Why not "Associate Physician" instead of "Physician associate"?

[hockey833]

Maybe its just me but I feel like it flows a lot better and sounds better? Or is my grammar off and that word cant be used before a 'subject'?

 

Is there also a possibility of a mix up between a initial of AP and "Attending Physician"?

[rev ronin]

The main objection to physician associate seems to be the difficulty of changing things. Physician associate conveys everything that associate physician does--or nearly so--and doesn't require any change in the acronyms. "PA" to "PA" is a pretty trivial update to AAPA, JAAPA, PAEA, ARC-PA, NCCPA, etc.

[Contrarian]

We ARE Associates of Physicians... We are NOT "Physicians"... !!!

 

So Associate Physician would be calling us "Physicians" and therefore inaccurate and misleading, but Physician Associates would be calling us "Associates" of Physicians and would be accurate.

[MrBob]

Here's why the AAPA put it to rest this summer in Toronto. I was one of the original signatures on the first petition but I had to speak against this for these reasons:

1. the cost to do this could exceed (estimated) $10 mil. Who would pay for it. The AAPA doesn't have it

2. To do this would mean that each state would have to re-write their laws to change from Physician Assistant to Physician Associate. We were afraid that when the state took the process to the legislature to make the changes that it would open the doors for any professions opposing PA's (guess who that could be?) to lobby to limit or change current medical acts that PA's can now perform. Here is an example...what if pharmacists in Rhode Island (just an example and the state name is chosen randomly) suddenly decided that they thought PA's had not really been capable of safely writing prescriptions and were able to successfully lobby the legislature to remove prescriptive rights from them while they were rewriting the legislation? We would have destroyed the capability of PAs to work effectively in an entire state. Then suppose the same thing happened in ten other states, and one effectively banned the profession altogether? We would have ruined the livelihood of the entire profession in that state.

 

Those of us on the Professional Practice Commission wanted this more than anyone but after looking at the possibilities, we just could not support it. Many of us left the HOD devastated by the position we had to take, but we felt like we had to protect the jobs of those who were working in the profession rather than risk the loss of privileges or the profession for a name change. I hope this makes some sense. It isn't very satisfying but it is the truth.

 

Bob

[EMEDPA]

a cosmetic name change proposal(like the recent change in vt to remove the 's) does not "open up the practice laws".

if someone tries to mess with the proposal you(the authors) may withdraw it right up until the time of the vote.

this is how every state got rid of the 's.

a simple proposal goes like this" wherever the term "physician assistant" exists in xyz state practice laws, the term "physician associate" shall be substituted and they shall be considered equivalent". end of story.

the "opening of the practice laws" is pure aapa staff propaganda. it didn't happen the last 50 times we changed the name of the profession in individual states. the aapa really dropped the ball on this and it will cost them members. already folks are not renewing their memberships over this issue. 36 states had a majority of members wanting the name change and overall among those expressing an opinion nationally more wanted name change.

this isn't over.

[Contrarian]

the "opening of the practice laws" is pure aapa staff propaganda. it didn't happen the last 50 times we changed the name of the profession in individual states.

 

Bears repeating:

 

the "opening of the practice laws" is pure aapa staff propaganda. it didn't happen the last 50 times we changed the name of the profession in individual states.

 

And NONSENSE....!!!

[andersenpa]

Here's why the AAPA put it to rest this summer in Toronto. I was one of the original signatures on the first petition but I had to speak against this for these reasons:

1. the cost to do this could exceed (estimated) $10 mil. Who would pay for it. The AAPA doesn't have it

2. To do this would mean that each state would have to re-write their laws to change from Physician Assistant to Physician Associate. We were afraid that when the state took the process to the legislature to make the changes that it would open the doors for any professions opposing PA's (guess who that could be?) to lobby to limit or change current medical acts that PA's can now perform. Here is an example...what if pharmacists in Rhode Island (just an example and the state name is chosen randomly) suddenly decided that they thought PA's had not really been capable of safely writing prescriptions and were able to successfully lobby the legislature to remove prescriptive rights from them while they were rewriting the legislation? We would have destroyed the capability of PAs to work effectively in an entire state. Then suppose the same thing happened in ten other states, and one effectively banned the profession altogether? We would have ruined the livelihood of the entire profession in that state.

