Re: PT Practice Act--cause for concern
George Boyer
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: PT Practice Act--cause for concern
Creator:
George Boyer
Date:
3/3/2000
Text:
OK, Mr. Cardero.....you work with US and we'll work with you, all the way.
What the amputee needs to correct the problem of 'no voice' is a solid
organizational representation, like a UNION.....'like' a union I said. The
word union has a turn-off quality......let's call it a FEDERATION of
amputees. The idea is to give us a voice and some clout, neither of which we
have now. George Boyer.
Joseph F. Carideo Jr. wrote:
> Kimberley,
> Thank you for your very poignant comments. The amputee is the most
> important factor in all of this, you're right, but I strongly urge you to
> re-think your lack of support. It is the consumer who is at great risk
> here. Right now, in only four states, does the amputee have a vehicle by
> which they can air their complaints. Those patients who have a gripe in the
> other 46 non-regulated states do not have a State Board to listen to them.
> Legitimate complaints will often fall on deaf ears. The safeguards you want
> so badly, as do we, can only come from regulation.
>
> Waiting to see how the garbage heap (which I've been part of for 33 years)
> gets swept clean does not present a pretty picture. If physical therapy
> gets the act passed, you will then be treated by an individual who,
> although licensed, has only had a minimal amount of education IN orthotics
> & prosthetics. Most have had only a familiarization course in college. I
> know this for a fact as I have taught that portion of their education.
> After graduation, they go on to be therapists, not orthotists and
> prosthetists. I'm not sure about you, but I seek out the specialist when I
> need medical attention, not someone who is only familiar with or has simply
> seen pictures of my particular problem.
>
> Work with us rather than against us. As consumers you will have a strong
> voice when we go to Capitol Hill with our licensing requests. Stick with
> us, we're not all as bad as you feel we are. I certainly don't speak for
> the entire field so if you feel my comments are crap deal with me, don't
> condemn the other 3000 certifees in the country.
>
> Joseph F. Carideo Jr., CP
> Newport News, VA, 23606
> (757) 873-1984
> (757) 873- 9755 FAX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kimberley Barreda [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 11:59 AM
> To: Joseph F. Carideo Jr.
> Subject: Re: PT Practice Act--cause for concern
>
> Until there are safeguards in place to protect the amputee from hacks and
> just plain shoddy prosthetists, you wont find any backing in the consumer
> segment.
>
> We're waiting on pins and needles to see this garbage heap swept clean.
>
> You're all so worried about how things affect you that you (as an industry)
> forget who is the ONLY REQUIRED factor in this industry - us - the amputee.
>
> Just more crap at our expense.
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 03/03/2000 at 10:50 AM Joseph F. Carideo Jr. wrote:
>
> >This is what I've been talking about folks! We have got to investigate
> >further what the rules and regulations are in our individual states and
> act
> >accordingly. I brought up Gary's article some time ago and got many
> >disparaging comments from practitioners around the country. When the
> >physical therapists are licensed to provide orthotic & prosthetic
> services,
> >those unregulated states will not have a say in what type device is
> >provided nor how the device be fabricated. Remember this, they will be the
> >ones recognized by the state, NOT YOU!!! And if desired, they can have the
> >state come in and close you down for operating without a license, which
> you
> >are unable to get!!! Get ready for a vicious circle!
> >
> >Obviously, the time has come, to come out from under the banner of
> >protecting the general public. Although this may be true, we need to
> >educate our state legislators, and those powers that be, that there are
> >talented professionals out there, educated specifically in orthotics &
> >prosthetics. We are not simply looking for an extension of our scope of
> >practice (we don't even have a scope of practice in most states!) We are
> >looking to regulate and license what IS our practice - orthotics &
> >prosthetics.
> >
> >Joseph F. Carideo Jr., CP
> >Newport News, VA, 23606
> >(757) 873-1984
> >(757) 873- 9755 FAX
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: <Email Address Redacted> [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 9:49 PM
> >To: <Email Address Redacted>
> >Subject: Re: PT Practice Act--cause for concern
> >
> >NATIONAL MODEL PRACTICE ACT FOR PHYSICAL THERAPISTS:
> >CAUSE FOR CONCERN TO O&P
> >
> >There is a movement afoot reportedly in all 50 states to enact legislation
> >to
> >clarify the practice of physical therapy. The intent of such a model
> >practice act is to create uniformity from one state to the next, rather
> >than
> >have a patchwork of diverse scopes of practice as defined by each separate
> >state legislature.
