Rege:
I'm not sure if you're a PT but PT's professional development is being
hindered (and was for quite some time). In some states manipulation is not
covered in the practice act, direct access is not covered in several state's
practice act, and EMG's are often not able to be done by PT's. If an EMG is
done only the technical fee is reimbursed and often not the professional /
interpretation fee. So you see we are still being hindered because it is a
fight for a "piece of the pie". I don't think it's right or wrong it's just
the way other professionals want to protect their turf, it's natural.
Unfortunately there is a good reason to support LMT's not becoming licensed.
If you look at the back of any alternative lifestyle newspaper in any major
city in the US massage is code for prostitution, don't fool yourself. On
the other hand supporting licensure may improve the quality of LMT's. It
may also lessen the strength of licensure, if a bunch of prostitutes were
licensed healthcare providers. Then there's the public's image of PT's and
wondering how we're different from them?
In the end, if the public want's to be protected from LMT's I think it's a
good thing. Hopefully, PT's can help steer the direction of the
qualifications required for licensure as Sarah wrote in a previous post.
Patrick Zerr
www.apluspt.com
The easiest way to prepare for the National PT Exam!
www.summitpt.com
Summit Physical Therapy; Tempe, Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: "Regis Turocy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: soap box
> Jason,
>
> And we don't want a "piece of the pie"!! Who do you think did EMG's before
> we decided that it was within our scope of practice to perform them. Some
> would say that direct access is getting a "piece of someone's pie". There
> was a time in our history when we fought for licensure. Can you imagine
> were we would be now if someone hindered our professional development. I
> think we need to be careful not to cover ourselves with a blanket of
> self-rightousness (PT's tend to have massive egos as perceived by many
> other professions).We can accomplish many of the objectives you want to
> "fight" for without projecting an image of superiority.
>
> Rege
>
>
>
>
> At 06:22 AM 12/20/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > Sarah,
> >Jason Steffe, PT, MS, MTC
> >Physiotherapy Associates
> >1901 Phoenix Blvd, Suite 205
> >College Park, GA. 30349
> >Ph: 770-907-1023
> >Fax:770-907-5608 ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah Fern
> >Striffler To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, December 19,
> >2001 7:03 PM Subject: Re: soap box
> > Why is the APTA fighting licensure of massage therapists in
Georgia?
> >IMO. not having a license law is inviting prostitutes to call
themselves
> >massage therapists. They are not billing for PT, as many other
> >professions are. Sarah Fern Striffler, PT, LMT (licensed massage
> >therapist--New York) ----- Original Message ----- From:
> >Jason Steffe To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday,
> >December 19, 2001 6:46 PM Subject: soap box
> > (soap box moment follows:) Dear List, whose
> >outcome will partially shape our future (again IMO) PT's
> >from manipulation in several states and with Medicare Part B
patients.
> > (and we all know that insurers are apt to follow
Medicare
> >guidelines) *retained PT's ability to fabricate orthotics
in
> >several states (including Georgia , my state) VERY exciting
> >IMO) *In my state (Georgia) we are fighting the massage
> >therapists (they introduced a bill for licensure), direct access
> >(heavy opposition from the MD's and DC's of course) and ATC's recently
won
> > the ability to bill insurance. Thank you for
> >reading my soap box!
> >Jason Steffe, PT, MS, MTC
> >Physiotherapy Associates
> >1901 Phoenix Blvd, Suite 205
> >College Park, GA. 30349
> >Ph: 770-907-1023
> >Fax:770-907-5608
> >
> >
> Rege Turocy, DHCE, PT
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Physical Therapy
> Rangos School of Health Sciences
> Duquesne University
> Pittsburgh, PA 15282
> 412/396-5545
>
|