| Course | PA 501 PA Professional Practice Seminar I |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Supervision model comparison |
| Length | About 1,090 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PA 501 Week 5
Supervision Model Comparison: Montana's Collaborative Agreement and Michigan's Practice Agreement, Compared by the Duties Each Actually Imposes
Student Name
Chamberlain University
PA 501: PA Professional Practice Seminar I
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Supervision Model Comparison: Montana's Collaborative Agreement and Michigan's Practice Agreement, Compared by the Duties Each Actually Imposes
Why Compare Duties, Not Names
States describe the relationship between physician assistants and physicians with different words: supervision, collaboration, participation, practice agreements. The words suggest differences in trust, but what matters to a PA starting work is what each law requires: whether a document must exist before a patient is seen, who must be reachable, what limits the PA's practice and what happens when the named physician leaves. This paper compares two models by those duties. Montana makes collaboration mandatory only for PAs still short of the 8,000-hour mark (Montana Legislature, 2025). Michigan requires every PA to practice under a practice agreement with a participating physician (Michigan Legislature, 2024).
Same Obligations, Both Columns
Table 1
Duties Under Two State Models
| Obligation | Montana: collaborative agreement | Michigan: practice agreement |
|---|---|---|
| Who must have one | PAs with fewer than 8,000 postgraduate clinical hours; PAs practicing 8,000 hours before October 1, 2023, are exempt | All practicing PAs |
| With whom | A physician or a PA with 8,000 or more hours | A participating physician |
| Must a document exist before practice | Written practice-level policies describing how collaboration occurs; provided to the board on request | A practice agreement signed by the PA and participating physician |
| Communication and decision making | Consultation while the PA remains responsible; collaborator gives direction and guidance | A process for communication, availability and decision making |
| Availability when the named physician is absent | Not specified in the statute; left to practice policies | A protocol designating an alternative physician for consultation |
| Duties of each party | PA and collaborator aware of the PA's qualifications and limits | The agreement states the duties and responsibilities of each |
| Competence evaluation | Policies must describe how competency is evaluated | Based on education, training and experience as stated in the agreement |
Note. Note. Montana duties from its physician assistant chapter as currently codified; Michigan duties from section 333.17047 of its Public Health Code.
Availability Is a Physical Constraint
The most practical difference is availability. Michigan's agreement must include a protocol for designating an alternative physician when the participating physician is unavailable, so a Michigan PA always knows, on paper, whom to call. Montana's statute does not specify availability at all; it requires written policies describing how collaboration will occur and leaves the rest to the practice. In a rural Montana clinic where the only physician is away for a week, the law does not itself require a named backup, though a sensible practice policy would provide one. For a new PA, that difference means reading the practice's policy is essential in Montana and less so in Michigan, where the statute guarantees a backup exists in writing.
The Ceiling Belongs to Somebody Else
Neither law sets a list of permitted procedures. In both, the ceiling on what a PA does is competence: Montana confines a PA to work the PA was educated for and remains competent in, and Michigan's agreement is to use each party's knowledge and skills "based on their education, training, and experience." In practice, the ceiling is set by others: hospital credentialing committees, which grant privileges for procedures, and, in Michigan, the agreement negotiated with the participating physician. A PA in either state who wants to perform a new procedure must show competence to someone else, not only to themselves.
When the Named Physician Leaves
The two models differ when a collaborator or participating physician leaves the practice. In Michigan, a new practice agreement must be signed with another participating physician before the PA continues practicing, which can interrupt practice in a small clinic. In Montana, a PA under 8,000 hours needs a new collaborator, who may be a physician or an experienced PA, which widens the pool; a PA over 8,000 hours needs no one. The Montana model therefore protects practice continuity in places with few physicians, while the Michigan model guarantees that a physician is always formally linked to each PA.
Labels Are Not Duties
Calling Montana's model collaboration and Michigan's a practice agreement suggests that one trusts PAs more. The table shows the difference is narrower and more specific. Both require consultation and both make the PA responsible for care. Michigan requires a signed document with a named backup for every PA; Montana requires practice-level policies only for less experienced PAs and none after 8,000 hours. Practicing PAs surveyed nationally reported that much of their real collaboration happens with physicians, PAs and NPs other than their named supervisor (Hulse et al., 2025), which suggests that the duties written into either law may describe actual practice less well than the policies a clinic writes for itself.
What I Would Want to Know Before Accepting a Job
In Michigan, I would ask to see the draft practice agreement, especially its alternative physician protocol. In Montana, I would ask for the practice's written collaboration policy and how it handles the collaborator's absence, since the statute leaves that question to the practice.
How the Two Models Treat Experience
Montana's model treats experience as a legal category. Below 8,000 hours, a PA needs a collaborative agreement; above it, the PA needs none (Montana Legislature, 2025). Michigan's model treats all PAs alike regardless of experience: a PA with twenty years of practice and a new graduate both need a practice agreement with a participating physician (Michigan Legislature, 2024). Each approach has a logic. Montana's assumes that the need for formal collaboration falls as experience grows, and that a fixed threshold is a fair, if rough, measure of that growth. Michigan's assumes that a formal link to a physician is valuable at every stage, and leaves the degree of oversight to the agreement itself, which can be light for an experienced PA and heavy for a new one. For an experienced PA moving between the two states, the difference would be felt immediately: in Montana, practice without any agreement; in Michigan, a new agreement to negotiate before seeing a patient.