 

Those of us on the Professional Practice Commission wanted this more than anyone but after looking at the possibilities, we just could not support it. Many of us left the HOD devastated by the position we had to take, but we felt like we had to protect the jobs of those who were working in the profession rather than risk the loss of privileges or the profession for a name change. I hope this makes some sense. It isn't very satisfying but it is the truth.

 

Bob

 

With all due respect Mr Bob:

Your group was afraid of unknown ramifications. We should not let fear drive our decisions, especially with a decision with such strong support amongst PAs nation wide.

To better delineate why these fears are unfounded:

Who has anything to gain from limiting the scope of PAs?

Patients and physicians depend on PAs. The health systems of these states do as well. The fear of certain professions or SIGs shutting down PA practice is not only unlikely, it is damn near unfathomable. Is our collective sense of worth and place so poor that as a profession we think that we could be shut out of practice in multiple states with one stroke of a pen?

Our progress as a profession hinges on putting these urban legends to bed.

[cinntsp]

1. the cost to do this could exceed (estimated) $10 mil. Who would pay for it. The AAPA doesn't have it

 

It's only going to get worse as it continues to hemorrhage members and become even less attractive for PA students interested in joining. The AAPA should pursue with great zeal some items that PAs clearly want(i.e. name change) and it would get the funds it needs.

[MrBob]

NP's have a great deal to gain and would jump at the chance to put us to rest. At the grass roots we are sisters and brothers...at national levels we are competitors and they outnumber us and have a very, very, very powerful lobby.

 

Don't be misled...I STILL want us to be "associates"...I am one of you. It is what it is. I would suggest that the Canadian PA's change their title now rather than waiting until they are our age to try it.

 

I haven't the heart to banter this....I wanted it too, but it just didn't happen. This wasn't AAPA propaganda. Anyway...I didn't come back to fight with you folks. I simply explained why it didn't happen. If any of you are so passionate about this, do what I did...apply for a seat on one of the commissions and get involved. I was convinced by many very, very intelligent and respected colleagues who had researched this as well and this was the end result. There is always next year and I am sure it will come up again and again until it is done. If you really believe in something, get involved GET INVOLVED. if they will let me be on a commission, committee or council....then any one of you can be on one too.

 

If it is that easy, why not change it in your own state? Show us how it is done. Bring us the steps you used to become Physician Associates in Maine, or Tennessee or Minnesota or where ever. Remember...each state is different This isn't a national policy...

 

Additionally those of you who have never personally dealt with medicare, medicaid or the insurance companies need to remember that current regulations call us "physician assistant". If your title is changed to "physician associate" there is no policy or regulation that indicates you are entitled to any reimbursement. The title "physician associate" doesn't exist in current medicare, medicaid or insurance coverage. So the first day you apply for reimbursement there will be a denied claim returned to you because they don't know what a physician "associate" is. It is just red tape. To change that requires a trip through congress....good luck with that...we took all that into consideration when making these decisions.

I would love to see some of you (EMDPA, CONTRARIAN, ANDERSONPA, and the rest of you) on the PPC with me....get involved...apply and be a part of the change. I cannot do this alone. Being lethargic and not getting involved leaves us where we are now. We need new blood and new ideas....GET INVOLVED. Join me.....please. Bring your solutions to the table so we can make the changes you all want. Stop trusting or relying on someone else to do it.

 

Well...that's enough of that.

 

Bob

[rev ronin]

Here's why the AAPA put it to rest this summer in Toronto. I was one of the original signatures on the first petition but I had to speak against this for these reasons:

1. the cost to do this could exceed (estimated) $10 mil. Who would pay for it. The AAPA doesn't have it

 

And "the AAPA" will never, ever, get that money. If it materializes, it will be a one-time outpouring from the membership to fix a problem, not a steady revenue stream that can be used to line careerists' pockets.

