Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

RE: FW: physician ownership

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

A study by the AHA, the organization with the most need and incentive to

demonstrate these exact findings, can hardly be seen as completely

credible. Hospitals are the ultimate in conflict of interest; they have

been profiting wildly from PT and other Ancillary services for decades.

Try being a regular staff hospital Physician and refer a PT patient

outside your hospital and see how far you get. What of the trend towards

Hospitals owning their own Physician groups? Guess where all those PT

referrals go - it usually isn't the little mom and pop shop down the

street.

Does increased utilization and higher costs absolutely mean lapse in

ethics, inappropriate? The US trends toward underutilization of many

services, especially PT, reference BBA of 1997. Compare our utilization

rates in the US with those in countries with universal healthcare? Our

healthcare system is set up through the third party payers and designed

to decrease utilization. United Health Providers made $800 million in

the first quarter this year.

In addition, you're making a fairly abstract comparison - the procedures

you mentioned are performed by the physician. It's totally their

decision to provide or not provide care. With PT - you are supposedly

dealing with highly educated professionals who are seeking direct

access, primary care privileges and full professional autonomy. Yet

everyone and their brother just insist that we cannot trust any Physical

Therapist to decide who they work for, let alone decide which patients

are appropriate to be under their care. Which is it? Are we capable of

making these decisions, or are we subservient morons incapable of

resisting the least pressure to do something unethical? And, this is the

same profession that not 15 years ago was falling all over itself to

sell out small practices to the highest corporate bidder. Not many were

standing back from the trough then.

In addition, there is growing data within the MGMA (admittedly, an

interested party, but you cited the AHA) to suggest that medical group

practices with ancillary services are increasingly both what consumers

are demanding, and where superior clinical outcomes are being found. The

clinical model of Multi-specialty Group practices with ancillary

services works, both clinically and yes, economically - that fact cannot

be disputed. Shall we prevent a PCP from referring to a Cardiologist

within his group? Both profit from the referral.

No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree that exclusive PT

ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal of our profession,

but I am getting really frustrated by the way we are trying to achieve

it. There are a lot of good people out there whose only aim is to make a

fair wage for a fair days work. The rhetoric generally (I'm not

suggesting your note here Tom) is in many cases getting beyond that of a

civil discourse. But there's a lot of money at stake here. This is an

economic argument, not a moral one. Punitive legislative recourse (as in

SC; good luck trying to get Physician support on any bill there for the

next 20 years) simply will not work in the great majority of cases. We

simply lose political capital that we've spent decades trying to build.

The only viable option for us is to get federal direct access, so that

we can take our case directly to the consumer and compete on the same

level as everyone else. We also need to improve our ability to convince

patients to part with cash for our services. We haven't traditionally

been able to do that well, though we are slowly getting better. Remove

the incentive through normalizing market forces. Until patients know

they don't need to see a doctor, and don't have to see a doctor to get

to PT, this problem is not going away. No law can be written that can't

be gotten around by dedicated special interests. Then we can look at the

State corporation acts and try to better protect, develop our ownership

rights.

Finally, where is the patient in all of this? Isn't it about time that

we expected more of them? It is ultimately the responsibility of the

patient to ensure that they are being cared for in a manner consistent

with their beliefs and practices. It shouldn't take clinical knowledge

to know that if you go to PT, you should actually occasionally see a PT,

or that when you're better, you don't need to come anymore.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

A study by the AHA, the organization with the most need and incentive to

demonstrate these exact findings, can hardly be seen as completely

credible. Hospitals are the ultimate in conflict of interest; they have

been profiting wildly from PT and other Ancillary services for decades.

Try being a regular staff hospital Physician and refer a PT patient

outside your hospital and see how far you get. What of the trend towards

Hospitals owning their own Physician groups? Guess where all those PT

referrals go - it usually isn't the little mom and pop shop down the

street.

Does increased utilization and higher costs absolutely mean lapse in

ethics, inappropriate? The US trends toward underutilization of many

services, especially PT, reference BBA of 1997. Compare our utilization

rates in the US with those in countries with universal healthcare? Our

healthcare system is set up through the third party payers and designed

to decrease utilization. United Health Providers made $800 million in

the first quarter this year.