> >
> >A review of the physical therapy model practice act, however, appears to
> be
> >an encroachment into the scope of practice of prosthetists and orthotists
> >across the country. The proposed act states in Article 1D (2): The
> >'Practice of Physical Therapy' means: ...Alleviating impairments and
> >functional limitations by designing, implementing and modifying
> therapeutic
> >interventions that include, but are not limited to...assistive and
> adaptive
> >or
> >thotic, prosthetic, protective and supportive devices and equipment.
> >[italics mine] The ambiguity in that language is enough to cause
> >consternation to all of us in our field.
> >
> >In all likelihood, there are some states in which the physical therapy
> >model
> >practice act has already been enacted into law. States like Washington
> >which
> >retain lobbyists may already be aware of these developments and may have
> >been
> >alerted to the status of the local physical therapy efforts in this
> regard.
> >Further, in those states where O&P licensure is already in place, the O&P
> >community has greater clout for insisting on providing input regarding
> any
> >reference to prosthetics and orthotics in a new state bill that revises
> the
> >physical therapy scope of practice.
> >
> >If you practice P&O in a state which lacks O&P regulation in the form of
> >licensure and your state association does not retain a lobbyist, you may
> be
> >in for a rude surprise. The fact is that a legislative bill codifying
> that
> >physical therapists are licensed to design, implement and modify
> >...orthotic
> >and prosthetic devices may already have become state statute in you
> locale
> >or is about to be. In that scenario, it is not hyperbole to state that
> >physical therapists will be licensed to perform prosthetics-orthotics in
> >your
> >state while you are not!
> >
> >Any legislation pertaining to the implementation of the national physical
> >therapy
> >model practice act in your state may be readily found through a search of
> >your state's legislative web site.
> >
> >David Varnau, LPO, CPO
> >
> >
What the amputee needs to correct the problem of 'no voice' is a solid
organizational representation, like a UNION.....'like' a union I said. The
word union has a turn-off quality......let's call it a FEDERATION of
amputees. The idea is to give us a voice and some clout, neither of which we
have now. George Boyer.
Joseph F. Carideo Jr. wrote:
> Kimberley,
> Thank you for your very poignant comments. The amputee is the most
> important factor in all of this, you're right, but I strongly urge you to
> re-think your lack of support. It is the consumer who is at great risk
> here. Right now, in only four states, does the amputee have a vehicle by
> which they can air their complaints. Those patients who have a gripe in the
> other 46 non-regulated states do not have a State Board to listen to them.
> Legitimate complaints will often fall on deaf ears. The safeguards you want
> so badly, as do we, can only come from regulation.
>
> Waiting to see how the garbage heap (which I've been part of for 33 years)
> gets swept clean does not present a pretty picture. If physical therapy
> gets the act passed, you will then be treated by an individual who,
> although licensed, has only had a minimal amount of education IN orthotics
> & prosthetics. Most have had only a familiarization course in college. I
> know this for a fact as I have taught that portion of their education.
> After graduation, they go on to be therapists, not orthotists and
> prosthetists. I'm not sure about you, but I seek out the specialist when I
> need medical attention, not someone who is only familiar with or has simply
> seen pictures of my particular problem.
>
> Work with us rather than against us. As consumers you will have a strong
> voice when we go to Capitol Hill with our licensing requests. Stick with
> us, we're not all as bad as you feel we are. I certainly don't speak for
> the entire field so if you feel my comments are crap deal with me, don't
> condemn the other 3000 certifees in the country.
>
> Joseph F. Carideo Jr., CP
> Newport News, VA, 23606
> (757) 873-1984
> (757) 873- 9755 FAX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kimberley Barreda [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 11:59 AM
> To: Joseph F. Carideo Jr.
