Physicians acting as extenders

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
...the issue most of the docs are having here is with the degree of supervision. I would submit it's not that different than a lot(or most) of the arrangements where a pa works for a doc. ...
isn't this less supervision than a pa owned clinic with a doc there a few days/week in person for consults AND reviewing charts...
You are still missing the point as noted previously:
The whole idea of a PA employing their SP is ...an obvious conflict of interest...
...The discussion is not about saying how equivalent negligence in responsibility in same way makes the conduct better. But, the physician that owns the practice is actually in a position to supervise with some degree of authority. Not so in the situation described earlier, i.e. a few days, few hours, few patients, few charts per week, hassle free, no involvement in the management of the practice...
You keep trying to compare poor supervision in physician owned practices in comparison to PA owned practices. Comparing two bad situations does not justify either. A physician that is employed by the PA he/she is supposed to supervise is not in any position to supervise with authority. There is a conflict of interest by definition. However, in a poorly supervised physician owned practice, the physician could choose to supervise and has the authority to actually do so.

Members don't see this ad.
 
in a poorly supervised physician owned practice, the physician could choose to supervise and has the authority to actually do so.
Fair enough.
so everyone is ok with a pa owned practice as long as the pa doesn't work at the practice, correct? joe blow pa-c employs dr smith who supervises pa's green, hansen, and ortez all of whom are employees of joe blow.

theoretical question- would you consider it a conflict of interest for a pa and a physician to open a practice together and be equal partners(each puts up 100k to start the practice, they work an even # of shifts/week and have an equal pt load with the doc paid x extra hrs/week for admin duties related to "supervision").
I have seen situations in which a physician owns a practice, hires a pa, and at a later time makes the pa a minority or equal partner in exchange for services( work for half salary for x time in exchange for y % of practice) or an influx of cash. I have also seen physicians sell their entire practice to a pa who then must hire another physician( I realize you guys hate this).
 
You are still missing the point as noted previously:
A physician that is employed by the PA he/she is supposed to supervise is not in any position to supervise with authority. There is a conflict of interest by definition.

I understood your point but in reality in practice this is almost a non-issue because pa's hire docs who practice like they do with whom they get along so any discussion of issues is more instructive than adversarial and docs don't go to work for pa's they don't respect. as I mentioned previously pa's generally hire docs they have worked with and got along with before. I understand how conflicts COULD arise but these rarely happen in the situations I am aware of. THE DRS IN THESE SITUATIONS ARE NOT POWERLESS even though they are employees. they can always refuse to be associated with the practice( ie quit) or refuse to sign a particular chart unless the problem is fixed and if there is no back up supervisor the practice must close until a replacement is found. that's a lot of leverage.( " you blew it, call mrs jones back and tell her to go to the er or I will call the medical board and report your behavior AND I will refuse to sign the chart and in fact will document my issues with your care).
we are never going to agree on this and I understand that.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Fair enough.
so everyone is ok with a pa owned practice as long as the pa doesn't work at the practice, correct? joe blow pa-c employs dr smith who supervises pa's green, hansen, and ortez all of whom are employees of joe blow...
No. I can not speak for everyone, but in general, my answer is no. I have not really gotten the general impression [from this thread] that the consensus is in line with that statement either.
...theoretical question- would you consider it a conflict of interest for a pa and a physician to open a practice together and be equal partners(each puts up 100k to start the practice, they work an even # of shifts/week and have an equal pt load with the doc paid x extra hrs/week for admin duties related to "supervision")...
I am not going to get into multiple philisophical/theoretical scenario discussions. The minute you need to start twisting the particulars around; the end objective being mid-level equal status/partnership, ownership, and/or corporate seniority over the hired physician, I think the scenario speaks for itself.
I understood your point but in reality in practice this is almost a non-issue ...pa's hire docs who practice like they do with whom they get along ...as I mentioned previously pa's generally hire docs they have worked with and got along with before. I understand how conflicts COULD arise but these rarely happen in the situations I am aware of. THE DRS IN THESE SITUATIONS ARE NOT POWERLESS even though they are employees. they can always refuse to be associated with the practice( ie quit) or refuse to sign a particular chart unless the problem is fixed and if there is no back up supervisor the practice must close until a replacement is found. that's a lot of leverage...
we are never going to agree on this and I understand that.
The fact is that there should NEVER be a conflict of interest between a supervisor and the supervised. This is not just a medicine thing but a reality thing. As to not "powerless", yes, a physician can quit and stop receiving their income. We all know that and understand that IS the conflict. The supervisor accepts and/or submits to the disagreement with their supervised subject or they resign and end their gainfuul employment. That is exactly what the legal letter by the TMA was pointing out. It is not complex PhD philosophy as to who holds the power in that relationship.
...we are never going to agree on this and I understand that...
Then what are you trying to convince people of?