What the Comparison Leaves Out
The comparison is limited to the statutes. It does not cover the medical boards' rules, which in both states add detail, such as how agreements are filed or reviewed, or hospital bylaws, which set privileges and often add their own oversight. A PA's real obligations in either state come from all three layers, and the statute is only the first.
References
Hulse, B., Schweinle, W. E., Kassin, K., & Trimble, N. D. (2025). Physician assistant training, collaboration, and practice act legislation: Perspectives from practicing physician assistants. The Journal of Physician Assistant Education, 36(1), e25-e33. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPA.0000000000000628
Michigan Legislature. (2024). Public Health Code, MCL 333.17047: Physician's assistant; practice agreement. https://legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-333-17047
Montana Legislature. (2025). Montana Code Annotated, Title 37, chapter 20: Physician assistants. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0370/chapter_0200/part_0020/section_0030/0370-0200-0020-0030.html
Reading the PA 501 Week 5 instructions
In week five you compare two models that states use to define the relationship between PAs and physicians. Describe each by what it requires, not by what it is called. Use the same set of obligations for both, such as whether a document must exist before practice, who must be reachable, what limits the PA's scope and what happens when the named physician leaves. Note where a model is silent and who fills the gap. Explain how each treats experience. Avoid treating the models as degrees of trust. Close with what the comparison means for a PA choosing a job in either state, and acknowledge the layers of rules beyond the statute, such as board rules and hospital bylaws.
How the PA 501 Week 5 example is put together
The paper compares Montana, where a collaborative agreement is required only below 8,000 postgraduate hours, with Michigan, where every PA needs a practice agreement with a participating physician. A table compares seven obligations, from who needs an arrangement to competence evaluation. Michigan's required protocol for an alternative physician is contrasted with Montana's silence on availability. Both set competence as the ceiling, with privileges and agreements doing the limiting. When a named physician leaves, Montana allows an experienced PA as collaborator, while Michigan requires a new physician agreement. A section on experience and one on missing layers of rules follow.
Where the points sit in the PA 501 Week 5 rubric
Comparing names costs the most on this assignment: a paper reporting that one state supervises and another collaborates, with no obligation set against either word, has compared vocabulary and nothing else. Reading the models as degrees of trust rather than as sets of duties is close behind. Comparisons that use different questions for each state, ignore availability or never consider what happens when the named physician leaves also lose points. Strong comparisons apply the same obligations to both models, identify silences, follow each model through realistic events, note the layers beyond statute and say what the differences mean for a working PA. Tables that compare different questions for each state hide the very differences they should show.
Common PA 501 Week 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Supervision models are easy to describe by their labels and hard to compare by their duties. If you tell us which two states your section assigned or you chose, we can help you find the current statutes, build a table of the same obligations for both and identify where each is silent. We can also help you follow each model through situations such as a physician's absence. Your comparison and conclusions remain your own. Where a state's board rules or hospital bylaws add requirements, we can help you note them separately so the statute comparison stays clear. We can also help you test each model against a realistic event, such as a physician's sudden departure.
Get a PA-501 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send the comparison instructions, the rubric, and the two models or states your section named, along with anything your classroom published about required elements. A writer builds a custom example to those instructions and returns it inside 24-48h. The first one is free, and it is written to your assignment rather than adapted from somebody else's.
More PA 501 papers and MPAS samples
- PA 501 Week 1: Defining the PA Role Post
- PA 501 Week 2: Origins of the Profession Essay
- PA 501 Week 3: State Practice Act Analysis
- PA 501 Week 4: Role Delineation Memo
- PA 501 Week 6: Care Team Mapping
- PA 501 Week 7: Professional Conduct Case
- PA 501 Week 8: Professional Commitment Memo
PA 501 Week 5 questions, answered
My state changed its arrangement recently. Does that help or complicate the paper?
It helps, and it gives the paper a natural spine. A state that has moved from one model to another lets you set the old obligations against the new ones and say which duties actually left. Amendments also carry an effective date and often a transition condition, and reporting both accurately shows a reader you worked from the instrument rather than from a description of it.
Does responsibility for outcomes belong in a supervision comparison?
Where the instructions allow it, a short passage earns its place, because the models distribute responsibility differently and writers commonly assume it follows permission exactly. Keep the passage descriptive and sourced. This is a seminar assignment rather than a legal opinion, so the useful move is to report what each arrangement provides and to stop where your sources stop.
How is this different from the statute paper earlier in the term?
The statute paper reads one document closely and reports what it permits. This one holds two arrangements beside each other and reports what each requires of two people once permission already exists. A comparison sliding back into a summary of one state's act has answered the earlier assignment a second time, which is the commonest way this week goes wrong.
Where can I find a free PA 501 Week 5 sample paper?
This page holds the complete PA 501 Week 5 comparison of Montana's collaborative agreement and Michigan's practice agreement by duties.
Where do the models differ most in the PA 501 Week 5 sample?
In availability and departures: Michigan requires a named alternative physician, while Montana leaves availability to practice policies and drops the requirement after 8,000 hours.