> Subject: Re: PT Practice Act--cause for concern
>
> Until there are safeguards in place to protect the amputee from hacks and
> just plain shoddy prosthetists, you wont find any backing in the consumer
> segment.
>
> We're waiting on pins and needles to see this garbage heap swept clean.
>
> You're all so worried about how things affect you that you (as an industry)
> forget who is the ONLY REQUIRED factor in this industry - us - the amputee.
>
> Just more crap at our expense.
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 03/03/2000 at 10:50 AM Joseph F. Carideo Jr. wrote:
>
> >This is what I've been talking about folks! We have got to investigate
> >further what the rules and regulations are in our individual states and
> act
> >accordingly. I brought up Gary's article some time ago and got many
> >disparaging comments from practitioners around the country. When the
> >physical therapists are licensed to provide orthotic & prosthetic
> services,
> >those unregulated states will not have a say in what type device is
> >provided nor how the device be fabricated. Remember this, they will be the
> >ones recognized by the state, NOT YOU!!! And if desired, they can have the
> >state come in and close you down for operating without a license, which
> you
> >are unable to get!!! Get ready for a vicious circle!
> >
> >Obviously, the time has come, to come out from under the banner of
> >protecting the general public. Although this may be true, we need to
> >educate our state legislators, and those powers that be, that there are
> >talented professionals out there, educated specifically in orthotics &
> >prosthetics. We are not simply looking for an extension of our scope of
> >practice (we don't even have a scope of practice in most states!) We are
> >looking to regulate and license what IS our practice - orthotics &
> >prosthetics.
> >
> >Joseph F. Carideo Jr., CP
> >Newport News, VA, 23606
> >(757) 873-1984
> >(757) 873- 9755 FAX
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: <Email Address Redacted> [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 9:49 PM
> >To: <Email Address Redacted>
> >Subject: Re: PT Practice Act--cause for concern
> >
> >NATIONAL MODEL PRACTICE ACT FOR PHYSICAL THERAPISTS:
> >CAUSE FOR CONCERN TO O&P
> >
> >There is a movement afoot reportedly in all 50 states to enact legislation
> >to
> >clarify the practice of physical therapy. The intent of such a model
> >practice act is to create uniformity from one state to the next, rather
> >than
> >have a patchwork of diverse scopes of practice as defined by each separate
> >state legislature.
> >
> >A review of the physical therapy model practice act, however, appears to
> be
> >an encroachment into the scope of practice of prosthetists and orthotists
> >across the country. The proposed act states in Article 1D (2): The
> >'Practice of Physical Therapy' means: ...Alleviating impairments and
> >functional limitations by designing, implementing and modifying
> therapeutic
> >interventions that include, but are not limited to...assistive and
> adaptive
> >or
> >thotic, prosthetic, protective and supportive devices and equipment.
> >[italics mine] The ambiguity in that language is enough to cause
> >consternation to all of us in our field.
> >
> >In all likelihood, there are some states in which the physical therapy
> >model
> >practice act has already been enacted into law. States like Washington
> >which
> >retain lobbyists may already be aware of these developments and may have
> >been
> >alerted to the status of the local physical therapy efforts in this
> regard.
> >Further, in those states where O&P licensure is already in place, the O&P
> >community has greater clout for insisting on providing input regarding
> any
> >reference to prosthetics and orthotics in a new state bill that revises
> the
> >physical therapy scope of practice.
> >
> >If you practice P&O in a state which lacks O&P regulation in the form of
> >licensure and your state association does not retain a lobbyist, you may
> be
> >in for a rude surprise. The fact is that a legislative bill codifying
> that
> >physical therapists are licensed to design, implement and modify
> >...orthotic
> >and prosthetic devices may already have become state statute in you
> locale
> >or is about to be. In that scenario, it is not hyperbole to state that
> >physical therapists will be licensed to perform prosthetics-orthotics in
> >your
> >state while you are not!
> >
> >Any legislation pertaining to the implementation of the national physical
> >therapy
> >model practice act in your state may be readily found through a search of
> >your state's legislative web site.
> >
> >David Varnau, LPO, CPO
> >
> >
Citation
George Boyer, “Re: PT Practice Act--cause for concern,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 8, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/213931.