In addition, you're making a fairly abstract comparison - the procedures

you mentioned are performed by the physician. It's totally their

decision to provide or not provide care. With PT - you are supposedly

dealing with highly educated professionals who are seeking direct

access, primary care privileges and full professional autonomy. Yet

everyone and their brother just insist that we cannot trust any Physical

Therapist to decide who they work for, let alone decide which patients

are appropriate to be under their care. Which is it? Are we capable of

making these decisions, or are we subservient morons incapable of

resisting the least pressure to do something unethical? And, this is the

same profession that not 15 years ago was falling all over itself to

sell out small practices to the highest corporate bidder. Not many were

standing back from the trough then.

In addition, there is growing data within the MGMA (admittedly, an

interested party, but you cited the AHA) to suggest that medical group

practices with ancillary services are increasingly both what consumers

are demanding, and where superior clinical outcomes are being found. The

clinical model of Multi-specialty Group practices with ancillary

services works, both clinically and yes, economically - that fact cannot

be disputed. Shall we prevent a PCP from referring to a Cardiologist

within his group? Both profit from the referral.

No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree that exclusive PT

ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal of our profession,

but I am getting really frustrated by the way we are trying to achieve

it. There are a lot of good people out there whose only aim is to make a

fair wage for a fair days work. The rhetoric generally (I'm not

suggesting your note here Tom) is in many cases getting beyond that of a

civil discourse. But there's a lot of money at stake here. This is an

economic argument, not a moral one. Punitive legislative recourse (as in

SC; good luck trying to get Physician support on any bill there for the

next 20 years) simply will not work in the great majority of cases. We

simply lose political capital that we've spent decades trying to build.

The only viable option for us is to get federal direct access, so that

we can take our case directly to the consumer and compete on the same

level as everyone else. We also need to improve our ability to convince

patients to part with cash for our services. We haven't traditionally

been able to do that well, though we are slowly getting better. Remove

the incentive through normalizing market forces. Until patients know

they don't need to see a doctor, and don't have to see a doctor to get

to PT, this problem is not going away. No law can be written that can't

be gotten around by dedicated special interests. Then we can look at the

State corporation acts and try to better protect, develop our ownership

rights.

Finally, where is the patient in all of this? Isn't it about time that

we expected more of them? It is ultimately the responsibility of the

patient to ensure that they are being cared for in a manner consistent

with their beliefs and practices. It shouldn't take clinical knowledge

to know that if you go to PT, you should actually occasionally see a PT,

or that when you're better, you don't need to come anymore.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Interesting the AHA does a study on the high cost

procedures. Does this indicate this is where they are

feeling the loss in there surgery departments?

Tom what research have you come accross that shows

Hospitals, or coorpirations and PT owned facilities

equals appropriate spending of health care dollars?

Russ

--- Tom Howell wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> Hi everyone,

>

>

>

> Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT

> Bulletin:

>

>

>

>

> " A study

>

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedservicehosp.p

> df> by town University economist M

> , PhD, released last

> week by the American Hospital Association (AHA),

> concludes that the

> emergence of physician-owned limited-service

> hospitals in Oklahoma led to an

> increase in utilization of high-cost procedures.

> Looking at more than

> 250,000 workers' compensation claims, found

> the incidence of

> complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly

> paid procedures in Oklahoma

> City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of

> physician-owned facilities,

> even though the number of worker injuries declined.

> AHA executives noted

> that the findings raise " serious concerns about

> conflict of interest,

> implications for patient care and unnecessary

> increases in health care

> spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the

> ban on physician

> referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

>

> For those that are still defending physician owned

> practices of any type,

> here is yet another study that is showing physician

> ownership = unnecessary

> increased in health care spending. Please think

> about it. As the evidence

> mounts, can we as a profession continue to support

> it??

>

> One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab

> practices may be just as

> guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let

> these studies continue to

> be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

>

> Howell Physical Therapy

>

> Eagle, ID

>

> ptclinic@...

>

>

>

>

>

> This email and any files transmitted with it may

> contain PRIVILEGED or

> CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used

> only by the intended

> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of

> the email or any of its

> attachments, please be advised that you have

> received this email in error

> and that any use, dissemination, distribution,

> forwarding, printing or

> copying of this email or any attached files is

> strictly prohibited. If you

> have received this email in error, please

> immediately purge it and all

> attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

>

>

>

> Looking to start your own Practice?

> Visit www.InHomeRehab.com.

