Hawaii Academy of PAs

To the NCCPA Board of Directors:
This serves as testimony regarding the proposed changes to the NCCPA recertification process:

The Hawaii Academy of PAs is opposed to the NCCPA's New Recertification Exam Model.

In November 2015, NCCPA released its proposal to change the PA recertification exam process. February 10, 2016 the NCCPA sent out a survey to PA s to obtain input on the new process. The AAPA asked an independent researcher with a PhD in survey design to review the survey. The assessment determined that the survey instrument itself is somewhat biased.

The survey only allows PAs to evaluate the current model of PANRE as compared to the proposed model of PANRE. The survey was designed to arrive at one of two conclusions, support of the proposed recertification exam or support of the current PANRE model. The new NCCPA model, as proposed, would add another layer of undue burden on PAs, employers, and the health care system. There is no research that PA recertification exams have a positive impact on patient safety, outcomes or satisfaction.

The NCCPA suggests that because 73% of PAs practice in specialties that specialty exams are necessary, but there has been no evidence of public harm. Hospitals have credentialing committees to assure that medical providers are practicing within scope and competent to practice medicine and perform procedures. State laws similarly have safeguards in place. Mandatory specialty exams are not needed to assure competency or public safety and are not the direction that the PA profession wants to move.

HAPA recommends elimination of the PANRE, maintenance of certification by completion of relevant CME and making the PANCE a permanent certification process.

If the NCCPA fails to represent the needs of the PAs that they certify, PAs and the states that they practice in may seek alternative certification/recertification options or just eliminate the requirement for recertification altogether, as 25 states already have.

HAPA, generally, does not support the CAQ and does not support any requirement for mandatory specialty exams as proposed in the new model. One only needs to look to our colleague physicians and NPs to see that their specialty certification programs have affected the professional mobility of both. The CAQ may be useful for educational purposes but must not become a requirement for practice in a subspecialty.

In conclusion, HAPA s opposes the proposed changes to the recertification process submitted by the NCCPA. There should be no rush to judgment. Such an important decision regarding the future of the PA profession requires input and testimony from the national PA community and from the AAPA House of Delegates. Further debate and careful consideration is required in order to make the best possible decision regarding recertification requirements for PAs.

Dave Messer III, PA-C, MPAS
President, Hawaii Academy of PAs