Yes, practices are businesses. However they are suppose to be governed by certain standards/ethics/principals/safeguards. Patients expect that their care is provided under certain standards, ethics, and safeguards. You are proposing ways of twisting around and overcoming these fundamentals. The scenarios all just stink of loop holing and corruption to enable a mid-level to own a practice to make large bank. It doesn't matter if a foul product is legally sold in state x, y, or z. It doesn't matter if a physician owns a practice and runs it unprofessionally. Neither change the reality of what they are or justify propogation of bad practice.
...in a poorly supervised physician owned practice, the physician could choose to supervise and has the authority to actually do so.
 
To jackadeli: I was not distracted by money. My point was if a physician is insane enough to put his reputation and license on the line by signing up with this business model then he might as well put his reputation and license on the line by having more money in his pocket (owning the clinic and just be there 2x a wk and then put up another clinic and be there 2x a wk again). I'm against any of these business models as these will hurt patients and medicine. As I have said in my past postings, a MD/DO should be physically present whenever any midlevel is working no ifs or buts and this is still my stance.
 
Last edited:
a MD/DO should be physically present whenever any midlevel is working no ifs or buts and this is still my stance.

I understand your stance.
realize you have already lost this battle more than 20 yrs ago. pa's and np's already staff clinics and rural er's solo with distant supervision(or none in the case of np's), have for many years, and will continue to do so regardless of anything said here on sdn..
 
...You keep trying to compare poor supervision in physician owned practices in comparison to PA owned practices. Comparing two bad situations does not justify either. A physician that is employed by the PA he/she is supposed to supervise is not in any position to supervise with authority. There is a conflict of interest by definition. However, in a poorly supervised physician owned practice, the physician could choose to supervise and has the authority to actually do so.
I understood your point ...I understand how conflicts COULD arise but these rarely happen in the situations I am aware of...
I enjoy having discussions such as this to see how others think and appreciate a respectful discussion on sdn-thank you) .
That's fine... The [position] lines are clearly drawn on this. You accept that conflicts of interest can and do arise in the scenarios you have described and/or are aware of; yet you persist to try and re-engage the discussion, in what appears to be memory lapse of what was written a few replies earlier. It seems like simple sparring for entertainment. I am all for honest and genuine discussion. However, the perpetuation of this one seems disengenuous and geared towards finding some sort of "gotcha" moment in a high school debate. And, that is not intended as an insult, just an observation of the circular & repetitive debate/positions.
...in a poorly supervised physician owned practice, the physician could choose to supervise and has the authority to actually do so.
 
Last edited:
that is not intended as an insult, just an observation of the circular & repetitive debate/positions.

I am passionate about my beliefs as you are about yours. nothing wrong with that. I believe pa's should be able to own clinics and work at clinics they own, you don't. I get that. we are not going to convince each other here but someone reading this thread who may not have formed an opinion on the issue yet.
as a separate issue, many physicians( and folks such as altap) believe pa's need constant supervision under a microscope of every pt, every time. while this may be true of a new grad I believe over time that pa's are capable of acting with far more autonomy. if pa's truly needed to present every pt every time there would be no benefit to having them at all.
happy new yr to all. I'm going to spend my evening WORKING...sigh...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...as a separate issue, many physicians( and folks such as altap) believe pa's need constant supervision under a microscope of every pt, every time. while this may be true of a new grad I believe over time that pa's are capable of acting with far more autonomy. if pa's truly needed to present every pt every time there would be no benefit to having them at all...
Agreed, it is a seperate issue. And. on that issue, I do agree with you in so much as micro-managing a mid-level makes it innefficient and ridiculous waste of a resource. A skilled and experienced mid-level should be given a more independence to follow the protocols and practice their supervising physician has trained them to do. If I needed to micro-manage everything my mid-levels do, I just assume do the tasks myself and cut the middle person out. But, again, that is a seperate issue/discussion. My opinion on this matter should not in anyway be construed as justification for mid-level owned practices that employ physicians or a belief in solo-practitioner mid-levels. If one reads it that way, then they are reading it wrong.
 
To emedpa: The battle is not lost. Last time I checked, the number of clinics being run and staffed by NPs are few. Patients still prefer MDs/DOs over any midlevel. The fight continues.

Never did I say in any of my postings that physicians should be double checking all the work of a PA or any midlevel. I just want a physician physically present whenever a midlevel is working. As I have said in the past, I'm all for midlevels as long as they work under the supervision of a physician.
 
Last edited:
The fact is that there should NEVER be a conflict of interest between a supervisor and the supervised. This is not just a medicine thing but a reality thing.


And yet, this same conflict exists in the military on a daily basis, with PA's who outrank physicians they are directly working with. Seems to work there.
 
To emedpa: The battle is not lost. Last time I checked, the number of clinics being run and staffed by NPs are few. Patients still prefer MDs/DOs over any midlevel. The fight continues.


Altap, he was speaking to your comment about direct physical presence. I have staffed at least 2 ED's where there was no physician on site, and I was managing..well, everything.

Requiring direct physical presence is simply not possible given workforce trends and needs. Particularly in rural primary care, and rural surgical practices.

That battle is lost.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
To jackadeli: I was not distracted by money. My point was if a physician is insane enough to put his reputation and license on the line by signing up with this business model then he might as well put his reputation and license on the line by having more money in his pocket (owning the clinic and just be there 2x a wk and then put up another clinic and be there 2x a wk again). I'm against any of these business models as these will hurt patients and medicine. As I have said in my past postings, a MD/DO should be physically present whenever any midlevel is working no ifs or buts and this is still my stance.