> Bring PTManager to your organization or State

> Association with a professional workshop or course -

> call us at 313 884-8920 to arrange

> PTManager encourages participation in your

> professional association. Join and participate now!

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Our hospital does not profit wildly from outpatient services. The

inpatients at our hospital are provided with a list of clinics locally and

out of the area when they have an order for outpatient PT. The patient

will choose who they want to go to. We prefer that they choose an outside

agency due to our volume of inpatients.

If you want to talk about profiting wildly, I know for a fact that there

several private practice PT's who have made it a point to become close

personal friends with the local physicians (especially ortho) in order to

build up their practice. Now that they are such good friends, the physical

therapists are taking personal vacations with them. Would you consider

this appropriate business practices?

Dudi Wittwer, O.T.R.

Manager, Rehab Services

Bay Area Hospital

1775 Road

Coos Bay, Oregon 97420

dwittwer@...

" Brett Windsor,

PT "

<bwindsor@thevanc To

ouverclinic.com> <PTManager >

Sent by: cc

PTManager@yahoogr

oups.com Subject

RE: FW: physician

ownership

05/09/2005 11:32

AM

Please respond to

PTManager@yahoogr

oups.com

A study by the AHA, the organization with the most need and incentive to

demonstrate these exact findings, can hardly be seen as completely

credible. Hospitals are the ultimate in conflict of interest; they have

been profiting wildly from PT and other Ancillary services for decades.

Try being a regular staff hospital Physician and refer a PT patient

outside your hospital and see how far you get. What of the trend towards

Hospitals owning their own Physician groups? Guess where all those PT

referrals go - it usually isn't the little mom and pop shop down the

street.

Does increased utilization and higher costs absolutely mean lapse in

ethics, inappropriate? The US trends toward underutilization of many

services, especially PT, reference BBA of 1997. Compare our utilization

rates in the US with those in countries with universal healthcare? Our

healthcare system is set up through the third party payers and designed

to decrease utilization. United Health Providers made $800 million in

the first quarter this year.

In addition, you're making a fairly abstract comparison - the procedures

you mentioned are performed by the physician. It's totally their

decision to provide or not provide care. With PT - you are supposedly

dealing with highly educated professionals who are seeking direct

access, primary care privileges and full professional autonomy. Yet

everyone and their brother just insist that we cannot trust any Physical

Therapist to decide who they work for, let alone decide which patients

are appropriate to be under their care. Which is it? Are we capable of

making these decisions, or are we subservient morons incapable of

resisting the least pressure to do something unethical? And, this is the

same profession that not 15 years ago was falling all over itself to

sell out small practices to the highest corporate bidder. Not many were

standing back from the trough then.

In addition, there is growing data within the MGMA (admittedly, an

interested party, but you cited the AHA) to suggest that medical group

practices with ancillary services are increasingly both what consumers

are demanding, and where superior clinical outcomes are being found. The

clinical model of Multi-specialty Group practices with ancillary

services works, both clinically and yes, economically - that fact cannot

be disputed. Shall we prevent a PCP from referring to a Cardiologist

within his group? Both profit from the referral.

No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree that exclusive PT

ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal of our profession,

but I am getting really frustrated by the way we are trying to achieve

it. There are a lot of good people out there whose only aim is to make a

fair wage for a fair days work. The rhetoric generally (I'm not

suggesting your note here Tom) is in many cases getting beyond that of a

civil discourse. But there's a lot of money at stake here. This is an

economic argument, not a moral one. Punitive legislative recourse (as in

SC; good luck trying to get Physician support on any bill there for the

next 20 years) simply will not work in the great majority of cases. We

simply lose political capital that we've spent decades trying to build.

The only viable option for us is to get federal direct access, so that

we can take our case directly to the consumer and compete on the same

level as everyone else. We also need to improve our ability to convince

patients to part with cash for our services. We haven't traditionally

been able to do that well, though we are slowly getting better. Remove

the incentive through normalizing market forces. Until patients know

they don't need to see a doctor, and don't have to see a doctor to get

to PT, this problem is not going away. No law can be written that can't

be gotten around by dedicated special interests. Then we can look at the

State corporation acts and try to better protect, develop our ownership

rights.

