US-politics: PT Legislation

US-politics: PT Legislation

Gary M. Berke

3/3/2000

FYI, attached web page, go to model practice act, page 2, definitions of
Physical Therapist.

<URL Redacted>

Gary M. Berke MS, CP
Assistant Professor, Orthopaedic Surgery
University of Oklahoma
<Email Address Redacted>


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph F. Carideo Jr. [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 3:50 PM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: Re: New PT Legislation - cause for concern for O&P?!?


Todd,
You pose some very salient points. However, I think you may be looking at
things through rose colored glasses when you say don't worry too much about
the PT's. If anyone has a copy of the act and is willing to post it to this
board I think everyone concerned will be able to draw whatever conclusions
they have regarding this act, on their own.

Since it is a scope of practice issue, and they are looking to include
prosthetics and orthotics, are they following any guidelines regarding
grandfathering in those already performing the duties of an orthotist or
prosthetist? I doubt it, but if so, then they will have to include
orthotists and prosthetists on the entire scope of physical therapy
practice. I don't want to be a PT, but I would be willing to defend the
fact that any certified prosthetist can and does provide superior physical
therapy to amputees on a daily basis. Few physical therapists can make the
same claim, yet they want it included in their scope. They should be made
to sit for examination just like all the other individuals seeking
certification in O & P. I make the same argument for orthotists &
prosthetists wanting to provide physical therapy - let them take the state
boards in PT. Boy, what an uproar that would cause if we wanted to do
that! Heaven's forbid, someone even imagining they could perform physical
therapy without a license.

It's a joke to think this act will pass, but given the numbers, and the
lobbying support, it just might.

Joseph F. Carideo Jr., CP, LP
Newport News, VA, 23606
(757) 873-1984
(757) 873- 9755 FAX

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Griffin [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 4:07 PM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: New PT Legislation - cause for concern for O&P?!?

Maybe I'm a little naiive, but it seems to me you guys are reading WAY too
much into this legislation. The PT's of this country are (and have been
for
several years) trying to protect the business they are in now, not trying
to
branch out into yours. Therapists (like every other health care field)
have
taken a bath on reimbursement in recent years, and many outpatient PT
clinics are using other, less costly, allied health care professionals.
 For
example, they may employ one or more certified athletic trainers who treat
patients under the supervision of a PT, instead of having a staff full of
PTs. This means fewer PT jobs on the market, and THIS is what concerns
them!

Basically, this legislation is the PT's political attempt to hoard every
other health care professional out of rehab. To be honest, it reminds me a
lot of the arguements I hear in here regarding O&P (sometimes narrow-minded
and VERY one-sided). Just like O&P, the role of a therapist is crucial in
the spectrum of healthcare. But does that mean that a therapist (or
orthotist) is the ONLY qualified professional that should be allowed to
perform ANY duty that falls within the scope of your practice? Hardly.

So don't worry too much about the PT's. Sure, there will always be a few
who produce foot orthotics or fit knee braces, but that is not their focus
nor their goal. Besides, any legislation passed by either group is not
likely to change it!

Todd Griffin MS, ATC
Certified Athletic Trainer
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at <URL Redacted>