Please support this assertion with facts. Any peer reviewed study will do. Please show one peer reviewed study that shows an increased malpractice rate, increased adverse event occurence, increased medical board complaint rates....or hell, anything to support this.

Considering PA's and NP's have been working in remote supervision settings for over 30 years now, I would think that this data should be easy to find for you.

I do workforce research for a living, and I'm not aware of a singular study demonstrating any of these things. Of course, despite what I tell my wife, I'm not omniscient, and perhaps there is something out there that will support this.
 
Altap, he was speaking to your comment about direct physical presence. I have staffed at least 2 ED's where there was no physician on site, and I was managing..well, everything.

Requiring direct physical presence is simply not possible given workforce trends and needs. Particularly in rural primary care, and rural surgical practices.

That battle is lost.

yup, that's what I meant. my primary job is solo nights.
I didn't mean "independent pa's/np's" , I meant pa's/np's working without on site physician supervision. independent np's is a separate issue.
I also work at a per diem rural er job. there is always an md present at that job but most of the family practices in the area are staffed by pa's or np's with infrequent md presence in clinic. often when I have the unit secretary call a pts pcp for me so I can arrange next day f/u I end up talking to a pa/np.
 
And yet, this same conflict exists in the military on a daily basis, with PA's who outrank physicians they are directly working with. Seems to work there.
No, it actually doesn't really happen in the military "on a daily basis" as it were. You may or may not have any experience with military and their regulations. Given your view point suggesting a similarity between mid-level owned practice that employs their supervisor & the military structure, I favor you have little to no real military experience. The scenarios and situations are vastly different. At the very least, a military, supervising physician is not employed by senior ranking nurses or mid-levels.
 
No, it actually doesn't really happen in the military "on a daily basis" as it were. You may or may not have any experience with military and their regulations. Given your view point suggesting a similarity between mid-level owned practice that employs their supervisor & the military structure, I favor you have little to no real military experience. The scenarios and situations are vastly different. At the very least, a military, supervising physician is not employed by senior ranking nurses or mid-levels.

I was not speaking directly to employment, but rather to the potential of a conflict of interest. I believe that you stated that there should "never be a conflict of interest between a supervisor and the supervised".

I am well aware of the military practice. I started my entire path into medicine as a corpsman in the United States Navy, and served with the Second Marine Recon Battalion in Kuwait back in 91. I was not a PA in the military, but I think after serving in the military I have a pretty good idea of military structure and performance.

As a PA in the military, your listed SP cannot be of a lower rank than you, however, many higher ranking PA's often have "official" SP's that are at command centers in order to get around that little rule. The physicians that they work hand in hand with every day, and who are often giving them clinical direction when needed are of a lower rank. This would certainly constitute a potential conflict of interest. But it doesn't, cause the command path is clear. The PA is in charge from a military perspective, even of physicians. But the physician is ultimately in charge from a medical perspective.

I personally cannot see any difference between that and a similar situation with a PA owning a practice.
 
Emedpa and physasst, I'm not an expert on this, but I think working solo or working without any supervision from a physician is a violation of the rules governing PAs. Last time I checked, to supervise means to watch over/oversee someone (to make sure that what he is doing is correct) . So why would any org or any grp do any study or any comparative analysis comparing PAs who are supervised by physicians to PAs working solo?
 
Last edited:
Emedpa and physasst, I'm not an expert on this, but I think working solo or without any supervision from a physician is a violation of the rules governing PAs. Last time I checked, to supervise means to watch over/oversee someone (to make sure that what he is doing is correct) . So why would any org or grp do any study or any comparative analysis comparing PAs who are supervised by physicians to PAs working solo?


PA's cannot work without supervision, but supervision DOES NOT require physical presence. In the case of the ED's I staffed, I had a family practice physician on call. Honestly, it was a bit of a joke....I called him whenever we had critical patients, and I remember calling the one on call the one night, as I had an elderly female in respiratory distress. He stated...."Good lord, I hope that I don't have to intubate, you can do that can't you?" Yes....I can. That's happened elsewhere too. So...I have a SP who knows less about EM, and is less experienced in airway management than I am. Great.....:rolleyes:

You are mistaking physical presence with supervision. They are two vastly different things.

All states require PA's to work with physician supervision, but supervision DOES NOT need to be direct, in fact, in many cases, it is better as in direct. In fact, our privileges are derived from our physician's licenses. ALL states also state that PA's need to have immediate access to the physician by person, phone, or even radio. Most states require a minimum number of PA charts reviewed every month by the SP...usually 10 or so.

One of my best friends is a PA in Florida. He owns his own family practice, and is the only provider for like 3 counties in rural florida. He had to hire his SP from the nearest city almost 2 hours away. Every Friday this doc comes from the city for about 2-3 hours in the morning to review some charts, and really just visit socially. Any complicated patients get referred to his practice in the city then. The doc takes a serious cut, and my friend has stated on more than one occasion, that he doesn't really DO anything.

