Senate committee weighs changing "physician assistant" to "physician associate" in state law

Sen. David Rochefort introduced Senate Bill 285, saying the measure would change the term "physician assistant" to "physician associate" in state law and require state agencies to make the same change in their regulations.

The measure, Rochefort said, stems from a legislative study committee and from concerns that the word "assistant" misrepresents the education and responsibilities of PAs. "Physician assistant would imply that they are assisting physicians," Rochefort said, adding that many PAs practice with an independent scope of care in primary care and emergency settings.

Supporters, including Sarah Lesley, vice president of the New Hampshire Society of Physician Assistants, told the committee the change aligns state law with the national organization and with the preferred professional name. "This bill simply aligns state laws and regulations with the legal name of the national and state associations for PAs," Lesley said. She and other proponents emphasized the bill would not change scope of practice or require employers or insurers to alter billing or job titles.

The New Hampshire Medical Society opposed the bill in testimony, citing concerns about potential confusion because many training programs and federal rules still use the term "physician assistant." Maura Weston, representing the medical society, told the committee she respected the objective but urged caution and a "wait and see" approach because federal regulations and insurer language continue to use the older term.

Committee members pressed authors and witnesses about safeguards to prevent unrelated groups from claiming the old or new title, and whether the draft includes explicit exclusionary language to prevent a separate licensure or board from arising under the old name. Lesley and Rochefort said existing statute already requires PA certification from an accredited PA program, and they supported adding explicit exclusionary language on the House side if needed.

After discussion, the committee voted to re-refer the bill for further consideration so members could resolve lingering drafting and policy questions. Supporters said the name change would reduce public confusion about the role and training of PAs; opponents said the timing and potential interaction with federal terminology and insurer practices merited more review.

What’s next: The committee referred SB 285 for additional work; sponsors and PA advocates indicated they would consider a clarification amendment addressing title protection and drafting citations before the bill returns to committee.