I am pleased to see the numbers who voted yes.  45.5% of 15,000 = 6825.  Impressive.

look at the breakdown as well.
em pa’s more than any other specialty favor name change and are willing to pay for it...we are a revolutionary bunch..

Nice. Let’s use that.

It’s about *%#@ time!  Sorry, couldn’t help myself.  I hope this will put to rest that only a “small minority” of “fringe” PAs want this change.  This is historic and the momentum is changing.  You can tell by the tone of the narrative from AAPA they see the numbers and are quickly showing interest.  The HOD debate will be crucial and its’ importance cannot be over emphasized.

I wouldn’t put this in the win category - in fact, and this is my pessimistic (realistic) side coming out - you could even call this a loss. I can already hear the issue quickly swept under the carpet in upcoming meetings with our elected officials saying that while a significant number of PA’s want to change our title, the majority (54.5%) either do not, or or not sure, and more than 2/3 of all PA’s (63.8%) either said they wouldn’t pay for it, or weren’t sure. Even among those whose want the name change, almost a 1/3 are not willing to pay for it, or weren’t sure. I have to say, with the very clever way this survey was written, this issue is DOA. We will get our title changed, of that I’m sure, but not this year, or any time soon.

If the AAPA had written a less biased question, I think the results would have been more positive.

They should have simply asked, do you support a name change?  Instead they phrased it as “Despite the fact we will need to kill puppies to have a name change, would you support a name change?”

“Hmm, well, if it means I have to kill puppies, then I suppose not.”

I think the old boys and girls club that is our AAPA leadership will indeed as noted possibly try to sweep this one aside, go back to our old ways of “business as usual”. 

Bummer.

Where’s Bob these days?  I miss him.

Steven GIlles

Guys I want to agree with your pessimism but I am not there yet. They know noone was informed of the movement. They know this Represents the members LEFT who care enough to vote. The real number for the whole profession if surveyed is 65-70% pro.
The AAPA will have to decide if they want to write off a majority of PAs or embrace this and use it to show just how much they care. This is a huge opportunity.
I am no fan of the HOD but they can no longer sweep this under the rug. It’s not going away.
We will change it.
Dave

@erynkyle:  Contact the Michigan academy’s chief delegate and request they bring the issue to the HOD.  I have done this so far and do not know if any other Michigan PA’s who want name/title change have contacted the delegate.  It is a simple email or letter.  Even if you are not a member, please contact them.  We need as many states as possible to have representation.  Paula

A plurality victory, and given the breakdown of response choices for undecideds, this is almost a majority.
Very promising.
Impossible to characterize the effect of cost until those numbers are real and not just hype.

It seems the costs are always exaggerated. what did it cost to remove the ‘s in physician’s assistant in VT last year?
it should cost the same to say” in all documents pertaining to the profession known as PA’s the term physician assistant shall be replaced with the term physician associate”. done. cosmetic name change fix.

I have been a Nurse Practitioner for over 30 yearts. I have been through title changes in the process.
I am also a strong legislative advocate in my State and Federal government. I expect that the AAPA changeing the title of their professionals will require a very specific and profession directed language change in all of the Medical Practice Acts which recognize PAs and in Colorado, the Pharmacy and Nurse Practice Acts which discusses delegation and prescribing by PAs.
So, what I am saying is....be careful with your change. Start with State PA groups and specifically educate legislators and State policy makers of the change. THERE ARE enormus risks to opening your practice acts for even a simple name change.
I feel my 30 years in practice offer significant wisdom in policy change...even if it is a name change...policy changes also come as lobbyists and legislatures take advantyage with ammendments which may be harmful or restrictive.

In the early 1990’s the AANC decided to reclassify NPs as Clinical Specialists. This change created HUGE problems within years when NPs were trying to get reimbursement through 3rd party and government programs. ....the designations had to again be changed back to NP, with another certification as a Clinical Specialist was held for that training.
Move forward with eyes wide open!

@PAHA - will do, thanks for the head’s up. I’m an alternate for my professional organization (APAC) to be in the HOD, so I might even be able to do something directly.

One place to start would be your State’s Legal Legislative Office. They assist legislators in drafting legislation and oversea how one bill may influence another, one regulation can impact several professions.  Seems so easy to change the name.....but it IS NOT within a huge system.

an overreaching cosmetic change makes it easy. this is how physician’s assistants became physician assistants. “wherever the term physician assistant exists in state law it shall be replaced with the term physician associate”.

