Hot Topics Covers A Range of Issues of Interest to Faculty

By Eileen Evans

About 150 faculty gathered early on Thursday, May 22, for Hot Topics, which ushered in APAP’s May Semiannual Meeting this year in New Orleans, Louisiana. President Elect Paul Lombardo moderated, and members of the board of directors opened the session by introducing themselves. Topics had been solicited beforehand from the membership, and Lombardo used their suggestions to guide the agenda.

Title VII Funding

Lombardo asked Jeff Webb, assistant director of the AAPA’s Federal Affairs Division, to update faculty on the status of Title VII funding, a competitive application grant process that funds programs in underserved areas and strives to increase diversity. Webb said that no funds had been set aside in the current administration’s proposed budget for this cycle. Since this was also the case last year, and funding ultimately evolved into a slight increase over that of previous years, Webb urged programs to continue submitting grant applications. “It makes a big difference when congress persons hear from the programs,” Webb said, “since efforts of this nature put a face to the funding program.”

As chair of the APAP Federal Affairs Committee, David Asprey informed members that, thanks to the AAPA’s continuing lobbying efforts and other grassroots activities such as his own recent visit to Capitol Hill, broader congressional support existed for the Title VII program. Legislators were especially interested in whether the funding actually had some effect, and Asprey said that if dollars were going to be made available for the profession, it was key that a variety of outcomes be documented. “It’s difficult,” he said, “to make cogent, rational arguments, given that we’re voting with our feet on some level, yet not necessarily applying in great numbers. It’s becoming increasingly important that programs apply for these grants.”

Despite the effort involved, Asprey said that Title VII is nearly the only federal program that augments what we do as educators and encouraged programs to be in touch with colleagues or to speak with Webb or HRSA personnel. He asked programs willing to advocate for Title VII to contact him.

When asked whether any APAP workshops were planned to offer instruction in grants preparation, Asprey said that none had been, but acknowledged the idea as one that APAP should consider. He added that HRSA, when it announces grants, offers technical support and a conference call for those submitting proposals and emphasized that programs should stay in touch with granting organizations that obviously knew what kind of priorities had been established and what kinds of data were necessary to support a case. Asprey said that he was willing to be contacted, and that others within APAP who had been involved with grants might also be willing to provide technical expertise and some individual mentoring or practical advice.

Lombardo added that the University of Washington PA Program had conducted a survey asking programs that had applied for grants, what barriers, if any, they had encountered in the process. Lombardo said that when barriers could be negotiated on behalf of the membership when they are presented to HRSA.

New Procedures for the ARC-PA Program Site Visits

Faculty were particularly interested in discussing the new exit procedures adopted by the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant (ARC-PA) for its program site visits. Dana Sayre-Stanhope, chair of the ARC, described the new protocol in which exit interviews would no longer be a part of the site visits. “The role of site visitors is verifying, validating, and clarifying,” Sayre-Stanhope said, “not decision making about accreditation assignments.” She emphasized that this was an internal, ARC decision and a move that the accrediting body felt was in APAP’s best interest. The end of the site visit was not the conclusion of the visit, Sayre-Stanhope explained, and the aim of the new practice was to eliminate any disparity that might exist between site visitors’ interpretations and the commission’s decisions.

Pat Dieter, an APAP representative to the ARC-PA, informed members that another revision of the Standards was expected by January 1, 2004. Standards can be changed if there is a compelling reason, Dieter said. She urged program directors to contact their liaisons and to comment when they were given the opportunity.

HOD Resolution on Master’s Degree

Many faculty in the audience were aware that the House of Delegates (HOD), the AAPA’s policy making body, was scheduled the next day to deal with a resolution about whether the master’s degree would be recommended for practicing PAs. Lombardo asked Michael Huckabee, APAP’s liaison to the AAPA Education Council, to address this issue.

Providing some history, Huckabee said that in 1997, the profession as a whole began looking at which degree practicing PAs should hold. Both the AAPA and APAP agreed that the master’s degree should be encouraged for PAs and promoted the granting of master’s degrees at institutions that could support this. In 2002 the HOD effectively said, let’s all agree that PA education is at the graduate level, regardless of the degree offered, that we’re teaching at the graduate level, and that we will encourage programs to offer that degree to the extent possible.

Examining policy on its books, the AAPA discovered language recommending that PAs hold a minimum of a bachelor’s degree at the same time that it recognized that PA education in programs accredited by the ARC-PA ... was conducted at the graduate level. Huckabee said that since these policies were in conflict, the AAPA Education Council tried to do some housekeeping and would present a resolution for approval to the HOD: “The AAPA recognizes that PA education in programs accredited by the ARC-PA ... is conducted at the graduate level. The AAPA recognizes that many PAs have completed non-graduate degree awarding programs and believes that the ability of these PAs to practice should remain unchanged.”

Huckabee said that the Education Council would recommend that previous resolutions requiring those entering the profession be at the baccalaureate level be deleted so that only the new resolution would exist as standard policy. He also informed the membership that there was a good chance that an amendment would be raised that would suggest that all PAs should be required to have a master’s degree, although the Education Council did not favor this.

Huckabee was asked whether any particular master’s degree had been recommended. He said no; there were two known state legislatures that were trying to advance their legislative policy on PAs, and to achieve this, they would find it helpful to be able to say that PAs have, or were required to have, master’s degrees. In those states it appeared that they were stipulating that PAs hold a master’s degree as a physician assistant, and Huckabee said this raised questions, depending upon the position the HOD took, that would require further study by the Education Council.

