Taz Profile picture
Sep 30, 2020 10 tweets 2 min read Read on X
So AB 890 was signed into law by our CA governor, unfortunately. Some may feel as if it is a win, I do not. To clarify, nothing was preventing NPs from caring for the underserved...nothing. The lack of logic to their claims that physicians never work rural/underserved areas but
2)somehow prevented them from doing so did not register with legislators. The thing when one talks BS is you have to remember the lie. It's tough. They have been given license by our legislators to practice medicine w/o a medical license. The irony is the only nursing body to
3)oppose AB 890 was the CA BON who has now been forced to supervise what they did not want nor are equipped to supervise. So a fake-a** "advisory committee" made up of 4 NPs, 2 token physicians and one community member. No idea how members will be selected but I can guarantee you
4)it won't be objective. What bothers me most as a person with a conscience and a physician is that not one organization, legislator or person is concerned that no one has followed up quality of care in states with FPA. EVER. Seems to me when state legislators pass a law
5)asserting that care provided by NPs w/o supervision or regulations is of high standards, doesn't it make sense that perhaps someone would see fit to see if this is actually the case, instead of assuming? There is nothing that states so clearly that human beings are expendable
6)lab rats undeserving of further consideration. And our legislators in CA have jumped on that moving train, undisturbed since they have physicians to care for them. Anyway, the good news is that with the new law, NPs are not only required to advise patients they are NPs, they
7)must post in an obvious location that they are regulated by the BON, post in a conspicuous location the website where patients can go to check their licenses and if necessary, file a complaint. NPs must "have an identified referral plan specific to the practice area, that
8)includes specific referral criteria." Unfortunately, the bill cannot mandate docs accept those referrals if they do not believe them to be warranted or they don't want to increase their liability enabling an unqualified NP practicing medicine w/o a medical license. Because you
9)see, the BOM may just consider that aiding and abetting the illegal practice of medicine. Gray areas almost never work in favor of the docs. The idea of lawsuits makes docs nervous. So good luck with that Jim Wood. The NPs can call you. Because when you wrote this bill, you
10)failed to include docs at the table while expecting them to be available for the convenience of your bill. It just doesn't work like that. Docs just don't like their licenses being played with. It's how they feed their families and pay their bills.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Taz

Taz Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Suburbanbella

Jun 20
As long as I have been on Twitter pontificating about the scope creep issue, it should be evident by now that the claim by NPs that they wanted FPA(aka the unsupervised practice of medicine) so they could "improve access" to care in rural & underserved areas was a bald-faced lie.
2)The intent, which began with the Future of Nursing Campaign in 2009, was always to expand their scope by legislation-not education. FOR ONE REASON ONLY. To dabble in lucrative medical areas in which they are not properly trained. Pay close attention to the s**t below. Image
3)This NP is "expanding" into female HRT; apparently they plan to learn as they go. On the job. This is not how medicine works folks. That's why Endocrinologists have extensive training. Ob/Gyns as well. Hormones are nothing to f**k around with because you don't want to find out.
Read 14 tweets
May 12
People, it is imperative to understand that this is not ok. This is not "modernization", this is some 5th world kind of s**t. I want the public to understand that this is not how medicine/surgery works. Some 100+ years ago standardized medical training became a necessity because
2)the sloppy, haphazard, subjective, apprenticeship type model that existed at the time did not bode well for patients. What has been exposed in this article is the regression, not the progression of medicine. This surgical dept and/or team arbitrarily decided that this SCP,
3)a nurse, was "qualified" enough such that she could be trained to perform cholecystectomies since she had assisted in enough surgeries. Exactly how was her qualification and competency objectively validated? Or was it? It is apparent, by their response, that this move was not Image
Read 13 tweets
Apr 30
Specialties that don't have a scope creep issue yet..be wary. You will. It is a common marketing ploy by current NP leadership & corporate medicine to claim that there is a "projected shortage" in some medical specialties & that the answer is to use nurses to fill that shortage.
2)It is important to delve deeper to determine what the real issue is and that should not come from people who don't know jack about medicine. The shortage in Rad Onc is staffing shortages. They need RNs in RadOnc, now that is a position they should seek as it aligns w/ their Image
3)education and training--provided they did not matriculate at an entry-level program. Know where there is a massive shortage where NPs are actually needed? Nursing. Crisis levels. Worse than any medical shortage. AANP likes to stay mum on thta s**t.
uschamber.com/workforce/nurs…
Read 6 tweets
Apr 27
In 2020, myself and other colleagues in PPP vigorously opposed AB 890, the bill granting NPs unsupervised practice in CA. It unfortunately passed and was enacted in Jan 2023. One of the most dangerous parts of the legislation is the removal of standardized procedures. Image
2)By removing this regulation, Jim Wood, the sponsor of the bill, & sycophantic legislators effectively granted NPs the right to practice medicine w/o a medical license. I had warned that there were NPs, prior to introduction of the bill, that were using their sham s**t DNP
3)degrees to imply they were physicians. In Aug 2019, a complaint was filed against Sarah Erny, a CA NP who had opened her own medical clinic, for misrepresenting herself as a medical doctor.
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2330…
Read 16 tweets
Apr 21
One more time...there are no accredited Dermatology programs for NPs/PAs. Period. There are only NPs/PAs who work in Derm. That qualifier in the red circle doesn't mean jack to a PA or degree mill NP w/ no ethics & who is a fan of scope creep.
Image
Image
2)Because it doesn't prevent them from claiming to be "experts" in Derm/Dermatopath after completing this online module course. The docs teaching this course are enablers & expediters of scope creep, whether or not they mean to be.
3)The assumption is that those NPPs working in Derm, Dermatopathology or PC clinics have a basic knowledge base on which to build upon. Nope. Especially if they are a degree mill NP. But these kind of courses don't screen. NPs/PAs working in FPA/OTP states can open up their
Read 9 tweets
Mar 25
@Cigna doing what they do best. Denying s**t. 3 mo old baby in respiratory distress-s/p open heart surgery 2 months before. Baby gets intubated at local ED & doc makes decision to transfer to a higher level of care emergently & arranges for air ambulance.
kffhealthnews.org/news/article/m…
2)Unsurprisingly, air ambulance is out-of-network. Mom and Dad get $97K bill. Cigna believes the pt could have gone by ground ambulance & whines that no records show that ground ambulance “would impede timely and appropriate medical care.” If a doc is transferring a patient Image
3)by air, it's f***ing emergent. We don't take that s**t lightly and we don't do it "routinely". We do it because it's necessary. Instead of having an actual EM Cigna doc talk to the doc so they can communicate the necessity of such a transfer, Cigna chose to deny the claim.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(