocate. Those that ran but were defeated OR were not allowed on the ballot ARE actively lobbying.

 

The Name Change Committee is the main group doing the advocacy.

The HOD wouldn't be lobbying the issue, since they're on the recieving end. We know for sure that many of the delegates went INTO the Toronto meeting with firm notions on how they felt about it, and I don't think the AAPA Analysis changed many minds. This was, for lack of a better term, set up from the beginning.

 

The argument is that the HOD effectively ignored two things:

The AAPA census, which is not new. The results were made available to ALL delegates prior to Toronto

The write in campaign from associatenamechange.com, which was the first large tally of support

 

So when you say MAJORITY it is still not clear who you are referring to. The majority of delegates, their personal opinions? Perhaps.

The majority of AAPA/state chapter members? I haven't seen those numbers teased out.

The majority of PAs on a state-by-state basis? Not likely. The AAPA census showed that in 16 states the name change won majority approval. In another 21 states in won a plurality.

 

IF you want to dismiss the census for any statistical reason, then you must favor a further formal analysis to accurately determine where the support lies. But that has NOT been done. The house has used their own interpretation of a home-grown analysis to decide what is in the best interest of a nation of PAs who have voiced differently by numbers.

[LIPPER]

The same could be said in response; there is certainly no clear majority as it pertains to those in favor of change, be it delegates, states, PA's etc.. The survey is not representative of anything other that those the chose to respond.

 

A survey is irrelevant. If there really were enough groundswell for change, then elected officials would form a needed majority/ assume leadership roles and change will eventually happen.

 

Ie if 100% were pro-life then eventually 100% of the house/senate/presidency and judicial would enact change.

[LIPPER]

The same could be said in response; there is certainly no clear majority as it pertains to those in favor of change, be it delegates, states, PA's etc.. The survey is not representative of anything other that those the chose to respond.

 

A survey is irrelevant. If there really were enough groundswell for change, then elected officials would form a needed majority/ assume leadership roles and change will eventually happen.

 

Ie if 100% were pro-life then eventually 100% of the house/senate/presidency and judicial would enact change.

[LIPPER]

The same could be said in response; there is certainly no clear majority as it pertains to those in favor of change, be it delegates, states, PA's etc.. The survey is not representative of anything other that those the chose to respond.

 

A survey is irrelevant. If there really were enough groundswell for change, then elected officials would form a needed majority/ assume leadership roles and change will eventually happen.

 

Ie if 100% were pro-life then eventually 100% of the house/senate/presidency and judicial would enact change.

[andersenpa]

The same could be said in response; there is certainly no clear majority as it pertains to those in favor of change, be it delegates, states, PA's etc.. The survey is not representative of anything other that those the chose to respond.

 

A survey is irrelevant. If there really were enough groundswell for change, then elected officials would form a needed majority/ assume leadership roles and change will eventually happen.

 

Ie if 100% were pro-life then eventually 100% of the house/senate/presidency and judicial would enact change.

 

That's what all surveys and what the "democracy" that you cite are supposed to do- represent those who are involved.

Or as another members posted here:

"We are not a nation of the majority, rather a nation of the majority who choose to participate"

 

You discount the results because not enough people responded? If they felt strongly enough to vote it down then why did they not show up?

And re: a clear majority- first, there was a clear majority in 16 states and a plurality in an additional 21 states.

Do you discount the presidential elections where the winner won by plurality? (There have been 16)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories

 

So, 6500 pro-name change petitioners and census results cited above is not enough evidence of a sufficient groundswell for support?

By elected officials, you mean house delegates and the BOD?

Those individuals currently in office have stated by their votes and individual statements that they feel the name change is a detriment, too costly, and not worth further investigation based on an internal analysis. Given that they have previously made their personal interpetations clear, it is no surprise that they would arrive at the judgment that they did. It does not reflect the desires of their constituents. Who are they representing- PAs, or themselves?

 

The US house is a poor example since their votes are public record. Individual PAs have NO record of their delegates votes and thus there is no accountability.

 

The people have been ignored. The resolutions were not voting to change the name. They were voting to study the ramifications of a name change.

6500 PAs writing the AAPA in support, and the census numbers above are not enough to justify looking into the matter further?

 

Insulting to PAs across the country who depend on our leaders to represent our interests.

[andersenpa]

The same could be said in response; there is certainly no clear majority as it pertains to those in favor of change, be it delegates, states, PA's etc.. The survey is not representative of anything other that those the chose to respond.