 

But it won't ever materialize at all until and unless the AAPA stops being part of the problem. This is the math the AAPA doesn't get: "If we had that money, we would spend it on better things..." But it's not YOUR money, AAPA, and you don't get to pick what it is spent on--That's a game that only governments get to play.

[PAstudentCanada]

I brought this up with the Ontario representative of CAPA a few years ago. He told me that since CAPA had already spent "so much time and money" developing "the brand" of "assistant" that they would not be for any name change.

 

 

Don't be misled...I STILL want us to be "associates"...I am one of you. It is what it is. I would suggest that the Canadian PA's change their title now rather than waiting until they are our age to try it.

 

 

 

Bob

[MrBob]

Well...I could spend my life arguing this with everyone who wants to, but will not. I say again, if anyone wants to be a part of what they see as the solution, get involved. Join a commission, committee or council and get involved. Otherwise, accept the outcomes. We tried to figure out how to do this and we could not come up with a cost effective way.

 

'nuff said

[ventana]

10mill

 

hogwash

 

how much to change from 's to no 's

 

why not even develop a study group to look into it? AAPA killed it with out even looking into it - you did not even have the gumption to stand up for what was right for 'me' in the trenches - try explaining to every patient that you 'assist'no one and that you are a PA and function within supervision guidelines and simply the patient say's "oh you are an assistant" HECK NO - I am not an assistant I am the health care provider caring for you - the person you have entrusted your entire medical life and well being in, the provider you have trusted to order, interpert, manage and refer for the medical conditions you have or may have , the provider you entrust your prescriptions to......

 

 

I am not "just a PA"

I assist no one (surgical PA's might well but no IM or Geriatric PA's)

I am not an assistant

 

Why is is such a big deal to have the AAPA AT LEAST FOR A STUDY GROUP TO LOOK INTO IT?

 

Why did the AAPA release a pseudo position statement on the Physician Associate name change that was circulated to the people trying to decide rather to look into the question BEFORE they even had their formal meeting? (that was firmly against it?)

 

 

PLEASE bring me a Masters PA to DNP program with reasonable fee's and schooling and I would SERIOUSLY conside being one of the first one's in line - atleast the nurses have the fortitude to stand up and defend and advance their profession instead of getting caught up in the office politics that even prevent a study committee from being formed.... Yes MASS got some great law changes - but guess what the NP's had a single paragraph in the law too - said NP's can sign ANYTHING a doc can sign - now that is what I want my national agency advocating for

 

and why on gods earth would we have people that have ties with the AMA in the AAPA organization if we are trying to advance ourselves? I have heard (I d ont have verified facts) that some (many) of the important office people at the AAPA have worked for AMA in the past - do we really think these are the self thinkers and PA advocators that we deserve from the trenches

 

 

I would seriously entertain the idea of a PA bridge program to DNP so that I can practice to the fullest extent of my training while having a national agency that will stand up and fight for my interests.

 

I am a member of the AAPA and have been for 10+ years but I am pretty frustrated that they would not even give consideration to 6500 PA's saying it needs to be looked at.....

[Hemegroup]

NP's have a great deal to gain and would jump at the chance to put us to rest. At the grass roots we are sisters and brothers...at national levels we are competitors and they outnumber us and have a very, very, very powerful lobby.

 

Don't be misled...I STILL want us to be "associates"...I am one of you. It is what it is. I would suggest that the Canadian PA's change their title now rather than waiting until they are our age to try it.

 

I haven't the heart to banter this....I wanted it too, but it just didn't happen. This wasn't AAPA propaganda. Anyway...I didn't come back to fight with you folks. I simply explained why it didn't happen. If any of you are so passionate about this, do what I did...apply for a seat on one of the commissions and get involved. I was convinced by many very, very intelligent and respected colleagues who had researched this as well and this was the end result. There is always next year and I am sure it will come up again and again until it is done. If you really believe in something, get involved GET INVOLVED. if they will let me be on a commission, committee or council....then any one of you can be on one too.

 

If it is that easy, why not change it in your own state? Show us how it is done. Bring us the steps you used to become Physician Associates in Maine, or Tennessee or Minnesota or where ever. Remember...each state is different This isn't a national policy...