He only got the practice cause the physician who owned it died. He had been friends with, and particularly fond of my friend, who at the time, was staffing some po dunk ED, and was medical director for EMS for the County. When the physician died, his widow tried to sell it to another physician for months...but no one wanted this small rural practice in the middle of nowhere. So finally, she turned to my friend, and sold it to him for a substantial discount, as she felt that her husband would just want his patients to continue to get care.
 
Emedpa and physasst, I'm not an expert on this, but I think working solo or working without any supervision from a physician is a violation of the rules governing PAs. Last time I checked, to supervise means to watch over/oversee someone (to make sure that what he is doing is correct) . So why would any org or any grp do any study or any comparative analysis comparing PAs who are supervised by physicians to PAs working solo?

You are correct, you are not an expert.
pa's may legally work without a physician present as long as they are available by phone. this is called "distant supervision " and is completely legal in most states.
I'm working alone right now. have seen 18 pts so far tonight and have not spoken to a physician once.
3 good friends of mine work solo in the aleutians. their supervising physician is 6 hrs away by plane. yes, this is completely legal. they stabilize and transfer anyone who needs care they can not provide. they give tpa to MI's. they intubate, run codes, put in central lines and chest tubes, they reduce fxs and hang pressors, etc
we don't need hand holding and folks double checking everything we do. folks who work solo are not new grads. most of us are former military or civilian medics and have worked as pa's with direct physician supervision for yrs prior to ever working solo.we seek consults when we need them. we have been doing this job and doing it well for for > 40 yrs in places that physicians don't want to go.....when there is room for improvement in our practice our physician colleagues let us know. it's a mentoring relationship built on trust and mutual respect.every procedure we do we have to get credentialed for, just like our physician colleagues. pa's are often compared to "lifetime residents". a 3rd yr em resident can moonlight in a rural er without his attending present even though he is not yet a boarded em doc( and yes, I understand the difference between a 3rd yr em resident and a pa). a specialty pa knows more about their specialty than the vast majority of physicians who do not practice that specialty.
ALTAP, it's time for you to stop commenting about pa issues in this and all other pa threads. you obviously have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. I know you wish you could work as a pa since you are a nurse who is an fmg who hasn't matched. you can't and you won't be able to. EVER.
your best bet is to reapply to do the thing you were trained to do, attend a physician residency. I do wish you good luck in that endeavor.
PS HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SUCH A JOB. TOOK ME LESS THAN 2 MIN TO FIND....

Mayo Regional Hospital is a 25 bed CAH in Dover-Foxcroft, Maine, just 35 miles north of Bangor. We see approximately 12,000 patients annually in our level III ED, without large seasonal variation. We staff the department full-time with a single qualified EM provider at either the physician or mid-level. Our day shift is from 0700 through 1900, the night shift is from 1800 through 0700. Full-time providers work three shifts weekly.
Although much of what we see in the ED could be managed in an office setting, the providers need to have the critical recognition skills for those who are acutely ill and require hospitalization, as well as be able to implement independently those life-saving skills (intubation, ACLS, thrombolysis) that can be essential to resuscitation. We are only 40 miles from Eastern Maine Medical Center, a tertiary care facility in Bangor. We transfer cases to them that we can't safely handle here (i.e. multiple trauma, complicated orthopedics, severe sepsis, and STEMi patients after thrombolysis) and are able to do that either by ground or air transport. The ED has telemedicine capacity with them for all of their trauma surgeons, pediatric ICU physicians, and Neurology for telestroke consultation.
Qualifications for this position include, but are not limited to:
-PA-C with at least two (2) years of experience in EM in environments that stress the independent nature of practice.
-Physician backup for mid-level providers is not on site and may be as much as 30 minutes from the hospital.
-Successful mid-level candidates need to demonstrate (through experience, certifications, and reference verifications) their ability to independently manage critical patients for the initial phases of acute illness, including advanced airway management and thrombolysis for acute ischemic events.
-Benefits include group health and dental, 403(b) retirement program with employer match, educational loan payback eligibility, and a generous paid time off program.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the case of the ED's I staffed, I had a family practice physician on call. Honestly, it was a bit of a joke....I called him whenever we had critical patients, and I remember calling the one on call the one night, as I had an elderly female in respiratory distress. He stated...."Good lord, I hope that I don't have to intubate, you can do that can't you?" Yes....I can. .

been there, done that. read the book, saw the movie, bought the t-shirt.
 
To emedpa: IMHO that is just a loophole that a lawyer would pounce upon given the chance and since the buck always stops with the physician supervising the PA (captain of the ship doctrine), the physician would also be found liable by a jury. Furthermore, supervising someone by telephone in a clinical setting and never seeing the patient would put more credence to a plaintiff's argument of negligence. For the sake of patients, PAs, physicians and their families, I hope it would not happen.

You must be a good or maybe a great PA (bec. of your experience) but you should know your limitations and always defer to the one supervising you. Sorry (not to put down any profession here) but PA education and training << MD/DO education and training (this is a fact and we both know it). The sooner you accept this fact, the better for patients, PAs and physicians.
 
