The Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) is a postbaccaluareate degree conferred upon successful completion of a doctoral level professional (entry-level) or postprofessional education program. The specific nomenclature "DPT" is not a substitute or alternative for the physical therapist clinical designator "PT."
My concerns regarding reimbursement is that if we cannot document the efficacy of our services, third party payors may not cover these services. I do not believe PT specialization (orthopaedic, rehab, . . . ) effects reimbursement here in the US.
While my original post said I try to base my treatments on some science, this is not a hard and fast rule for me. Patient presentation and clinical experience, as well as science dictates my choice of treatment options. Thank you for your feedback.
Lori
----- Original Message -----From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Frank ConijnTo: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 4:16 PMSubject: PT and EBM (Lori's question)Dear Lori,The way I see it:-- PT interventions will *have to* be/get evidence-based if there is significant doubt about the efficacy (doubt, whether under physicians/insurers or patients).-- PT interventions will *have to* be/get evidence-based if there is significant doubt about the working mechanism(s) and no efficacy studies have been done yet that would prove that it is effective.-- PT interventions should *preferably* be/get evidence-based in most other cases, but this should not be understood as: "If some PT interventions are not evidence-based, it means they do not work."What exactly do you mean with the Doctorate of PT? A MSc/PhD, or the title "Doctor of PT"? I think the first is a good idea (the understanding of even the basic principles of scientific research, and what that means for our professional standards, is sometimes dramatically low). But regarding the second: the title "Doctor of Chiropractic", as all chiropractors have (DC), has not prevented chiropractic from having come under heavy fire.Regarding the reimbursements, (just) for your information: all PT treatments are reimbursed equally here in The Netherlands. There is no differentiation between different kinds of treatments, be it that manipulative therapy (MT), if one officially is a MT and the referral specifically asks for MT, has a 50% higher tariff. That also counts for pediatric PT.R.,FrankF.J.J. Conijn, PT
Editor, Physical Therapist's Literature Update
The Internet Journal of Literature Updates for Clinicians in Primary Care Orthopaedic Medicine & Rehabilitation
www.ptlitup.com----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----Van: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Lori SabadoAan: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]Verzonden: zaterdag 24 januari 2004 18:40Onderwerp: Kinesiotape and ReimbursementI have been following this very lively discussion regarding kinesiotaping. We have had similar discussions amongst my colleagues. While I remain skeptical and have stopped used kinesiotaping due to lack of evidence, others have not.
I am an active member of the American Physical Therapy Association, our professional organization. I recognize that our profession and educational level is moving toward and has indeed arrived at a Doctorate of Physical Therapy. We are striving to become the practitioner of choice when patients require health care interventions for movement related dysfunctions. I believe this level of responsibility requires evidence that our interventions make a difference. What do PTs and PT students think? I question anecdotal statements, or even the fact that Lance Armstrong uses kinesiotape (I am a
big fan).
I attended a continuing education Course on Coding and Reimbursement yesterday. Which brings up the question - How do you charge for kinesiotape? Without published evidence in reputable journals, are we expecting third party payors to reimburse this service?
Thanks for your input.
Lori Sabado, PT
Seattle, Washington