 

A survey is irrelevant. If there really were enough groundswell for change, then elected officials would form a needed majority/ assume leadership roles and change will eventually happen.

 

Ie if 100% were pro-life then eventually 100% of the house/senate/presidency and judicial would enact change.

 

That's what all surveys and what the "democracy" that you cite are supposed to do- represent those who are involved.

Or as another members posted here:

"We are not a nation of the majority, rather a nation of the majority who choose to participate"

 

You discount the results because not enough people responded? If they felt strongly enough to vote it down then why did they not show up?

And re: a clear majority- first, there was a clear majority in 16 states and a plurality in an additional 21 states.

Do you discount the presidential elections where the winner won by plurality? (There have been 16)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories

 

So, 6500 pro-name change petitioners and census results cited above is not enough evidence of a sufficient groundswell for support?

By elected officials, you mean house delegates and the BOD?

Those individuals currently in office have stated by their votes and individual statements that they feel the name change is a detriment, too costly, and not worth further investigation based on an internal analysis. Given that they have previously made their personal interpetations clear, it is no surprise that they would arrive at the judgment that they did. It does not reflect the desires of their constituents. Who are they representing- PAs, or themselves?

 

The US house is a poor example since their votes are public record. Individual PAs have NO record of their delegates votes and thus there is no accountability.

 

The people have been ignored. The resolutions were not voting to change the name. They were voting to study the ramifications of a name change.

6500 PAs writing the AAPA in support, and the census numbers above are not enough to justify looking into the matter further?

 

Insulting to PAs across the country who depend on our leaders to represent our interests.

[andersenpa]

The same could be said in response; there is certainly no clear majority as it pertains to those in favor of change, be it delegates, states, PA's etc.. The survey is not representative of anything other that those the chose to respond.

 

A survey is irrelevant. If there really were enough groundswell for change, then elected officials would form a needed majority/ assume leadership roles and change will eventually happen.

 

Ie if 100% were pro-life then eventually 100% of the house/senate/presidency and judicial would enact change.

 

That's what all surveys and what the "democracy" that you cite are supposed to do- represent those who are involved.

Or as another members posted here:

"We are not a nation of the majority, rather a nation of the majority who choose to participate"

 

You discount the results because not enough people responded? If they felt strongly enough to vote it down then why did they not show up?

And re: a clear majority- first, there was a clear majority in 16 states and a plurality in an additional 21 states.

Do you discount the presidential elections where the winner won by plurality? (There have been 16)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories

 

So, 6500 pro-name change petitioners and census results cited above is not enough evidence of a sufficient groundswell for support?

By elected officials, you mean house delegates and the BOD?

Those individuals currently in office have stated by their votes and individual statements that they feel the name change is a detriment, too costly, and not worth further investigation based on an internal analysis. Given that they have previously made their personal interpetations clear, it is no surprise that they would arrive at the judgment that they did. It does not reflect the desires of their constituents. Who are they representing- PAs, or themselves?

 

The US house is a poor example since their votes are public record. Individual PAs have NO record of their delegates votes and thus there is no accountability.

 

The people have been ignored. The resolutions were not voting to change the name. They were voting to study the ramifications of a name change.

6500 PAs writing the AAPA in support, and the census numbers above are not enough to justify looking into the matter further?

 

Insulting to PAs across the country who depend on our leaders to represent our interests.

[LIPPER]

I'm sorry you feel that way. We obviously differ on how we view what a majority is, how representatives/elected officials are suppose to act on our behalf and what actions a survey should produce.

 

Apparent nothing illegal has happened, and since no one supporting a name change has called for recall/impeachment proceeding to begin for any representative or elected official representing the AAPA, HOD or anyone else now or in Toronto then I'm really at a loss as to view this whole thing any other way.

[LIPPER]

I'm sorry you feel that way. We obviously differ on how we view what a majority is, how representatives/elected officials are suppose to act on our behalf and what actions a survey should produce.

 

Apparent nothing illegal has happened, and since no one supporting a name change has called for recall/impeachment proceeding to begin for any representative or elected official representing the AAPA, HOD or anyone else now or in Toronto then I'm really at a loss as to view this whole thing any other way.

[LIPPER]

I'm sorry you feel that way. We obviously differ on how we view what a majority is, how representatives/elected officials are suppose to act on our behalf and what actions a survey should produce.

 

Apparent nothing illegal has happened, and since no one supporting a name change has called for recall/impeachment proceeding to begin for any representative or elected official representing the AAPA, HOD or anyone else now or in Toronto then I'm really at a loss as to view this whole thing any other way.

