|
 Provided by Clinician 1
Over the last week, the PA profession moved closer to changing our name. Things were not done the way many of us wanted them to be done, but something was done. To that end, the AAPA should be both thanked and congratulated.
The AAPA added two questions to their annual census regarding the name change. We are not sure if it went to all PAs or just some on a representative basis. One clue is that you can access it on the AAPA web page, so we presume it must be for all. On top of that, the AAPA Board of Directors (through a statement by the AAPA President) asked for an open dialogue about the name change, deferring any decision to the House of Delegates. Not sure that this was the right move as they could have looked more into the issue, waited for the survey results and given the House more direction but after years of ignoring the problem dialogue is truly positive.
The interesting thing about the survey is that before the survey questions on the name began, the survey brought up the “fact” that there would be associated costs. Talk about skewing the answers, but that’s another story. Let’s tackle the cost issue now.
Truth is no one knows the costs associated with the name change. Obviously there will be costs, even if a state is doing a cosmetic change to the PA language in the law and reprinting stationary. Will these costs be substantial? There is no need for them to be any more than when we changed our name in most legislation by removing the apostrophe s from physician’s assistant. No need at all. And with costs comes progress, especially when it’s changing the label that explains to the public who you are and what you do.
Funny, chiropractors are now chiropractic physicians in many states, optometrists are optometric physicians, podiatrists are podiatric physicians and NPs fight everyday to elevate their practice and for independence. Audiologists, pharmacists, PTs and many other professions are all called doctor. Do you think any of these groups were concerned with the cost of elevating their professions to the point of intertia? Why is this such a concern only to PAs? I believe it will not be a problem. Let me explain.
Those of us in favor of the name change see this change as an evolutionary one. Clearly, the majority of PAs feel that the assistant part of our name no longer represents the PAs place or role as a clinician. Even the opponents to a change agree, we have outgrown assistant. It does not work for many of us. If the AAPA represents the professions feelings they need to work towards a name change. That said, for any of us to react to this problem in a knee jerk way would be a mistake. Let’s be clear, no state or other PA organization would be made to start to change the name until they were ready to. The PA profession has never been in as good of a position as we are in today. We have momentum on our side. Also when a state is going to attempt this change, they will need and hopefully have a few things that will keep the costs and any political issues on the sidelines. A positive statement from their professional organization (AAPA) would be helpful and the first step. The next part of the plan would be to go to organized medicine (AMA, AAFP, ACP, AAP, ACOG, etc) and educate them on why we will be doing this change. Ask for them to remain neutral on the issue and issue a statement regarding their neutrality. Same could be done for nursing if we thought there would be a problem. Again, this statement would serve to nullify any criticism from the state medical organizations. Having a statement of neutrality from two of the six large medical organizations would be wonderful. After all, the only opposition we foresee would be from the state medical societies. And yes, the PA state leaders would visit and educate them also. After all the PA profession has done over the last 40 years and the fact that this change would NOT CHANGE OUR SCOPE OF PRACTICE, why would they object? Only because of their own egos, we suppose. That is not a good enough reason for us not to change. Every profession should be able to determine what their own name is. If not, we are in much greater trouble than we think. Our leaders should be fighting for this, not against it.
The states should also be aware that they can withdraw any request to change our name if they encounter too much resistance. That does not cost much money. Withdraw the request for the change and educate for the next session. In the meantime some groups would succeed. Some programs would change their names and the evolution from being an assistant to an associate would commence.
Hardly a radical step in the history of medicine, but one the profession needs to do. It would allow us to brand our new name and create a huge amount of public relations for us. It would allow us to elevate our profession. It would get PAs looking at the profession and it’s leaders positively. It would be worth the associated costs. It would also allow us to be who we are.
Dave has been a PA, and later NP, leader for thirty years. He strongly believes that NPs and PAs must work together to insure a better future for both professions. Most recently Dave has been busy launching another dream; Clinician 1, the first internet community for PAs and NPs. In October 2008, Dave was honored by the New Jersey State society of PAs with its “Lifetime Achievement Award”.
The viewpoint expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the viewpoint of the owners or employees at Healthcare Staffing Innovations, LLC.
RECOMMEND THIS ARTICLE
You must be logged in
to recommend articles
|
