Introduction Conflicts related to hierarchy are a known barrier to interprofessional (IP) practice among healthcare teams. While these barriers between physicians and nurses are well established in the literature, studies on power dynamics between allied health professions and physicians are lacking. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of role claiming and identify negative perceptions towards occupational therapy (OT), physical therapy (PT), and physician assistant (PA) professions among first-semester OT, PT, and PA students as well as 4th-year medical (MD) students. Methods In an IRB-approved study, MD, OT, PT, and PA students were asked to complete a role knowledge survey consisting of 33 questions before and after OT, PT, and PA students completed an IP anatomy course where MD students served as near-peer mentors. The survey asked students to identify which profession (OT, PT, or PA) was best suited to aid the patient in a clinical vignette and included three open-ended questions asking for descriptions of these professions' roles. The rates at which OT, PT, and PA students claimed a role as their own professions' were assessed using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests. Perceptions of each profession were examined through thematic analysis of free responses. Results The average rate of roles students in OT, PT, and PA programs identified as their own exceeded the expected rate, 33.3%, and ranged from 38.1% (OT) to 44.2% (PT). PT students demonstrated a significant decrease, 3.9%, in role claiming following the IP course (p=.003), while OT and PA rates changed marginally. Qualitative themes included perceived limitations to each profession's scope of practice and language with belittling connotations. MD, PA, and PT students utilized verbs insinuating less power to describe OT roles (i.e. help, aid, assist) compared to verbs with authoritative connotations to describe PA and PT roles (i.e. perform, enhance, strengthen). OT and PT students emphasized an exaggerated power disparity between PAs and MDs, portraying PAs in a more subordinate light than MD students did. Inaccurate limitations to scopes of practice of OTs, PTs, and PAs were frequently found in the descriptions from students outside that profession. Preliminary comparisons of pre- and post-free responses indicate fewer inaccuracies regarding limitations to each profession's scope of practice following the IP course. Conclusions Even at the onset of their professional programs, students exhibited role claiming and negative, often inaccurate, perceptions about the roles of other health professions. The power conflict demonstrated by both quantitative and qualitative measures can impede IP collaboration. While this early IP course had a positive influence on role claiming and resolving some misconceptions about scopes of practice, several obstinate hierarchical barriers remained, particularly towards OTs and PAs. Furthermore, the inaccurate and limited views of OT, PT, and PA scopes of practice demonstrated by students outside those professions that persisted have the potential to hinder patient care. Circumventing these obstructive power dynamics is pertinent for improving IP practice between physicians and allied health professionals.