[andersenpa]

Not sure what you're "sorry" about (?)

The resolution was to investiage the impact/cost of the name change, not to actually change it this year.

Perhaps if you can define what level of support/census votes would warrant formally investigating the impact and cost of a name change.

Or is it that taboo of a subject that any excuse to shove it under the rug will be employed?

It's pretty clear what actions a survey should produce. It should illustrate the desires of PAs ad those desires should be honored by the organization that has declared its mission "To ensure the professional growth, personal excellence, and recognition of physician assistants, and to support their efforts to enable them to improve the quality, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness of patient-centered healthcare."

 

A study should be undertaken to determine HOW a name change would impact the professional growth, personal excellence, and recognition of PAs, and demonstrate how it would affect quality, accessibility, and cost effectiveness. Seems obvious. Delegates didn't think so.

 

There have been no impeachments etc, but the name change advocates have been organizing the next steps since the HOD ended. If the AAPA and its delegates have chosen to marginalize a large group of PAs nationwide, then they themselves will be marginallzed with diminishing membership. Ironic that it will result in less funding for them to accomplish the other goals that they have decided take precedence.

[andersenpa]

Not sure what you're "sorry" about (?)

The resolution was to investiage the impact/cost of the name change, not to actually change it this year.

Perhaps if you can define what level of support/census votes would warrant formally investigating the impact and cost of a name change.

Or is it that taboo of a subject that any excuse to shove it under the rug will be employed?

It's pretty clear what actions a survey should produce. It should illustrate the desires of PAs ad those desires should be honored by the organization that has declared its mission "To ensure the professional growth, personal excellence, and recognition of physician assistants, and to support their efforts to enable them to improve the quality, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness of patient-centered healthcare."

 

A study should be undertaken to determine HOW a name change would impact the professional growth, personal excellence, and recognition of PAs, and demonstrate how it would affect quality, accessibility, and cost effectiveness. Seems obvious. Delegates didn't think so.

 

There have been no impeachments etc, but the name change advocates have been organizing the next steps since the HOD ended. If the AAPA and its delegates have chosen to marginalize a large group of PAs nationwide, then they themselves will be marginallzed with diminishing membership. Ironic that it will result in less funding for them to accomplish the other goals that they have decided take precedence.

[andersenpa]

Not sure what you're "sorry" about (?)

The resolution was to investiage the impact/cost of the name change, not to actually change it this year.

Perhaps if you can define what level of support/census votes would warrant formally investigating the impact and cost of a name change.

Or is it that taboo of a subject that any excuse to shove it under the rug will be employed?

It's pretty clear what actions a survey should produce. It should illustrate the desires of PAs ad those desires should be honored by the organization that has declared its mission "To ensure the professional growth, personal excellence, and recognition of physician assistants, and to support their efforts to enable them to improve the quality, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness of patient-centered healthcare."

 

A study should be undertaken to determine HOW a name change would impact the professional growth, personal excellence, and recognition of PAs, and demonstrate how it would affect quality, accessibility, and cost effectiveness. Seems obvious. Delegates didn't think so.

 

There have been no impeachments etc, but the name change advocates have been organizing the next steps since the HOD ended. If the AAPA and its delegates have chosen to marginalize a large group of PAs nationwide, then they themselves will be marginallzed with diminishing membership. Ironic that it will result in less funding for them to accomplish the other goals that they have decided take precedence.

[LIPPER]

"sorry"; don't wantto be viewed as argumentative

 

I'll just let it go.

[LIPPER]

"sorry"; don't wantto be viewed as argumentative

 

I'll just let it go.

[LIPPER]

"sorry"; don't wantto be viewed as argumentative

 

I'll just let it go.

[Just Steve]

I went to Toronto expecting a large, vocal push from the majority of the PAs to be supporting the motion to change the name, aka my ears were "tuning into that station" That was NOT the case. There were some obvious supporters of the it but those were far outnumbered by those opposed, both on the HOD floor and at the evening discussion (Saturday night). Money is cited as one of the huge drawbacks of the move, my observations revealed that apathy was another drawback. Many, many, many folks said "changing the name WON"T change how patients see us...run a effective PR program or let the Pro Name Change folks self finance it.

 

I realize that there are a lot of people in favor of changing the name change, I am able to do some simple math and figure out the survey results. However, those people did not convince their peers. I would even venture to say that once some of those 6000+ "Aye" votes learned how much the cost was, they may have even changed their stance.

 

I know the issue is not dead yet but if the Name Change committee wants this to happen, they have more leg work to do.