Congratulations to the name change committee, for scoring your first victory on this long road to a title change. I’d like to take a quote from Mark Twain,” there are lies, damn lies and statistics”. Although you are claiming victory based on the results of the AAPA survey, 45% in favor of a title change is not a majority but a plurality. You really have to evaluate every piece of data in this survey before you can be assured that the end result will be favorable. I was very pleased to see that this survey went out to both members and non-members of the Academy. The mixed being approximately 60% members and 40% nonmembers responded to the survey. 15,000 responses is impressive and constitutes approximately 16% of the profession that was polled, which by most statistions account this survey would be considered statistically significant but not 100% reliable.
By dissecting the data, to me the most revealing statistics was the percentage of respondents that were willing to pay for the direct and indirect costs of a title change. Only 36% of those in favor of a title change were willing to pay for any costs associated with a title change. Most respondents were either not in favor or unsure. Could it be they were not in favor or unsure because they did not know all ramifications of a title change therefore not able to make an informed decision.
We have an issue for the name change committee to consider and that is the difference between the theory and reality. In theory, your 45% “majority” wants to change the title to Physician Associate but unfortunately, in reality 63% your supporters are not willing pay the price for their requests. Where do you expect the Academy and all the constituent chapters to get the funds to be able to accomplish this goal if the majority of the profession is not willing to take on the responsibility for paying for their requests? The only way these organizations will procure these funds is by the members of this profession either joining these organizations were willing to support them by other means.
The prudent thing for the name change committee to do is to rally there supporters around the fact that they have made a significance stride of moving forward in your goal to achieve a title change. But more importantly your committee must encourage every member of this profession to align with our professional organizations, and if I may, ask them to “belly up to the bar”. If we all embrace and engage with the Academy and the state chapters, the goal of a title change will be accomplished despite whatever the naysayer’s proclaim. And I as I have stated in previous posts, if you’re going to support any resolution in the HOD, encourage your delegates to vote for the Texas Academy resolution 2012-C-05. If passed this resolution will form a task force that will look into all the ramifications of a title change and may possibly sway all those not in favor or unsure to support a title change and be willing to pay for it.

JDT-

1. you say that we can’t add the pro name change +undecideds in order to determine a plurality vs majority (45.5 + 20.9) yet you do just that when you consider the results of the desire to pay (46.1 + 17.6). If we assert that 63% are not willing to pay then it logically follows that 66.4% favor the name change. We know that’s not the case. The undecideds in each group will have their own breakdown. It is likely that at least 4.5% of 20.9% of respondents who said undecided would favor the name change, reaching a 50% of total respondents.

2. “Most respondents were either not in favor or unsure”
This is inaccurate. You could just as easily say “most respondents were either in favor or unsure” (45.5 + 20.9). It’s easy to see how that wording makes the overal decision more positive favoring name change. Again, as you said, lies, damn lies, etc. Be careful how you word things.

The AAPA, early on, was quick to dismiss the movement, saying “if you asked everyone if they want lower taxes, they would all say yes”...basically saying that most people will react first with their pocketbooks. YET the AAPA did just that by tying the philosophical need/desire for a title change to the cost.

These issues should be appreciated as interconnected, but addressed individually to avoid obfuscation.

Matt, I completely agree with you, but as I stated in my earlier post, these numbers are going to be (mis-) used against us. A point that was proven by the remarks from JDT.

“We have an issue for the name change committee to consider and that is the difference between the theory and reality. In theory, your 45% “majority” wants to change the title to Physician Associate but unfortunately, in reality 63% your supporters are not willing pay the price for their requests.”

I would assert that we are already paying for this with our aapa dues. it just means other things with a lower priority don’t get funded. we could certainly ask pa’s for more money but aapa should use some of the membership funds they already receive to achieve this just as they would any other strategic goal of the organization.
more folks care about this issue than essentially any other issue effecting the profession at the present time. it isn’t going to just go away this time.

Or could it be the reason some were not sure or would not be in favor of paying for the cost of name/title change is because we don’t know the cost.  If it would cost each of us $500 many might say count me in.  If it would be $5,000 many would say count me out. 

We need the information, and the estimate of costs, and the Texas resolution to pass, so we can take it a step forward.  A portion of our AAPA and state dues should cover at least some of the costs.

I’m happy to see jdt on board for the long road to title/name change.

the cost will vary by state I would imagine. in some states it will probably be unopposed(say north carolina) while in others it will be a fight tooth and nail vs the medical board , for example in Louisianna.

