re: Defeat the Nurse Practitioner scope of practice expansion - Louisiana SB 187

quote:

---

Why do you have such distaste for physicians who spent so much of their lives studying about how to help people

---

Why do you hide behind this like you are the savior of society?

Whether doctors can lobby politicians enough to squash this bill under the laughable premise that they are saving the public, that paycheck you are defending is going to get marginalized by rapid advancements in artificial intelligence and home device diagnosis.

Doctors will be more utilized for their ability to help program the devices that are replacing them, and the few that do this will be paid great sums for their expertise. So I'll enjoy working with you guys on this continuing process as I have for many years, but don't act as if doctors don't hold a disdain for the public at large. Most of you think the public consists of morons, which isn't incorrect. However, I think those of you arguing in this thread have such a narrow vision, and you are all too stupid to hide it very well.

He went to Duke. Surely you're not gonna compare his knowledge/training to that of an optometrist. And hey if you can figure out how to run a national board through your attic, heck why not haha

And Dr Paul didn't change anything about his scope of practice with that NBO

Do you have any clue how hard it is to match ophthalmology at duke?

quote:

---

We are opposed to people who practice stuff they never trained for

---

So are Optometrists: LINK

From the article:
Both sides of the debate agree that, if an optometrist is allowed to perform laser cataract surgery, he’ll need some kind of training. What they don’t agree on, however, is just how much.

I'm out. I cannot continue this conversation with you. You've gotta be a troll

Okay, but a lay person would not understand the minutia of such credentials. While he isn't practicing medicine fraudulently, it does however bring up concerns over advertising board certification in a certain area of expertise.

True, licensures and higher ed in general can be nothing more than a money grab. However, certifications imply a standard level of care across all practitioners.

quote:

---

Okay, but a lay person would not understand the minutia of such credentials.

---

They absolutely would not. I agree.

quote:

---

it does however bring up concerns over advertising board certification in a certain area of expertise.

---

For the most part, board certification means very, very little. I honestly don't know if that's reflected in public opinion of it. I have never heard a patient ask anything about boards. But I haven't been doing this very long at all.
Basically the board sets standards of what you need to be eligible. This is reflected in residency curriculum. So basically every residency puts you at board-ready levels of knowledge and procedure volume and skill. The board sets the standards, and the test is mostly a formality- and I'll say it's a formality that I absolutely do plan to pursue. It's a good thing. But it's unnecessary.

quote:

---

However, certifications imply a standard level of care across all practitioners.

---

In medicine, licensure implies the standard level of care. And in Louisiana, you're held to the nationally-recognized board certified physician in that field's level. So if I found a hospital dumb enough to let me book a cataract surgery and I made a mistake that the average board certified ophthalmologist wouldn't have made, I'm in big trouble. The board-eligible ophthalmologists are just as accountable as the board-certified ones. They're almost purely recognition, but some places require them.

I think we're in agreement that there should be standards set for a field both on national and state levels.

I'm not sure if we agree on something like this- in LA, the bill passed a year or two ago allowed optometrists to do procedures already governed under the LSBME. But they won't be seen or held to LSBME standards for the procedure, they'll be held to the board of optometry standards. LSBME uses the American Board of Ophthalmology as its standard (again, regardless of whether the ophthalmologist even attempted to pass the boards). The Board of Optometry then got to go on and set its own standards for the procedure despite their already being standards in the state for that procedure. Unless they adopt the LSBME standards, which I find to be unlikely, though I admittedly do not know what their ultimate decision was, given they refused to allow the LSBME to be the governing body to set the standards for the optometrists. I find this potential for "tiers" of care bad both because it's difficult to convey to the patient and because, well, keeping high standards in healthcare is a good thing.


I'm actually up long past my bedtime. I've got much to do tomorrow, but I don't mean to run off mid-discussion. I hope you have a good night, and I look forward to any more posts you have on the subject

quote:

---

I will support patient options because MDs are the most self serving group of professionals I have ever dealt with in my entire life. if they won't come out on top, it's wrong.

---

LA has a lot more of the stereotypical physician than I have seen/heard of other places. Still more good than bad though.