 

Additionally those of you who have never personally dealt with medicare, medicaid or the insurance companies need to remember that current regulations call us "physician assistant". If your title is changed to "physician associate" there is no policy or regulation that indicates you are entitled to any reimbursement. The title "physician associate" doesn't exist in current medicare, medicaid or insurance coverage. So the first day you apply for reimbursement there will be a denied claim returned to you because they don't know what a physician "associate" is. It is just red tape. To change that requires a trip through congress....good luck with that...we took all that into consideration when making these decisions.

I would love to see some of you (EMDPA, CONTRARIAN, ANDERSONPA, and the rest of you) on the PPC with me....get involved...apply and be a part of the change. I cannot do this alone. Being lethargic and not getting involved leaves us where we are now. We need new blood and new ideas....GET INVOLVED. Join me.....please. Bring your solutions to the table so we can make the changes you all want. Stop trusting or relying on someone else to do it.

 

Well...that's enough of that.

 

Bob

 

I'd be more than happy to help. Just because something gets put away doesn't mean it shouldn't immediately be brought back out again. So many good points in this thread. And yes, I know the students chris speaks of, who are going for NP. Is this the caliber we're really asking for ourselves? WE SHOULD NOT STOP. What's the next step? And I'm sure the amounts of documents I sign calling me "Dr. Blank" are enough to assure me that MediCal, Medicare and the rest of the groups will be able to handle the name alteration just fine. If not, maybe that says something about THEM ... or do we want such ineptitude in charge of the patient population? The clarification would likely be good for them.

 

We're already their associates ... enough already. Work it out, do what needs to be done. Make it happen. Whatever I can do to help, let me know.

[Contrarian]

... [brevity edit]... I'm sure the amounts of documents I sign calling me "Dr. Blank" are enough to assure me that MediCal, Medicare and the rest of the groups will be able to handle the name alteration just fine... [brevity edit]...

 

Yep... !!!

Just re-enforces the idea that the oft spewed "obstructionist notional nonsense" is just that... and is actually quite insulting since it qualifies their assessment of the collective intellegence of the average PA. They figure they can toss out the cost and the boogy-man... 'if we open the PA laws Practice acts, we could all loose our licenses, the dreaded zombie apocolypse will befall us, skynet will go offline, the matrix will be un-cloaked' schtick.

 

I mean... I really do believe you MR. Bob, when you write that YOU are pro name change. I just think you are tooo trusting of the entrenched ole school bureaucrats that were opposed from the onset and have become invested in making the FACTS support their opposition.

 

The notion is silly for a few reasons, but the most glaring one seems to be that for PAs to make all the advances we have made in the past 40+ yrs... addendums had to be made to the individual practice acts.

 

Each time a addendum was made that increased the scope of ractice, decreased "supervision" eliminated chart co-signature, etc... (in each and every/all 50 states) the PA practice act was opened cause apparently (according to the same bureaucrats) ... can't add something unless the practice act is opened.

 

So with the thousands of incremental changes/advances PAs have made, according to the bureaucrats, the Practice Laws were opened...

 

I can't recall one time, in any state that PAs actually LOST/narrowed their scope... i.e lost priviledges. I

 

f this precedence has been set, and I missed it... please direct me to the example.

 

So tossing out the remote/darn near impossibility that this would happen as a reason to "round file" the proposal is NONSENSE and really "paternal."

[MrBob]

Well....if it so simple why don't you get off your backside and come do something about it. Why don't you get involved with fixing it? It seems to really be a thorn in your side. You seem to have some hidden answers that no one else has been intelligent enough to come up with. Come on and apply for a position on one of the committee's. Get involved if this bothers you so. Seriously.....

[LIPPER]

Those points; opening the door for re-writting laws, and future reimbursement conundrums, in addition to all the other impediments are exactly why the rank-and-file Physician Assistants are very happy this movement was killed off. We don't need more headaches.

 

Thank you MrBob, we're glad calmer heads prevailed.