Finally, where is the patient in all of this? Isn't it about time that

we expected more of them? It is ultimately the responsibility of the

patient to ensure that they are being cared for in a manner consistent

with their beliefs and practices. It shouldn't take clinical knowledge

to know that if you go to PT, you should actually occasionally see a PT,

or that when you're better, you don't need to come anymore.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Our hospital does not profit wildly from outpatient services. The

inpatients at our hospital are provided with a list of clinics locally and

out of the area when they have an order for outpatient PT. The patient

will choose who they want to go to. We prefer that they choose an outside

agency due to our volume of inpatients.

If you want to talk about profiting wildly, I know for a fact that there

several private practice PT's who have made it a point to become close

personal friends with the local physicians (especially ortho) in order to

build up their practice. Now that they are such good friends, the physical

therapists are taking personal vacations with them. Would you consider

this appropriate business practices?

Dudi Wittwer, O.T.R.

Manager, Rehab Services

Bay Area Hospital

1775 Road

Coos Bay, Oregon 97420

dwittwer@...

" Brett Windsor,

PT "

<bwindsor@thevanc To

ouverclinic.com> <PTManager >

Sent by: cc

PTManager@yahoogr

oups.com Subject

RE: FW: physician

ownership

05/09/2005 11:32

AM

Please respond to

PTManager@yahoogr

oups.com

A study by the AHA, the organization with the most need and incentive to

demonstrate these exact findings, can hardly be seen as completely

credible. Hospitals are the ultimate in conflict of interest; they have

been profiting wildly from PT and other Ancillary services for decades.

Try being a regular staff hospital Physician and refer a PT patient

outside your hospital and see how far you get. What of the trend towards

Hospitals owning their own Physician groups? Guess where all those PT

referrals go - it usually isn't the little mom and pop shop down the

street.

Does increased utilization and higher costs absolutely mean lapse in

ethics, inappropriate? The US trends toward underutilization of many

services, especially PT, reference BBA of 1997. Compare our utilization

rates in the US with those in countries with universal healthcare? Our

healthcare system is set up through the third party payers and designed

to decrease utilization. United Health Providers made $800 million in

the first quarter this year.

In addition, you're making a fairly abstract comparison - the procedures

you mentioned are performed by the physician. It's totally their

decision to provide or not provide care. With PT - you are supposedly

dealing with highly educated professionals who are seeking direct

access, primary care privileges and full professional autonomy. Yet

everyone and their brother just insist that we cannot trust any Physical

Therapist to decide who they work for, let alone decide which patients

are appropriate to be under their care. Which is it? Are we capable of

making these decisions, or are we subservient morons incapable of

resisting the least pressure to do something unethical? And, this is the

same profession that not 15 years ago was falling all over itself to

sell out small practices to the highest corporate bidder. Not many were

standing back from the trough then.

In addition, there is growing data within the MGMA (admittedly, an

interested party, but you cited the AHA) to suggest that medical group

practices with ancillary services are increasingly both what consumers

are demanding, and where superior clinical outcomes are being found. The

clinical model of Multi-specialty Group practices with ancillary

services works, both clinically and yes, economically - that fact cannot

be disputed. Shall we prevent a PCP from referring to a Cardiologist

within his group? Both profit from the referral.

No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree that exclusive PT

ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal of our profession,

but I am getting really frustrated by the way we are trying to achieve

it. There are a lot of good people out there whose only aim is to make a

fair wage for a fair days work. The rhetoric generally (I'm not

suggesting your note here Tom) is in many cases getting beyond that of a

civil discourse. But there's a lot of money at stake here. This is an

economic argument, not a moral one. Punitive legislative recourse (as in

SC; good luck trying to get Physician support on any bill there for the

next 20 years) simply will not work in the great majority of cases. We

simply lose political capital that we've spent decades trying to build.

The only viable option for us is to get federal direct access, so that

we can take our case directly to the consumer and compete on the same

level as everyone else. We also need to improve our ability to convince

patients to part with cash for our services. We haven't traditionally

been able to do that well, though we are slowly getting better. Remove

the incentive through normalizing market forces. Until patients know

they don't need to see a doctor, and don't have to see a doctor to get

to PT, this problem is not going away. No law can be written that can't

be gotten around by dedicated special interests. Then we can look at the

State corporation acts and try to better protect, develop our ownership

rights.