Last edited:
To emedpa: IMHO that is just a loophole...
The sooner you accept this fact, the better for patients, PAs and physicians.

This is not a "loophole". there are specific requirements set forth in the law to govern this. these rules have been in place for decades and if pa's were frequently responsible for bad outcomes and more than an avg # of lawsuits the laws would be changed to require on site supervision in all instances. it hasn't happened in over 40 yrs. if you pick the right (experienced ) pa it isn't a problem. new grads do not work in these settings.
I am well aware that a boarded em doc knows more em than I do and I have no problem deferring to their judgement. (anytime a boarded em doc wants to work any of my jobs for my salary( 120-150k/yr depending on how much I work) they are welcome to do so.)
I, however, know more em than the vast majority of non-em physicians who would otherwise be covering these positions. at my last job we had both experienced em pa's and fp docs(many new grads). most of the pa's made $5/hr MORE than the fp docs because they recognized that we had a broader scope of practice( we had em md supervisors) and we ended up precepting the fp docs(and doing procedures for them) more often than they precepted us. most of them were uncomfortable with trauma and the procedures required to manage it. even simple procedures like reducing shoulder dislocations were outside the comfort zone of many of them. one of them used to ask me to intubate his patients because where he trained he never managed airways. I have also worked with some excellent fp docs who have worked emergency medicine for yrs and have no problem acknowledging their superiority and defer to their wishes as well.(many of these guys are old enough to be grandfathered into em board status via exam despite never doing an em residency).
you have no clue( yet). the sooner YOU accept that fact the easier it will be for you to fit into the american medical system as something other than a nurse.
feel free to review the laws regarding utilization of pa's in maine(where that job I posted is) here:
http://www.docboard.org/me/me_home.htm

moderator- probably time to close this thread as it has strayed far from its original topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...In the case of the ED's I staffed, I had a family practice physician on call. Honestly, it was a bit of a joke....I called him whenever we had critical patients, and I remember calling the one on call the one night, as I had an elderly female in respiratory distress. He stated...."Good lord, I hope that I don't have to intubate, you can do that can't you?" Yes....I can. ...So...I have a SP who knows less about EM, and is less experienced in airway management than I am...
Another example of bad supervising. Again, doesn't support or promote an alternative of bad supervising.

IMHO, any physician that is incompetant and knowingly assumes a supervisory role for things they are incompetant to supervise is unethical. I would also pose that any mid-level accepting supervision from an incompetant physician is also unethical.
...I, however, know more em than the vast majority of non-em physicians who would otherwise be covering these positions...
Which brings it back to the root of the issue. We are not talking about supervising physicians. Rather we are talking about figure heads being put in place to allow mid-levels to act independently and unsupervised.
 
To emedpa: IMHO that is just a loophole that a lawyer would pounce upon given the chance and since the buck always stops with the physician supervising the PA (captain of the ship doctrine), the physician will also be found liable by a jury. For the sake of patients, I hope it won't happen.

You must be a good or maybe a great PA (bec. of your experience) but you should know your limitations and always defer to the one supervising you. Sorry (not to put down any profession here) but PA education and training << MD/DO education and training (this is a fact and we both know it). The sooner you accept this fact, the better for patients, PAs and physicians.


Actually, that is happening to a lesser degree now. Juries are realizing that if the physician did not see the patient, did not discuss it with the PA, and knew nothing of what the PA was doing, their liability is minimal. The malpractice occurence rates with PA's are ridiculously low right now (mostly due to handling lower complexity patients), but we are seeing a trend now, where physicians will be initially named in the suit, but then either dropped, or held to a minimal liability, as the PA will be primary defendant. Too early to tell if this is definitive or not, and the numbers remain fairly small. But it is an emerging trend.

PA education is less than MD/DO education, but so what? I mean, really as we say in research constantly.......so what? If you are working in a team, and you know your limitations, and your physician trusts your judgement (I know mine do) so what? I've had more 3rd year EM residents tell me that I function essentially as another attending. I precept MS IV's in the ED, I teach off service residents and interns how to do lumbar punctures, and have taught how to intubate and do chest tubes.

I also worked in Orthopedics for seven years and have a Masters in Sports Medicine. My ED attendings constantly ask my advice on sports injury management, and fracture evaluation/management.

The point of all of this is is not to brag, as I could really care less what you think about that, but to point out that experience and judgement are probably even more important than education in patient care. Regardless of what your degree or education is, using each other's areas of expertise, and working as colleagues will enhance patient care.

One of the big things I am working on in the policy world is to change the mindset of delivery. The standard heirarchal ladder needs to go away. The team should not be thought of in that manner, but rather as a circle. Each player doing their part, and each player MIGHT be the leader of the team at various times.

For example, a patient with a complex decubitus ulcer who presents, might be better served by the RN being the leader of the team, and giving instructions to the physician, as they likely have far more experience and skill in managing these....

Perhaps a patient who has been seen by the PA or NP for the past five years who presents, well, the PA or NP should be the leader of the team in that instance.

