Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Workforce Titles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ohio sponsors tell Health Committee a title change for physician assistants won’t alter practice
Summary
Sponsors told the House Health Committee that a bill to replace the term “physician assistant” with “physician associate” merely changes language in code (about 600 occurrences) and does not expand scope of practice; members raised concerns about patient confusion and recruitment benefits.
Representatives Lampton and Manning presented House Bill 353 at a first hearing before the Ohio House Health Committee, saying the proposal would replace the statutory term “physician assistant” with “physician associate” across state code but would not change clinicians’ scope of practice.
Representative Lampton, sponsor, told the committee the draft runs just under 500 pages because the title appears roughly 600 times in law. “There are no scope of practice changes in this bill,” she said. “All we're doing is changing one word 600 times.” She argued the new title better reflects the work PAs already perform and could reduce confusion for patients.
Representative Manning, co-sponsor, framed the change as a workforce measure that could strengthen the education pipeline. Manning said Ohio has 17 PA programs graduating about 25 to 50 students each year and that the state licenses nearly 6,700 PAs, a figure the sponsors cited to illustrate the profession’s growth.
During questioning, Representative Miller and others pressed whether renaming the role would actually clarify patient understanding or instead create new confusion. Miller noted patients sometimes already mistake PAs for physicians and asked what concrete benefit a title change would bring. Lampton pointed to survey findings she said showed 71% of patients and 61% of physicians agreed the title “physician associate” better matches the job description; sponsors acknowledged uncertainties about nationwide adoption and urged members to consider recruitment and professional recognition benefits.
Opponents were not present at the hearing; sponsors said they had discussed the change with industry groups and that three states have enacted similar title changes. Lawmakers also raised practical questions such as preserving the common initialism “PA.”
The committee concluded the first hearing with testimony and questioning; no committee vote on HB 353 occurred at this meeting.
