Welcome to Health Care POV | sign in | join
ADVANCE Blog for PAs

More PA Programs in the Pipeline

Published August 29, 2008 11:04 AM by Stephen Cornell
Share
reddit Newsvine Del.icio.us Digg
Yahoo! Buzz LinkedIn StumbleUpon Google Bookmarks Mixx

I count nine developing U.S. PA programs that have been publically identified.

- Ohio's Mount Union College
- New York's Clarkson University
- New York's SUNY Upstate Medical University
- Kentucky's University of the Cumberlands
- Florida's Nova Southeastern University (Jacksonville)
- Tennessee's Lincoln Memorial University
- Wisconsin's Carroll University
- Illinois' Northwestern University
- North Carolina's Campbell University

About 20 schools are currently in some stage of developing PA programs, according to the Physician Assistant Education Association.

That doesn't include at least four international PA programs in the works: two in Canada (McMaster University and the University of Manitoba) and two in Australia (the University of Queensland and James Cook University). These programs are closely modeled on U.S. PA programs.

I think it's time for NCCPA to decide whether graduates of the Canada and Australia programs will be eligible to sit for the PANCE.

Graduates of accredited U.S. programs are eligible to sit for Canada's PA certification exam, and Australia is actively recruiting PAs from the United States for a pilot program.

AAPA leadership seems divided on what to do about international physician assistants. Several years ago, it seemed like the AAPA was gung ho about being very involved in the PA profession in other countries. Then, the academy suddenly seemed to reverse course and pull back somewhat from hands-on involvement in other countries' PA professions.

In my opinion, the AAPA should try to take the lead in a worldwide PA profession. Although it's certainly a complicated issue, I think it would be better for the AAPA to be heavily involved in and out in front of the development of the global profession than to be an outsider looking in.

I think the academy should be able to handle significant international involvement without neglecting the profession in the United States.  

UPDATE: As always, feel free to disagree with my observations and opinions. That's what the blog's comments section is for.  

 

posted by Stephen Cornell
tags: , , ,

2 comments
add a comment »

Dave,

I like your comment and agree somewhat.

I don’t think it’s the AAPA’s place to “guide” the profession in other countries. But I think it would be beneficial for the PA profession in the U.S. for the AAPA to provide guidance to other countries and remain heavily involved in the global growth of the profession.

I have also heard that the AAPA has opposed some developments in other countries, and people have definitely speculated that the AAPA pulled back somewhat in the international arena because it could not exert enough control over the international PA profession.

I don’t think it’s the academy’s—or anyone’s—place to tell other countries what to do with their professions. But I do think it would be wise for the academy to remain involved so that the U.S. PA profession can share what it has learned over the last 41 years. PAs in the United States have made mistakes that should not be repeated. In return, I think the U.S. PA profession definitely has a lot to learn from innovations introduced in other countries.

I also think it would be ridiculous in this age of globalization for each country to develop its own profession with no portability between countries. That would be a travesty.

Physicians face significant barriers in moving from country to country. For the PA profession to become a truly flexible, portable global health care profession would be an incredible accomplishment
Stephen Cornell August 29, 2008 1:25 PM

I would NOT at all like to see the AAPA guide other PA organizations in other countries. We need a number of ways for PAs in other countries to develop, practice and evolve that may not be the way we do it here. I would start with our name. Why make the same mistake twice. In the UK we were going to be named "Medical Care Practitioner" and I understand that the Academy was opposed to that.

Also some countries may need a more rural provider with more independent practice, some a provider only working with the urban poor. Most importantly, the AAPA should coordinate and be a resource for the rest of the world but let's let each country evolve their own PA or MCP and then bring back the best innovations for all to use.

Dave
Dave Mittman August 29, 2008 12:19 PM
Livingston NJ

leave a comment


To prevent comment spam, please type the code you see below into the code field before submitting your comment. If you cannot read the numbers in the image, reload the page to generate a new one.

Captcha
Enter the security code below: