RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Some physician assistant (PA) program directors believe paying clinicians and administrators for clinical sites is fair and necessary, while others regard such practices as undermining traditional altruistic motivations for precepting. The purpose of this study was to assess PA program directors' attitudes on this topic and describe current practices and future plans regarding compensation to clinical sites. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive survey was sent to directors of PA programs with continuing and provisional accreditation status in 2012. RESULTS: Seventy-eight (48%) of the 163 program directors surveyed participated in the study. Although most respondents indicated that paying for clinical sites was not an acceptable practice, almost half believed it would. be acceptable if there were standards and definitions for equitable and fair payments. Despite the finding that most respondents' programs do not pay for clinical sites, nearly half anticipate their programs will be paying for clinical sites in three years, and the cost of such payments will be passed on to students in the form of increased tuition or separate fees. Many indicated a concern that paying for clinical sites may result in monopolies and bidding wars. CONCLUSION: While paying clinical sites may be effective for recruitment and retention of clinical sites, most program directors are concerned about the expanded role economics will have for their program. Agreed-upon standards and definitions for fair and equitable payment practices may alleviate some of these concerns. However, the potential effects on students and programs identified in this study necessitate additional research to fully assess what implications this may have on PA education and the profession.