You can always withdraw a bill. Also you neutralize the only opposition (the medical society) by educating them and asking they not oppose. That this is cosmetic and not a scope of practice issue.
If they still oppose you don’t submit and we learn a lesson about who our friends are.
Dave

Contrary to what opinion many of you may of me, let me set the records straight, I voted in favor of a title change and willing to pay for it. I was a past board member of the Academy and my state chapter, I support both of these organizations, but first and foremost my support and concern is now and always has been for the fellow members and my colleagues in this profession. Although I have repeatedly expressed concerns about the name change committee’s methods my messages were never intended to confuse (or per Anderson obfuscate) but to present a clear opinion of facts that we all should consider the big picture before formulating a final decision on the issue.

Anderson, I would like to offer some facts and other interesting data that can be extracted from the survey that all fellow members should be concerned. Eric and paha both questioned why the Academy couldn’t just use existing revenue from our membership fees to fund a title change. The Academy could possibly fund this by diverting funds from other programs but I doubt seriously that every state chapter has sufficient funds fully support a legislative effort for a title change, nor could the Academy afford to fund a large number of states projects. In my experience, when a state chapter could not fully fund a legislative effort the Academy granted monies (your fellow membership dues) to aid those states in accomplishing their goals. Examples, funding legislative efforts in New Jersey and Mississippi for multiple years just to get enabling legislation to allow PAs to practice in those states. Ohio, which I was personally involved, the Academy granted $70,000+ between 2000-2006 (again your membership dues) to achieve an expanded scope of practice including prescriptive authority. And I will not even begin to begin to mention all programs funded by either the Academy or a state chapter to promote and grow our profession with monies obtained from fellow members, legislation and programs that benefited all PAs and not just fellow members.  And yes, I will admit, it has always concerned me that 100% of the practicing PAs benefited by the minority of fellow members that were willing to pay for it. Fact, on average the Academy and the state chapters report less than 40% of the practicing PAs continually support them.

The name change committee claimed this as a victory based on the fact that 45% of the respondents were in favor of a title change. Consider these figures:
Survey data: Page # 7 fellow members in favor of a title change 42%, interested or not sure 21%. Non-members in favor 51%, interested or not sure 20%.
Survey data: Page #14 fellow members not willing to pay for a title change 48%, interested or not sure 17%. Non-members not willing to pay 43%, interested or not sure 19%.

Interpret this data however you may, but IMHO, at present title change in large part is driven by nonmembers (I have no problem with this) who are not willing to pay but are craving to benefit from that change in title. Typical of how nonmembers traditionally operate. What will tip the scales either way is a large numbers of both members and nonmembers that are on the fence with this issue. Additionally, this issue is not going to be a simple as just removing the ‘s. This is why I will say it again, congratulations to all of us that are in favor of a title change, the implications of this survey was in some respects a win but it was just a first step in accomplishing that goal. We need to support the resolution from the Texas Academy to get all the facts to be able to sway the uninsured vote either way. And then, an overwhelming number of members and nonmembers must be willing to support the Academy and their state chapters with either membership dues or donations. A title change will come in the not too distant future if we let patience dominate compassion and support overcomes apathy.

I think that was quite clear, I don’t believe I twisted the data, but you’re entitled to develop your own interpretation of the survey. The survey data will be debated in the HOD, and yes it will be slanted at times when the delegates are tried to make their points. But at the end of the day I think the delegates will make the right decision based on all the information they have at this present time.  BTW, I thought this survey was fair.

Jdt is right. The time has come for all of us to band together and to work as a united front.  From jdt’s post it is apparent that AAPA can and will help with monies.  Let’s get the Texas Academy’s resolution passed and the other resolutions. 

It will be a step by step process.  As Eric stated N. Carolina might be a first state to target for name/title change because of their practice laws and history of the profession there.

But, first things first.  I am willing to pay extra dues, etc. for the name change,too.  And I still have membership in AAPA and 2 state academies. I’m willing to be on a study committee if this resolution passes.

“costs are always exaggerated”

When did anything ever come in undercost?

Cost is not the issue. Professional integrity and not losing members because you don’t hear them is the issue.

We can have some ranges. And if homework is done right the docs won’t oppose with will decrease the cost accordingly.
You can always withdraw the bill!
Dave

I’m ready to send in a $100 check (good faith money) right now, specifically earmarked for this effort, and probably more if asked. Even with 1/3 of respondents that said they were unwilling to pay, if the rest of us each contributed $100 we’d be talking in the neighborhood of $450,000. That would certainly make the academy set up and take notice. Let’s put our money where are votes are. Who’s with me? -ear