[Just Steve]

I went to Toronto expecting a large, vocal push from the majority of the PAs to be supporting the motion to change the name, aka my ears were "tuning into that station" That was NOT the case. There were some obvious supporters of the it but those were far outnumbered by those opposed, both on the HOD floor and at the evening discussion (Saturday night). Money is cited as one of the huge drawbacks of the move, my observations revealed that apathy was another drawback. Many, many, many folks said "changing the name WON"T change how patients see us...run a effective PR program or let the Pro Name Change folks self finance it.

 

I realize that there are a lot of people in favor of changing the name change, I am able to do some simple math and figure out the survey results. However, those people did not convince their peers. I would even venture to say that once some of those 6000+ "Aye" votes learned how much the cost was, they may have even changed their stance.

 

I know the issue is not dead yet but if the Name Change committee wants this to happen, they have more leg work to do.

[Just Steve]

I went to Toronto expecting a large, vocal push from the majority of the PAs to be supporting the motion to change the name, aka my ears were "tuning into that station" That was NOT the case. There were some obvious supporters of the it but those were far outnumbered by those opposed, both on the HOD floor and at the evening discussion (Saturday night). Money is cited as one of the huge drawbacks of the move, my observations revealed that apathy was another drawback. Many, many, many folks said "changing the name WON"T change how patients see us...run a effective PR program or let the Pro Name Change folks self finance it.

 

I realize that there are a lot of people in favor of changing the name change, I am able to do some simple math and figure out the survey results. However, those people did not convince their peers. I would even venture to say that once some of those 6000+ "Aye" votes learned how much the cost was, they may have even changed their stance.

 

I know the issue is not dead yet but if the Name Change committee wants this to happen, they have more leg work to do.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

I don't understand why cost is an issue. Do most members even know how much money is just thrown at lobbyist and into election campaigns? If they did I bet they would be against those things too. It shouldn't cost the individual PA anymore than their current dues. Also, it's just a matter of "I propose amendment to Statute XX.XX.X That any word assistant be changed to the word associate," or " I propose a new Bill XX.XX.X stating that PA's in this state be allowed to call themselves Physician Associates, as well as, physician assistants." Not rocket science.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

I don't understand why cost is an issue. Do most members even know how much money is just thrown at lobbyist and into election campaigns? If they did I bet they would be against those things too. It shouldn't cost the individual PA anymore than their current dues. Also, it's just a matter of "I propose amendment to Statute XX.XX.X That any word assistant be changed to the word associate," or " I propose a new Bill XX.XX.X stating that PA's in this state be allowed to call themselves Physician Associates, as well as, physician assistants." Not rocket science.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

I don't understand why cost is an issue. Do most members even know how much money is just thrown at lobbyist and into election campaigns? If they did I bet they would be against those things too. It shouldn't cost the individual PA anymore than their current dues. Also, it's just a matter of "I propose amendment to Statute XX.XX.X That any word assistant be changed to the word associate," or " I propose a new Bill XX.XX.X stating that PA's in this state be allowed to call themselves Physician Associates, as well as, physician assistants." Not rocket science.

[andersenpa]

I went to Toronto expecting a large, vocal push from the majority of the PAs to be supporting the motion to change the name, aka my ears were "tuning into that station" That was NOT the case. There were some obvious supporters of the it but those were far outnumbered by those opposed, both on the HOD floor and at the evening discussion (Saturday night).

This is a philosophy within the AAPA which pervasive. They are looking inward at what the academy wants, not outward at what PAs want.

 

Money is cited as one of the huge drawbacks of the move, my observations revealed that apathy was another drawback. Many, many, many folks said "changing the name WON"T change how patients see us...run a effective PR program or let the Pro Name Change folks self finance it.

 

How would they know that if they haven't done the research to understand the ramifications of the name change?

And how exactly is it fair that these detractors dismiss the name change, a small separate group funds it, and then those very PAs that denied it end up reaping the benefits if it happens?

 

I realize that there are a lot of people in favor of changing the name change, I am able to do some simple math and figure out the survey results. However, those people did not convince their peers.

 

Convince them how? No external analysis was done to detrmine the effects of the name change if it were to happen.

 

I would even venture to say that once some of those 6000+ "Aye" votes learned how much the cost was, they may have even changed their stance.

 

We have NO idea what the costs will be. There has been no study. You sound like you already know the costs will be "too high", whatever that may mean.

 

I know the issue is not dead yet but if the Name Change committee wants this to happen, they have more leg work to do.

 

On that I agree.