Jim Fry, chair of the AAPA Education Council, introduced himself to restate the council’s position and emphasize its disfavor for the amendment Huckabee had described. Fry explained the council’s position, that the amendment didn’t support practicing PAs out in the field and would put an unbearable burden on programs to reeducate practicing PAs. The council stated that PA education is at the graduate level; PAs who don’t have that credential should still be able to practice, and the council wouldn’t interfere with that practice. Fry said that the council wanted to clean up the language in three or four places and put it into one simple resolution. He said that APAP did not support the amendment that would require all PAs to obtain master’s degrees, and the AAPA had invited APAP to help in the effort to modify the language.

Paul Lombardo referred to APAP’s position on this issue, which came out of the recommendations of its 2000 Degree Task Force: APAP recognizes that PA education in accredited programs is conducted at the graduate level; recommends that PA programs grant students a credential reflective of this level of curriculum; that the credential granted should reflect the institutional mission and needs of the local and regional communities served by the program; ... and that a program may determine that offering an alternative credential (non-master’s degree) may better serve its institutional mission and the needs of the community. Lombardo said that APAP might modify this position as an organization in the future, but reminded faculty that the issue facing the HOD concerned primarily graduate PAs

National PA Honor Society

Lombardo asked George Bottomley, the new chair of the Steering Committee for the National PA Honor Society, to update members on activity concerning the honor society since the Miami Education Forum in November 2002. Bottomley reported that SAAAPA had conducted a survey to learn students’ preferences for an honor society. Jennii Stephens, the then APAP student member at large, was present and said that the survey ahd been sent to all registered SAAAPA societies’ student presidents. Program directors, Stephens said, did not receive the survey.

Stephens reported that, of the 110 programs to which the survey had been sent, 60 responded. Fifty-five to 57 percent of these were in agreement that the profession would be benefited by an honor society, but did not indicate strong preferences either for or against an honor society. Stephens concluded that the SAAAPA board couldn’t support the formation of an honor society.

A member of the audience asked, “Without strong resistance, why not go ahead with the society?”

Lombardo said that the survey would come to the board for clarification, and the board would take the survey’s outcomes into account when making a decision. Don Pedersen recalled that the history of the movement to develop an honor society — it came out of the Gateway Development Program — needed to be taken into consideration. At the very least, Pedersen said, the energy that students originally brought to the issue needed to be recognized.

HIPPA Regulations

Asprey spoke briefly on this issue to say that the Federal Affairs Council was considering whether APAP might provide the PA programs with resources and reference materials to assist them in complying with the HIPPA regulations. Although APAP was not in the business of mandating to its members, and while the council recognized that individuals within their institutions may have provided useful materials, Asprey said that the council might supply specific resources for preparing students.

Publishing Student Entries to the APAP Writing Competition

Members raised the possibility of publishing the APAP student writing competition entries and award winning papers to serve as examples of good writing for other students engaged either in writing or in master’s projects. Asprey acknowledged this as a good idea and suggested follow up with Gene Jones and Rick Dehn, co-chairs of the APAP Research Institute.

CASPA: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Project the Service Will Go?

Secretary/Treasurer Patrick Knott spoke about CASPA’s financial position. CASPA was judged, Knott said, on the basis of its service to our programs and applicants, and both groups were very satisfied. He explained, however, that his concern was primarily with CASPA’s financial status and reported that APAP was ahead of schedule in paying off CASPA’s start-up costs. Knott expected, by the end of the year, that the service would generate revenues of approximately $25,000.

National Recruitment Strategies Task Force Task Force

Chair Grace Landel informed members that the task force was developing a survey to learn from the programs what they were doing as recruitment activities. “We are all engaged in these activities now,” Landel said. “We want to find out what kinds of activities are proving successful. We’re looking as well as other professions to find out what kinds of procedures they’re utilizing.”

APAP’s Relationship with the AAMC

Lombardo said that APAP continued its efforts to forge ties with the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). He, David Asprey, Jim Cawley, and Timi Agar Barwick met recently with senior staff at the AAMC. Lombardo described their meeting as “incredibly interesting and productive” and said that APAP had been invited to give a professional development seminar sometime this summer to the AAMC’s senior staff. The AAMC realized that it has a potential ally in APAP, Lombardo said.

Asprey reminded members that we had a closer relationship to the AAMC in previous years when our meetings either preceded or dovetailed on theirs. Particularly in the area of faculty development in which the AAMC was so involved, Asprey said, there was tremendous overlap between our organizations, and we might be able to piggyback on some of our mutual endeavors and take advantage of opportunities we’d have if we created a greater connection with them. Although the AAMC decided that APAP did not meet the criteria to join its Council of Academic Societies, through which APAP had been trying to partner with the AAMC, in the final analysis, Asprey felt that APAP would be far better served through the avenues being developed.

Asprey suggested that APAP and the AAMC might cooperate to develop a module to be used in resident orientations. Not only would it help the medical organization to better understand what PAs do, ultimately it might reduce the friction that sometimes occurs through perceived competition.

Lombardo thanked Rosann Ippolito, in particular, for her initiative in opening avenues with the AAMC and credited Ms. Agar Barwick’s recent and meaningful presentation to the AAMC.

APAP Education Forum in Phoenix, Arizona

Lombardo closed with an appeal to faculty to attend the Phoenix meeting in October. He described the Phoenix site as a self-contained world with a casino that happened to be a riverboat. He called on the membership to make the October forum a good meeting for the Association, building on the impetus that we enjoyed at the 2002 Miami forum.

Main