by Jack Kircher, PA, Editor
In case you hadn't heard, the NCCPA removed AAPA as a participating organization and rescinded the appointment of its five commissioners on August 17, 2001. There were some angry reactions, but common sense soon broke out within AAPA, and conciliatory words were spoken. The two organizations formally met in early 2002 in a meeting with the Association of PA Programs. The above related article is the official release from the two organizations that tells of their new agreement on the subject.
As an outsider looking in, it seemed as though AAPA wanted to know about the issues before decisions were made so their representatives could receive advice and counsel on how to vote on the issues. NCCPA wanted autonomy from all organizations represented on their board so that the public interest could be served.
AAPA blinked first, and agreed to allow autonomy by their representatives to the NCCPA Board. Historically it was the NCCPA who changed their decisions in response to criticism from the rank and file, the House of Delegates, and the AAPA Board of Directors.
This is the second battle recently won by the NCCPA. The first was their decision to require certificate holders to register their Continuing Medical Education hours only with the NCCPA, closing the other traditional door for logging CME with the AAPA as a membership benefit.
It is natural for the two most influential organizations connected with the graduate PA to disagree and sometimes to argue loudly. After all, their missions are quite different.
The AAPA, as a membership professional organization representing about half of the graduate PAs, has to keep their membership happy. The organization survives on dues and CME revenues, and can not promote the profession without an expensive professional administrative staff. Plus it has done well by itself, earning a hard won reputation in policy circles as a mature source of information and views not only on the PA profession, but also on health policy in general.
The NCCPA does represent the public interest, but not as much as they tell us. They represent their representative organizations much more, a granting of power necessary in the early days of the PA profession to gain acceptance in the health care arena. As the profession became encoded into state and federal law, the NCCPA gained importance when their certification was added to the requirement for licensure and practice.
As a graduate PA, I do not want either organization to become too powerful. If the AAPA had no limits, their soft and reasonable ways would become forceful and lack compromise: they would become bullies. Other professional organizations would marginalize them with policy makers and government.
If the NCCPA were only concerned about the opinion of the represented organizations, their requirements for certification would drift away from good policy into parochial interests, and become much more susceptible to the influence of those who seek unreasonable restraints on the PA profession.
So the repeated battles every three to five years between the AAPA and the NCCPA help each to reexamine their respective roles and positions. It fosters honesty within the d boards of each organization, and keeps each sensitive to the constructive criticisms aimed at any high profile groups in the health policy arena.
We welcome your comments, and hope you will share them here, through us, with your colleagues.
