Thread by @Suburbanbella

FYI CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: As most of you may know, AB 890, the bill sponsored by a nutwad dentist who thinks that NPs and physicians are the same, was passed into law on 9/29/20. As is typical with FPA, the plan on how that law will be executed is disorganized. Oversight by a

2)BON who is not only under investigation for falsifying documents, but who also voted against the bill and wanted no part of supervision but were forced, a weak "advisory" committee to the BON which has no enforcement powers whatsoever, a "transition to practice", provided NPs

3)have 3 years of FT "equivalent" work in good standing, (although this requirement can be modified if they have a DNP degree), etc. The legislature made their intent clear: "2837.100. It is the intent of the Legislature that the requirements under this article shall not be an

4)undue or unnecessary burden to licensure or practice. The requirements are intended to ensure the new category of licensed nurse practitioners has the least restrictive amount of education, training, and testing necessary to ensure competent practice." God forbid NPs be

5)over burdened by more education to take care of human beings. This same courtesy is not afforded to physicians. As it stands, NPs will practice medicine w/o a medical license. It is up to them(honor code) to refer patients they think need to be referred to a higher level of

6)care. Remember, they only need enough education be competent. But here's the kicker and why patients are f***ed. {The jury should not be instructed that the standard of care for a nurse practitioner must be measured by the standard of care for a physician or surgeon when the

7)nurse is examining a patient or making a diagnosis. (Fein v.Permanente Medical Group (1985) 38 Cal.3d 137, 150 [211 Cal.Rptr. 368, 695P.2d 665].) Courts have observed that nurses are trained, “but to a lesser degree
than a physician, in the recognition of the symptoms of

8)diseases and injuries.”(Cooper v. National Bearing Co. (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 229, 238 [288P.2d 581].)}. In summary, NPs will be allowed to practice medicine, w/ pathetic "oversight" by BON, removal of standardized procedures(which were guidelines which

9)permitted NPs to perform duties that would be otherwise be considered the practice of medicine), 3 years of FT equivalent experience which can be modified to less if they have a DNP degree and should mismanagement and/or negligence occur, as it inevitably will when medicine is

10)practiced by those not formally trained in it, they will not be held to the medical standard. Let me tell you what else is may happen in a litigious society like CA. NP malpractice carriers or even the BON can demand they NPs get a paid "collaborating" physician, aka a

11)supervising physician(semantics you know) aka legal safety net aka a lawyer's wet dream. Patients will have no recourse and no choice except to sue the physician of record. The law is scheduled to be enacted in January of 2023. Docs who are employed or
justia.com/trials-litigat…

12)hospital attached are at most risk of course, because you are forced to choose between "supervising" or losing your job. Independent docs have a choice. DON'T BE A PHYSICIAN OF RECORD. PROTECT YOUR LICENSE. I've said it before and I will say it again. Collaboration does not

13)have to be mandated. Supervision does. Regardless of what term is used, it is still supervision. And docs are still culpable. FPA doesn't affect who they choose to sue. Not one iota.