Thread by @Suburbanbella

Deception is so common in scope creep that it barely raises an eyebrow. Words matter, context matters. So a bit of education...Here is an ad seeking a "collaborating" or supervising doc for a NP practice in MA. Collaboration is not supervision. By the ad, the poster is clearly

2)seeking a doc to function as a safety net; however, a lot of NPs hate the term "supervision". They prefer the misnomer, "collaboration", which connotes being on an equal plane with doctors. Here's the kicker though. MA is an unsupervised state, the governor signed it into law

3)in Jan 2021. So exactly what "supervisory regulations" have to be met? In addition, this highly desirable position is offering the "collaborating" physician a whopping $400-$500/month for the use of his license in case s**t goes south. That's about one hour's compensation for

4)a malpractice attorney's time. How generous. NPs who have to pay "collaborating" physicians gripe about physicians being greedy--a common trope they like to use when claiming false victimhood. Here's why they aren't victims. Supervision was free before FPA-came with our jobs.

5)NPs also had autonomy--freedom. Came with the trust docs had in them, developed from years of working together. But NP leadership got greedy, wanted more money and less oversight, so they could achieve pay parity and subsequently pay equity with physicians. Problem is they

6)aren't physicians. Idiot legislators passed the laws, but the BONs and NP liability insurance companies weren't comfortable with NPs being completely let loose on the public because...Well, they're not physicians. Thus, they mandated NPs hire "collaborating" physicians. Simply

7)put, "collaborating" physicians are supervising physicians who provide little to no supervision and sometimes barely consulted. Plenty of NPs in this forum brag about how they haven't spoken to their "collaborator" in months or even years. What the hell do they need with a

8)physician? I've been practicing 27 years, I have no shame in stating that I still consult with physicians. We don't need to be mandated to "collaborate", it's organic to our practices. These so-called "collaborating" docs, some who frankly behave as whores, get paid to put

9)their licenses on the line. Some recognize the inherent risks, so they may charge thousands per month. Their prerogative. They didn't create the mandate. My question is, why don't NPs consult each other? They can do what physicians do..right? Their outcomes are the "same or

10)better", correct? They are prepared to provide safe, high-quality care "from the point of graduation". At least that's what Sylvia said. And they won't charge each other. So why doesn't this NP just hire a NP to be her "collaborating" NP? Talk amongst yourselves. Lesson over.

@pppforpatients @Physicians4Pts

*plain