Services

We work with PA programs across every stage of the ARC-PA lifecycle.

Engagements are timeline-based and team-delivered. Find the stage you're in below — or book a call and we will help you locate it.

Stage 01

Provisional Application & Monitoring

Typical engagement: 15–18 months
Cadence: Biweekly meetings + monthly assessment review

Provisional accreditation is the most documentation-intensive period in a PA program's life. We work backward from your site visit date — building a 15- to 18-month timeline with monthly milestones, running it alongside your program team in biweekly meetings, and doing the heavy lifting on SSR drafting, exemplar review, and document iteration.

Best for

Programs entering or in the midst of provisional application, monitoring, or final provisional — especially where the program director is new to ARC-PA or this is the institution's first health-sciences graduate program.

Three of our consultants are Founding Program Directors — Jennifer Eames (Hardin-Simmons, first new Texas PA program in 17 years), Jen Hixon (three founding directorships including the first public PA program in New England), and Scott Massey (Misericordia University). Pairing a Founding PD with a former ARC-PA Commission Chair on document review is something individual consultants cannot offer.

Discuss your provisional timeline →

Stage 02

Continuing Accreditation & Validation

Typical engagement: 18–24 months
Cadence: Biweekly meetings + monthly assessment review + mock site visit

The Sixth Edition has shifted the burden of proof toward outcomes data and faculty sufficiency. Programs comfortable five years ago are finding the bar has moved. Our continuing engagements typically begin two years out — we work through the SSR section by section, run a full mock site visit twelve months out, and rebuild the assessment process where the existing one cannot withstand current scrutiny.

Best for

Programs two or more years out from continuing accreditation — particularly those that have not engaged outside review since their last validation, or whose previous SSR contained findings they want to address before the next cycle.

Cathy Ruff designed Rocky Vista University's competency-by-design PA curriculum end to end and led PAEA's session on designing curriculum around EPAs. Tina Butler chairs PAEA's IM/FM End of Rotation Exam Review Committee and runs our mock site visits. Jennifer Eames has led continued-accreditation review for fifteen-plus programs since joining MACS.

Discuss your validation timeline →

Stage 03

Probation & Focused Review

Typical engagement: 6–12 months
Cadence: Weekly during initial response, biweekly thereafter

Probation engagements are different from the rest of our work. The timeline is compressed, the program is under direct scrutiny on specific findings, and the response window is short. We move quickly. The first two weeks are diagnostic — what ARC-PA cited, the program's current evidence position, the realistic gap. From there we work through the focused response with the program team. Nothing leaves our hands without three sets of eyes on it.

Best for

Programs that have received an adverse action — probation, focused review, or a request for additional documentation. The earlier we engage in the response window, the better the outcomes.

Dr. Vivian Moynihan served as ARC-PA Commission Chair (2016–2018) and Commissioner for eight years — she reads citations the way the people who wrote them read them. Dr. Stephanie Bowlin chaired the ARC-PA Commission (1998–2000). Dr. Jen Hixon chaired thirteen ARC-PA site visits. Pairing a former Commission Chair with a former site-visit Chair on a focused-review response is where the firm structure earns its keep.

Talk through your situation today →

Stage 04

New Program Development

Typical engagement: 3–5 years
Cadence: Quarterly during feasibility, monthly during planning, biweekly during application

Building a PA program from scratch is a multi-year institutional commitment — feasibility, director and medical director recruitment, clinical site agreements, curriculum architecture, policy infrastructure, faculty sufficiency, and mission alignment all sequenced correctly. We engage at the feasibility stage where possible. The decisions made before a program director is hired tend to lock in constraints that are expensive to undo later.

Best for

Institutions in the feasibility, planning, or application stages of a new PA program — particularly those without existing graduate health sciences programs, or where leadership is making the case to a board or president for the first time.

Four of our consultants have founded PA programs from feasibility through initial provisional: Dr. Jen Hixon (Westfield State, Bay Path, and the MCPHS School of PA Studies), Dr. Jennifer Eames (Hardin-Simmons — first new Texas PA program in 17+ years), Dr. Johnna Yealy (program directorships at four institutions), and Dr. Scott Massey (Misericordia University). Dr. Yealy's peer-reviewed analysis of the development cost of inaugurating a PA program is one of the few published references in the field.

Map a new program timeline →

Add-on

Comprehensive Data Services

Bundled with: Any consulting engagement above
Format: Monthly assessment review + C1.01 and C1.02 data services

Most accreditation findings trace back to data — either gaps in what the program is measuring or gaps in how it is interpreted. We design the assessment process, run the analysis, and draft the data sections of the SSR: C1.01 and C1.02 reporting and analysis under the Sixth Edition, predictive PANCE analytics, and the assessment process that turns one-time reporting into something the program can sustain on its own.

Best for

Programs whose accreditation status depends materially on outcomes data, programs without an internal data analyst, or programs phasing out manual spreadsheet-based reporting. For full automation, see Edulytic Solutions.

The data layer is led by Dr. Scott Massey — a Harvard Management Development Program graduate whose peer-reviewed work covers PANCE prediction, the correlation of formative and summative assessment, and the PA-CAT. With more than 30 peer-reviewed publications and 350+ citations, he is among the most-published researchers in the PA field; that research record is what led to the data services we offer today (view his ResearchGate profile). Cathy Ruff's research covers competency-based assessment design, and Dr. Tina Butler runs data analysis and detail review. Dr. Johnna Yealy served as co-principal investigator with Dr. Massey on the PA-CAT. Programs do not need to bring statistical expertise in separately.

Discuss your data needs →

Not sure which stage you're in? Start with a conversation.

Find Your Stage

We will help you locate your timeline before talking about engagement.