Finally, where is the patient in all of this? Isn't it about time that

we expected more of them? It is ultimately the responsibility of the

patient to ensure that they are being cared for in a manner consistent

with their beliefs and practices. It shouldn't take clinical knowledge

to know that if you go to PT, you should actually occasionally see a PT,

or that when you're better, you don't need to come anymore.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

My point was that the Hospital industry as a whole has profited wildly

from the use of ancillary services. About that there can be no question

- profits are not getting into the hands of PT's.

Your point is extremely well taken and actually reinforces the point I

was making - the potential for problems exists within every professional

- the individual has to take responsibility.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

My point was that the Hospital industry as a whole has profited wildly

from the use of ancillary services. About that there can be no question

- profits are not getting into the hands of PT's.

Your point is extremely well taken and actually reinforces the point I

was making - the potential for problems exists within every professional

- the individual has to take responsibility.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

To Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT,

That is one of the best responses I have read on the list serve in many a

month. I particularly enjoyed the " if you go to PT, you should actually

occasionally see a PT "

Thank you,

Steve Marcum PT,

Kentucky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

To Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT,

That is one of the best responses I have read on the list serve in many a

month. I particularly enjoyed the " if you go to PT, you should actually

occasionally see a PT "

Thank you,

Steve Marcum PT,

Kentucky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Brett,

You didn't mention hospital organizations who have their own insurance companies

and therefore can dictate where their patients go for care. This is another

example of how groups other than physician owned are jockeying for patient

referrals. I get the feeling that many are at fault, but we point the finger at

a certain few.

Matt Dvorak, PT

________________________________

From: PTManager on behalf of Brett Windsor, PT

Sent: Mon 5/9/2005 1:32 PM

To: PTManager

Subject: RE: FW: physician ownership

A study by the AHA, the organization with the most need and incentive to

demonstrate these exact findings, can hardly be seen as completely

credible. Hospitals are the ultimate in conflict of interest; they have

been profiting wildly from PT and other Ancillary services for decades.

Try being a regular staff hospital Physician and refer a PT patient

outside your hospital and see how far you get. What of the trend towards

Hospitals owning their own Physician groups? Guess where all those PT

referrals go - it usually isn't the little mom and pop shop down the

street.

Does increased utilization and higher costs absolutely mean lapse in

ethics, inappropriate? The US trends toward underutilization of many

services, especially PT, reference BBA of 1997. Compare our utilization

rates in the US with those in countries with universal healthcare? Our

healthcare system is set up through the third party payers and designed

to decrease utilization. United Health Providers made $800 million in

the first quarter this year.

In addition, you're making a fairly abstract comparison - the procedures

you mentioned are performed by the physician. It's totally their

decision to provide or not provide care. With PT - you are supposedly

dealing with highly educated professionals who are seeking direct

access, primary care privileges and full professional autonomy. Yet

everyone and their brother just insist that we cannot trust any Physical

Therapist to decide who they work for, let alone decide which patients

are appropriate to be under their care. Which is it? Are we capable of

making these decisions, or are we subservient morons incapable of

resisting the least pressure to do something unethical? And, this is the

same profession that not 15 years ago was falling all over itself to

sell out small practices to the highest corporate bidder. Not many were

standing back from the trough then.

In addition, there is growing data within the MGMA (admittedly, an

interested party, but you cited the AHA) to suggest that medical group

practices with ancillary services are increasingly both what consumers

are demanding, and where superior clinical outcomes are being found. The

clinical model of Multi-specialty Group practices with ancillary

services works, both clinically and yes, economically - that fact cannot

be disputed. Shall we prevent a PCP from referring to a Cardiologist

within his group? Both profit from the referral.

No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree that exclusive PT

ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal of our profession,

but I am getting really frustrated by the way we are trying to achieve

it. There are a lot of good people out there whose only aim is to make a

fair wage for a fair days work. The rhetoric generally (I'm not

suggesting your note here Tom) is in many cases getting beyond that of a

civil discourse. But there's a lot of money at stake here. This is an

economic argument, not a moral one. Punitive legislative recourse (as in

SC; good luck trying to get Physician support on any bill there for the

next 20 years) simply will not work in the great majority of cases. We

simply lose political capital that we've spent decades trying to build.