There are many physicians, not all, but many that think that simply earning an MD or DO degree somehow makes them omniscient. It doesn't. Too many think that because they have a terminal degree in medicine that that magically makes them the defacto experts on all things medical....sad really. I encounter it frequently in my policy role as an analyst. They are usually impressed by my background until I mention I am a PA...then there is a little derisive snort with the implication that a PA should not be involved in major health policy decisions. Usually I win them over by the end of our interactions, but not always.

I'll give you a big hint....the best docs don't do this. They recognize that administrators, MPH's, health economists, health MBA's, and other providers including RN's and PA's/NP's can contribute a lot. The best docs will ask for consultation from not only their physician colleagues, but even from other providers from time to time about the best management plans.
 
Another example of bad supervising. Again, doesn't support or promote an alternative of bad supervising.

IMHO, any physician that is incompetant and knowingly assumes a supervisory role for things they are incompetant to supervise is unethical. I would also pose that any mid-level accepting supervision from an incompetant physician is also unethical.
Which brings it back to the root of the issue. We are not talking about supervising physicians. Rather we are talking about figure heads being put in place to allow mid-levels to act independently.


It's a critical access hospital in the middle of nowhere. It has to remain open secondary to it's critical access status, but the patient volumes are so low that they cannot justify hiring experienced ED physicians. Instead, the FP group rotates as SP (accepting admissions, answering any questions we might have, etc.) They went to the PA model about 7 years ago. I don't place a lot of emphasis on Press Ganey scores, but in 2008 Q4, they had the highest scores in the country.

I also practice at possibly the most prestigious medical center in the country. We have an entire hallway in the ED that is managed solely by non physician providers (we prefer that to mid-level btw...I mean, if I am a mid level, what does that make the RN??) There is a consultant staffing it, but they are working their own hallway, and while available, for the most part don't know that is going on in our hallway unless we call them for advice.
 
It's a critical access hospital in the middle of nowhere. It has to remain open secondary to it's critical access status, but the patient volumes are so low that they cannot justify hiring experienced ED physicians. Instead, the FP group rotates as SP (accepting admissions, answering any questions we might have, etc.) They went to the PA model about 7 years ago. I don't place a lot of emphasis on Press Ganey scores, but in 2008 Q4, they had the highest scores in the country....
That is all good and well but the fact remains, if the physician/s are not competant in what they are supposed to be supervising then the mid-level is practicing unsupervised.
...I also practice at possibly the most prestigious medical center in the country. We have an entire hallway in the ED that is managed solely by non physician providers ...There is a consultant staffing it...for the most part don't know that is going on in our hallway unless we call them for advice.
Which again describes practicing unsupervised.
...non physician providers ...we prefer that to mid-level...I mean, if I am a mid level, what does that make the RN...
It makes them a nurse. I love all the nomenclature changes and preferences... I am now hearing PAs say they are not "Physician Assistant", now not a "mid-level"... I heard that in college too when the grad students didn't want to be TAs anymore....
 
Last edited:
Which brings it back to the root of the issue. We are not talking about supervising physicians. Rather we are talking about figure heads being put in place to allow mid-levels to act independently and unsupervised.


Also, right now, it will not be until about 2040, if my projections are right based on the increased demand until there are enough EM trained and BC physicians to cover all of the necessary EM positions.

OH, and that was a simple calculation based on current information and revised projected demand figures from the AAMC, but I used a static growth in the number of ED's, or population...which I know is untrue....but didn't feel like trying to do something that complex on Sunday afternoon.

Point is, it will likely be longer.

Right now, my friend and colleague Ed Salsberg is projecting a shortage of 159,400 physicians by 2025...

Also, numerous organizations, RWJF, Macy's Foundation, among others are ALL calling for the elimination of restrictions on PA or NP practice to allow for greater access.

I'm not sure where this scenario with perfect direct supervision that you are imagining is going to occur, but it won't happen anytime soon.
 
...We have an entire hallway in the ED that is managed solely by non physician providers ...There is a consultant staffing it...for the most part don't know that is going on in our hallway unless we call them for advice.
...I'm not sure where this scenario with perfect direct supervision that you are imagining is going to occur, but it won't happen anytime soon.
That's a nice albeit innacurate twist. I never said anything about perfection, etc... It is always nice to see you try and alter and twist the conversation in different directions. But, it defies any logic to describe someone as a superviser if they are not competant in the subject they are supposed to be supervising and/or knowledgeable of what the supervised individuals are doing....
 
Which again describes practicing unsupervised.


No, it is not. It is practicing with autonomy, which every state legally allows PA's to do.

Your definition of supervision is not what the state's definition, or most utilization agreements define it as.

You envision direct supervision, where you are aware of every patient. That may work in a surgical specialty where they are rounding and then reporting to you.

In primary care, and EM, it's a pipe dream.

Since I practice in MN, here's the statute:

147A.10
Physician assistants may render services in a setting geographically remote from the supervising physician.

if you are so inclined, here's a link to the whole practice act.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=147A;)
 
...You envision direct supervision, where you are aware of every patient...
No, I do not. I just do not see anyone with a straight face claiming to be supervising if they are incompetant of the subject they are supposed to supervise. Further, I do not see it as supervision if one does not know what is going on....

