alvll Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 ATTN WA PAs and healthcare people: advocacy and legistlative action time! URGENT: the bill is being heard on Tuesday 1/9. Links in comments to sign in “pro” and submit written testimony. WAPA has brought forward legislation to establish collaborative practice for experienced PAs: HB 2041, sponsored by Rep. Marcus Riccelli (D-Spokane). The bill authorizes collaborative practice for PAs who have over 4,000 hours of post-graduate clinical experience and at least 2,000 hours in their specialty. Under collaboration, PAs collaborate with at least one physician and their scope of practice reflects that physician or the group of physicians they are working with in that specialty area(s). PAs who have 10 years or 20,000 hours of specialty experience can work outside the scope of their participating physician(s) if they continue to obtain CME in that specialty and they are working in a medically underserved or rural area. The bill also allows collaboration agreements to be kept at the practice site, removes the physician to PA ratio, authorizes direct pay for PA-provided care and makes PAs legally responsible for their medical decisions. WAPA believes this bill will improve the operating environment for PAs while giving PAs increased autonomy. Click HERE to sign in pro Click HERE to submit written testimony 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted January 6 Administrator Share Posted January 6 I'm trying to see if I can be there to testify in person. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted January 7 Moderator Share Posted January 7 Done! Hope this passes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted January 10 Administrator Share Posted January 10 FWIW the Interstate PA Compact enabling legislation is up this year as HB 1917/SB 5815. I watched the SB 5815 initial hearing on it, the only thing resembling opposition was the Medical Commission pointing out there was no funding attached yet and they would need some to implement it. SB 5373, payment parity, is back, at least theoretically, after dying in committee in 2023. Docs aren't going to like it. No hearing scheduled for it yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted January 10 Moderator Share Posted January 10 16 hours ago, rev ronin said: FWIW the Interstate PA Compact enabling legislation is up this year as HB 1917/SB 5815. I watched the SB 5815 initial hearing on it, the only thing resembling opposition was the Medical Commission pointing out there was no funding attached yet and they would need some to implement it. SB 5373, payment parity, is back, at least theoretically, after dying in committee in 2023. Docs aren't going to like it. No hearing scheduled for it yet. did you watch the HB 2041 hearing on 1/9? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted January 11 Administrator Share Posted January 11 6 hours ago, EMEDPA said: did you watch the HB 2041 hearing on 1/9? Live, yes. WSMA were like "And this should be the end of it." Hmm. Well, that's nice of you to say so, physician lobby, but there's still more modernization to do. The one lawyer who didn't want to NOT be able to sue supervising docs was the only real objector. Since you can submit written testimony on the same day after the public hearing, I tailored mine to her objection, pointing out that if a physician harms someone, they're covered by one malpractice policy, but if a PA harms someone, they can currently sue TWO malpractice policies, and the bill drops that down to one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SedRate Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 9 hours ago, rev ronin said: The one lawyer who didn't want to NOT be able to sue supervising docs was the only real objector This seems odd to me. Is she worried that a SP cannot be named if they are now collaborating docs? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted January 11 Moderator Share Posted January 11 7 hours ago, SedRate said: This seems odd to me. Is she worried that a SP cannot be named if they are now collaborating docs? They shouldn't be named unless they had direct involvement in the case. That is the whole idea of collaborative practice. We are responsible for our own practice. If the PA noted in their chart " I spoke with Dr Jones and they recommended I give vanco despite known renal dysfunction" and the pt ends up on dialysis the next day, they should be liable. If the PA makes the mistake themselves , they should be responsible. (The lawyer just wants more targets of opportunity to sue). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SedRate Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 hours ago, EMEDPA said: They shouldn't be named unless they had direct involvement in the case. That is the whole idea of collaborative practice. We are responsible for our own practice. If the PA noted in their chart " I spoke with Dr Jones and they recommended I give vanco despite known renal dysfunction" and the pt ends up on dialysis the next day, they should be liable. If the PA makes the mistake themselves , they should be responsible. (The lawyer just wants more targets of opportunity to sue). Got it. So she wants to be able to sue simply because the PA is attached to a SP. I didn't realize that was a thing. I figure PAs are held accountable for their actions and the SPs (and any others involved in the care) are potential culpable only if they are also directly involved (like in your example). Thanks for clarifying. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted January 13 Administrator Share Posted January 13 On 1/11/2024 at 3:24 PM, SedRate said: Got it. So she wants to be able to sue simply because the PA is attached to a SP. I didn't realize that was a thing. I figure PAs are held accountable for their actions and the SPs (and any others involved in the care) are potential culpable only if they are also directly involved (like in your example). Thanks for clarifying. My summary probably made the raw legal lust for deeper pocket targets more explicit than it actually was in the testimony; feel free to watch it yourself. But yeah, WSMA made WAPA put that in as part of collaboration: physician immunity from liability for things the PA does is a new deal. Under current law there's no reason you can't sue both, even if the chances of success depend on a jury NOT knowing what PAs are or what supervision actually means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SedRate Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 11 hours ago, rev ronin said: WSMA made WAPA put that in as part of collaboration: physician immunity from liability for things the PA does is a new deal. Interesting. Makes sense if WAPA is going for independence. Do you know if NPs are held to the same in independent states? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted January 13 Administrator Share Posted January 13 3 hours ago, SedRate said: Interesting. Makes sense if WAPA is going for independence. Do you know if NPs are held to the same in independent states? NPs don't have supervisors, ever, in Washington, so the MD/DOs are not on the malpractice hook for any NP screw-ups. Not sure about other states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted January 22 Moderator Share Posted January 22 any idea what this means: Jan 19, 2024 | House Executive action taken in the House Committee on Health Care & Wellness at 8:00 AM. (AND THAT ACTION WAS WHAT EXACTLY....?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted February 27 Moderator Share Posted February 27 Looks like this has passed the house and is in the senate now with an expectation that it may pass within the week. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted February 29 Moderator Share Posted February 29 It passed the senate. Headed to the governor to sign! Washington State Legislature 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.