[MrBob]

Well, Brian...you seem to be the only other person here who recognizes that that could happen. The first time it did, some of the doubters would jump up as ask "Just what the H*^L were you folks in leadership thinking?". Thanks for your comment Are you ready to get flamed by those who disagree with you?(LOL)

 

Bob

[MrBob]

I don't believe there is such a program and if there was you couldn't get into it if you were not first a nurse, then an NP....they aren't going to let PA's into a nurse practitioner led program without being an NP....also...what makes you think they have more privileges than you do now? Just because they hold the DNP degree doesn't let them practice medicine any different than you do. That would be their desire, but state legislation regulates that and you can be sure physician led organizations are NOT going to give those privileges to anyone who has not graduated from a bona-fide medical school.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

I don't believe there is such a program and if there was you couldn't get into it if you were not first a nurse, then an NP....they aren't going to let PA's into a nurse practitioner led program without being an NP....also...what makes you think they have more privileges than you do now? Just because they hold the DNP degree doesn't let them practice medicine any different than you do. That would be their desire, but state legislation regulates that and you can be sure physician led organizations are NOT going to give those privileges to anyone who has not graduated from a bona-fide medical school.

 

Not to be argumentative, but it's a well known fact that in some states NPs have far more independence than PAs. It's also not up to the doctor what the NP can/can't do as they are in the practice of nursing. With the independent practice laws, and the ability of an NP to own 100% of their own practice, and if one had previous PA generalist training, their wouldn't be anything stopping them from practicing true full scope family practice. With the exception of surgery.

[jsfelder0417]

Although the new Mass. legislation advanced practice by leaps and bounds, a single paragraph in the document enabled NPs to sign anything a doc can, while PAs are just now being recognized as providers. I believe it is differences like that being alluded to. I have heard others mention a cosmetic name change addendum. This really makes sense to me (although I don't have a JD or anything,) in that you simply draft one document effectively saying that the terms Physician Assistant and Physician Associate may be used interchangeably and are equivalent. Seems like this would give the best of both worlds, letting folks use the new title without having to rewrite standing legislation. I haven't really seen an argument against this idea yet. I am involved in this movement, but at the student level currently.

[cinntsp]

I don't believe there is such a program and if there was you couldn't get into it if you were not first a nurse, then an NP....they aren't going to let PA's into a nurse practitioner led program without being an NP....also...what makes you think they have more privileges than you do now? Just because they hold the DNP degree doesn't let them practice medicine any different than you do. That would be their desire, but state legislation regulates that and you can be sure physician led organizations are NOT going to give those privileges to anyone who has not graduated from a bona-fide medical school.

 

I always see that cliche statement that the nurses are going to anger the docs and then they'll see...

 

...as we continue to watch their lobby grab more pieces of the pie.

[andersenpa]

Those points; opening the door for re-writting laws, and future reimbursement conundrums, in addition to all the other impediments are exactly why the rank-and-file Physician Assistants are very happy this movement was killed off. We don't need more headaches.

 

Thank you MrBob, we're glad calmer heads prevailed.

 

This is incorrect.

If you follow the census data you will see that the plurality-to-majority of rank and file PAs support the title change.

http://www.aapa.org/uploadedFiles/content/News_and_Publications/PA_Pro_Now/Resource_Items/PA%20Professional%20Title%20Change%20Questions%20-%20Distribution%20Tables%205-12.pdf

 

 

There is a further breakdown by states and specialties which has more detailed data on the results, which I don't have at hand.

EMEDPA?

[andersenpa]

Not to be argumentative, but it's a well known fact that in some states NPs have far more independence than PAs. It's also not up to the doctor what the NP can/can't do as they are in the practice of nursing. With the independent practice laws, and the ability of an NP to own 100% of their own practice, and if one had previous PA generalist training, their wouldn't be anything stopping them from practicing true full scope family practice. With the exception of surgery.

 

Right....this is well covered ground. In the right state, a PA who then earned their NP would have enhanced practice ownership rights and independent practice.

[EMEDPA]

 

There is a further breakdown by states and specialties which has more detailed data on the results, which I don't have at hand.

EMEDPA?

36 states had an outright majority in favor.

emergency medicine as a specialty was strongly for name change and willing to pay for it.