Oh, and I have to hand it to you, you drop names of "friends" and such like the pharmaceutical and industry reps drop names, "Dr X uses this drug/instrument/etc..." or "Big Name University Y just started to use this drug or product...".
 
FWIW - I have always had em md supervisors of record(or very experienced primary care docs) to justify my scope of practice but they are not present 24/7 when I practice. even an em md supervisor will not be aware of every pt I am seeing all the time. we have discussed this before, but if that was the requirement then there is no reason to have the pa at all. they know "emedpa is working a night shift right know and may call me". they don't know I'm in room 5 looking at a sprained ankle.

I'm not a big fan of "midlevel" or "allied health provider" either.
I like "advanced practice clinician" or "affiliated clinician". I think both are fairly accurate.
 
I just do not see anyone with a straight face claiming to be supervising if they are incompetant of the subject they are supposed to supervise.

I agree with this and have actually quit jobs where they wanted to give me a supervisor with a lesser scope of practice than I have. one of my prior jobs went from being run by the dept of emergency medicine to the dept of family medicine. the guy they wanted to name as my new sp was a recent residency grad who ,although he did a good job, was not able to do everything I could do.
the vast majority of rural er's that I know of( in 2011) that use pa's have either em md supervisors or very experienced fp md supervisors. this has not always been the case and I admit that other situations in the past may have been far from ideal. a friend of mine worked such a job years ago and did a trauma thoracotomy on a gsw pt. in full arrest and sutured a lac to the left ventricle. his sp of record at the time was an fp doc who had never done one. if there had been a problem he( and the doc) would have been cooked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...even an em md supervisor will not be aware of every pt I am seeing all the time. we have discussed this before, but if that was the requirement then there is no reason to have the pa at all...
Yep, we have discussed earlier, and others now entering the conversation and trying to debate out of context obviously missed the memo:
...on that issue, I do agree with you in so much as micro-managing a mid-level makes it innefficient and ridiculous waste of a resource. A skilled and experienced mid-level should be given a more independence to follow the protocols and practice their supervising physician has trained them to do. If I needed to micro-manage everything my mid-levels do, I just assume do the tasks myself and cut the middle person out...
 
No, I do not. I just do not see anyone with a straight face claiming to be supervising if they are incompetant of the subject they are supposed to supervise. Further, I do not see it as supervision if one does not know what is going on....

Oh, and I have to hand it to you, you drop names of "friends" and such like the pharmaceutical reps drop names.


Well, if you do not envision direct supervision, than I will apologize, I was thinking that you were from your posts.

As far as a physician not having experience and being a supervisor, I actually agree with you. However, I do not know of any real remedy for that situation in rural settings. As far as our hallway, the physician is seeing about 12-20 higher acuity patients in another hallway, and we are burning through about 40+ lower acuity patients in our hall..there is virtually no possible way for them to know about the majority of patients in our hallway. They trust us to come find them if we need them, and there are criteria in place as well to ensure that we do.

As far as my "friends"....well, my main career focus is becoming more and more in health policy and workforce research. I have cultivated a large network of friends and accomplices in various positions. If it bothers you for to me to use that terminology, I can stop...doesn't matter to me either way.
 
Like I said before, part of the problem here is that we have a ****load of scab MDs who are incompetent who are looking to make big time $$$$ off of these midlevels. The midlevels know how to play to their desires too. Thats why they keep trying to loosen supervision requirements and increase the number of PAs that each MD can "supervise." When you have retired docs who are given the opportunity to &quot;supervise&quot; 50 PAs at remote sites and bill for all of them simultaneously all in the comfort of their own home while wearing pajamas, whats not to like? Have you guys actually thought about how much money you can make doing that? The PAs (just like the NPs previously) are using greedy MDs against everybody else. Its time to start taking these jokesters to court and revoking medical licenses. Lets use the lawyers to our advantage to get rid of the scabs. If we dont, whats going to happen eventually is that guys like physassist (you can tell he's just itching to say it) are going to go to the state legislatures and say &quot;hey this supervision is a sham I havent talked to a doctor in years therefore we deserve independence.&quot;
 
Sometimes I think the best course of action for all this nonsense is for Medicare/Medicaid to remove the ability of MDs to bill for "supervising" midlevels at all. If hospitals/clinics want to pay these scab docs they can do so. Watch as all the scab MDs sitting at home "supervising" people at 6 remote sites all of a sudden decide to retire.
 
Well, if you do not envision direct supervision, than I will apologize, I was thinking that you were from your posts...
I envision supervision. No need to apologize... though I suggest a more complete read of the numerous posts in the thread to formulate an accurate idea of what someone has said.
...As far as my "friends"....well, ...I have cultivated a large network of friends and accomplices in various positions. If it bothers you for to me to use that terminology, I can stop...doesn't matter to me either way.
Either playing naive or it just shot over your head. Citing "friends" or referencing "prestigous institutions" is a well taught tactic within market and political action groups. It is akin to citing anecdote to try and garner support from the masses or convince less informed physicians to trust the messenger, i.e. pharma rep or industry product rep. It doesn't "bother" me. I just think it is a little transparent and unsophisticated/inelegant....
 
