So the AB 890 bill in CA(gives ALL NPs independent practice)passed in the B,P & E committee. It is now on its way to the Appropriations Committee. It is painfully apparent to those of us who fought vigorously that the votes were already decided on prior to voting. Dr. Pan, a
2)a pediatrician, was the only one who voted against. He made a good argument. The legislators didn't care. It is easy for people who don't understand medicine to be dismissive. They think a NP practicing under doctor supervision for 3 years is sufficient to care for patients
3)unsupervised. Wood wrote indications as to when NPs should send patients to physicians--the legislators see them as good, strict guidelines. But...aren't NPs already supposed to know when to refer patients? Oh yeah, the degree mill graduates don't, so it's written for them in
4)the bill. He failed to include the nuances that one should be aware of that indicates an emergency even if the patient does not appear critical. So what's the answer? They wait until the patient appears critical then send to the physician. It may be too late by then but
5)oh well, NPs won't be held to the medical standard anyway. Supervising docs in Cali, get your malpractice in order and your umbrella insurance straight, because those patients will end up in your lap. Can't get around it. And since you will be the doctor of record in a now
6)"unsupervised" state, the attorneys will come looking for you. You should know this already. California is a sue happy state. Jim Wood gave us the courtesy of not only training and/or supervising fully trained NPs who graduate from substandard schools, we will be signing
7)off on a document stating that a NP is qualified to practice as a NP. Let me repeat, a physician, untrained in nursing or anything nursing related, will be signing a form CONFIRMING that a NP can practice as a NP. For those who do not see the dilemma, let me clarify. If a doc
8)signs off stating that the NP is highly qualified to practice as a NP, then he/she is teaching nursing. I think that should violates some nursing act, correct? Can't teach nursing because docs aren't trained to do so. Therefore, the doc must be teaching the NP to practice
9)medicine. Now, is a doc supposed to be teaching a nurse to practice medicine? Nope. It is illegal. Doc is not supposed to be teaching anyone to practice medicine who is not in a course or program that permits that specific training. That's why PAs are not an issue, they are
10)trained in the medical model with physicians as their teachers. It is legal and allowed as long as they remain supervised. It may change with OTP but that is their choice. But back to the NPs. NPs are trained in a nursing model that does not include physicians as nursing
11)instructors. Docs will be teaching NPs to practice medicine but attesting they can practice as a nurse. Rest assured docs, the day will come when an attorney, seeking the doctor of record for a case grossly mismanaged by a poorly educated NP. They will hunt through the records
12)until they find that form that YOU signed attesting to the qualifications of the unqualified NP. And your a** will be on the hook. The NP may or may not be dropped from the case. If you are lucky, you might, if the lawyer takes pity on you because of Jim Woods' faux pas.
13)But again, this is California, so good luck with that. This is all hypothetical..kind of. If AB 890 passes in the Senate, it will no longer be hypothetical, it will be reality. California docs, understand this clearly: Jim Wood, a dentist, has decided that we physicians in
14)California will train, supervise and validate that NPs can practice "independently". He didn't ask us, he just assumes. Did not occur to him that we can say we want no part of the illegal practice of medicine or his vision. He has also written in the bill that NPs can order
15)and interpret X-rays, U/S and mammograms, despite the fact they have no radiologic training. By the way, per my radiologic colleagues, mammogram is the only imaging modality that falls under the FDA. Federal laws would have to be re-written to permit NPs to read mammograms
16)Jim Wood didn't bother to check that because he and his sycophant legislator co-horts(sans Dr. Pan) think they are omnipotent. When you don't know anything about medicine or the legalities involved in the practice you make these stupid assumptions. And legislators responsible
17)for knowing the law pass this nonsense. This alone should tell you he never spoke to physicians, a radiologist could have easily explained this to him. They are so eager rush this bill into law they did not do their due diligence. It's a sloppy bill, Jim Wood is sloppy and so
18)are the sloppy a** legislators trying to pass this garbage. PPP-CA and CMA will fight them to the end. To the public I say, we need your voice. We cannot do this alone. If this disastrous law still passes, we can say we tried to protect you, because we did. We really did.
@threadreaderapp unroll