To emedpa: There is now a PA to DO path you should seriously consider this.

When you put out statements about PAs, it is as if all PAs have 20 plus years of experience like you .(BTW I do not accede to the thinking that experience as a PA=medical education). What would stop newly minted PAs from practicing solo in rural America? Moreover, IMHO, this constitutes independent practice which is not legal. Mind you the law can be interpreted in many ways and it is not you but a jury who will decide if a party is guilty or not (try swaying a jury on your side when someone got injured or died). Lastly, PAs are midlevels, they do not have the education and training to become independent practitioners bec.they are trained to be dependent providers.
 
Last edited:
it is not an "interpretation of the law" it is the actual law. there are rules set down specifically to cover this which specify how distant supervision works. these laws have been around for over 40 yrs. people keep saying"wait until lawyers hear about this". they must be deaf, dumb , and stupid if they haven't heard yet. there has not been a flood of lawsuits related to distant practice. an entire generation of pa's has already retired.
no one would hire a new grad pa to work solo. most of the jobs specify 5-10 yrs of prior supervised experience or 2 yrs of prior solo experience(as in this can't be your first solo job). I know lots of guys who work solo. every single one of them has at least a decade of prior experience and was a paramedic before that.
another important issue here is that you do not even know what a pa is as you have never worked as a licensed provider here in america. you are a nurse. please stop commenting on pa practice. I don't comment on nursing practice. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. READ THE LINKS WE HAVE POSTED TO WHAT CONSTITUTES LEGAL AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE.
And yes, I know about the bridge program. it is interesting and in a perfect world I would do it. at this point it just doesn't make financial sense to lose out on over 600,000 dollars salary and spend an additional 200,000 + to become a physician if I would never make that money back. I already make more than some primary care physicians now so it would not be a big step up in salary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...about the bridge program. ...at this point it just doesn't make financial sense to lose out on over 600,000 dollars salary and spend an additional 200,000 + to become a physician if I would never make that money back...
I agree. If you have that kind of revenue stream, it is stupid to "brigde" unless it was just a dream to be a physician. As you note, you would go from positive income to negative (and likely be inelegible for any aid). Then what? You then go into residency in FM? Then what? You work but the overhead as a physician is more then it is for a mid-level, i.e. I suspect your mal-pract coverage currently is less then what is carried by most physicians? If after all of that, you can practice and own a chain of clinics and supervise other PAs, you might then be able to see a dramatic change for the positive in you revenue stream. However, you are now the liability umbrella for them.
 
What?! Why do you think litigation is abound in the US? Bec of the different interpretation of the law.

We can always disagree but stopping me from expressing my opinion is not right
 
Last edited:
I agree. If you have that kind of revenue stream, it is stupid to "brigde" unless it was just a dream to be a physician. As you note, you would go from positive income to negative (and likely be inelegible for any aid). Then what? You then go into residency in FM? Then what? You work but the overhead as a physician is more then it is for a mid-level, i.e. I suspect your mal-pract coverage currently is less then what is carried by most physicians? If after all of that, you can practice and own a chain of clinics and supervise other PAs, you might then be able to see a dramatic change for the positive in you revenue stream. However, you are now the liability umbrella for them.

my malpractice is paid by my group as a benefit. this would likely also be the case as a doc.
if I went back to school I would probably do full scope rural fm(clinic, hospital, ed, nursing home, ob) and make 30-50k/yr more than I do right now. takes a lot of years to make up a million dollars in negative assets at 50k/yr.
I have no desire to own a series of clinics or even a single clinic. I would always want to work as part of a group and let someone else do the admin hassles. I would have no problem supervising the right pa but you can be sure I would go to great lengths to make sure they were the right person for the job.
 
...at this point ...on over 600,000 dollars salary...
...I went back to school I would probably do full scope rural fm(clinic, hospital, ed, nursing home, ob) and make 30-50k/yr more than I do right now. takes a lot of years to make up a million dollars in negative assets at 50k/yr...
If you have a salary currently in the 600K+ range now, I think it would be quite difficult (depending on structure and such) for you to make that or make that plus 30-50K straight out of FM residency.
 
If you have a salary currently in the 600K+ range now, I think it would be quite difficult (depending on structure and such) for you to make that or make that plus 30-50K straight out of FM residency.

He didn't say he's making $600K/year. That's his estimated lost income for the number of years it'd take him to finish med school and residency.
 
If you have a salary currently in the 600K+ range now, I think it would be quite difficult (depending on structure and such) for you to make that or make that plus 30-50K straight out of FM residency.

you misunderstood me. if I make 100k+/yr and take 6 yrs off for bridge + residency I lose at least 600,000 dollars( probably closer to 750k honestly) in addition to spending a few hundred thousand on school, loans, etc. if my salary coming out of residency is 150-180k it takes 20 yrs to make back the 1 million dollars+ I am in the hole(opportunity cost) for attending medschool and residency .
 
Top