The only viable option for us is to get federal direct access, so that

we can take our case directly to the consumer and compete on the same

level as everyone else. We also need to improve our ability to convince

patients to part with cash for our services. We haven't traditionally

been able to do that well, though we are slowly getting better. Remove

the incentive through normalizing market forces. Until patients know

they don't need to see a doctor, and don't have to see a doctor to get

to PT, this problem is not going away. No law can be written that can't

be gotten around by dedicated special interests. Then we can look at the

State corporation acts and try to better protect, develop our ownership

rights.

Finally, where is the patient in all of this? Isn't it about time that

we expected more of them? It is ultimately the responsibility of the

patient to ensure that they are being cared for in a manner consistent

with their beliefs and practices. It shouldn't take clinical knowledge

to know that if you go to PT, you should actually occasionally see a PT,

or that when you're better, you don't need to come anymore.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Brett,

You didn't mention hospital organizations who have their own insurance companies

and therefore can dictate where their patients go for care. This is another

example of how groups other than physician owned are jockeying for patient

referrals. I get the feeling that many are at fault, but we point the finger at

a certain few.

Matt Dvorak, PT

________________________________

From: PTManager on behalf of Brett Windsor, PT

Sent: Mon 5/9/2005 1:32 PM

To: PTManager

Subject: RE: FW: physician ownership

A study by the AHA, the organization with the most need and incentive to

demonstrate these exact findings, can hardly be seen as completely

credible. Hospitals are the ultimate in conflict of interest; they have

been profiting wildly from PT and other Ancillary services for decades.

Try being a regular staff hospital Physician and refer a PT patient

outside your hospital and see how far you get. What of the trend towards

Hospitals owning their own Physician groups? Guess where all those PT

referrals go - it usually isn't the little mom and pop shop down the

street.

Does increased utilization and higher costs absolutely mean lapse in

ethics, inappropriate? The US trends toward underutilization of many

services, especially PT, reference BBA of 1997. Compare our utilization

rates in the US with those in countries with universal healthcare? Our

healthcare system is set up through the third party payers and designed

to decrease utilization. United Health Providers made $800 million in

the first quarter this year.

In addition, you're making a fairly abstract comparison - the procedures

you mentioned are performed by the physician. It's totally their

decision to provide or not provide care. With PT - you are supposedly

dealing with highly educated professionals who are seeking direct

access, primary care privileges and full professional autonomy. Yet

everyone and their brother just insist that we cannot trust any Physical

Therapist to decide who they work for, let alone decide which patients

are appropriate to be under their care. Which is it? Are we capable of

making these decisions, or are we subservient morons incapable of

resisting the least pressure to do something unethical? And, this is the

same profession that not 15 years ago was falling all over itself to

sell out small practices to the highest corporate bidder. Not many were

standing back from the trough then.

In addition, there is growing data within the MGMA (admittedly, an

interested party, but you cited the AHA) to suggest that medical group

practices with ancillary services are increasingly both what consumers

are demanding, and where superior clinical outcomes are being found. The

clinical model of Multi-specialty Group practices with ancillary

services works, both clinically and yes, economically - that fact cannot

be disputed. Shall we prevent a PCP from referring to a Cardiologist

within his group? Both profit from the referral.

No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree that exclusive PT

ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal of our profession,

but I am getting really frustrated by the way we are trying to achieve

it. There are a lot of good people out there whose only aim is to make a

fair wage for a fair days work. The rhetoric generally (I'm not

suggesting your note here Tom) is in many cases getting beyond that of a

civil discourse. But there's a lot of money at stake here. This is an

economic argument, not a moral one. Punitive legislative recourse (as in

SC; good luck trying to get Physician support on any bill there for the

next 20 years) simply will not work in the great majority of cases. We

simply lose political capital that we've spent decades trying to build.

The only viable option for us is to get federal direct access, so that

we can take our case directly to the consumer and compete on the same

level as everyone else. We also need to improve our ability to convince

patients to part with cash for our services. We haven't traditionally

been able to do that well, though we are slowly getting better. Remove

the incentive through normalizing market forces. Until patients know

they don't need to see a doctor, and don't have to see a doctor to get

to PT, this problem is not going away. No law can be written that can't

be gotten around by dedicated special interests. Then we can look at the

State corporation acts and try to better protect, develop our ownership

rights.

Finally, where is the patient in all of this? Isn't it about time that

we expected more of them? It is ultimately the responsibility of the

patient to ensure that they are being cared for in a manner consistent

with their beliefs and practices. It shouldn't take clinical knowledge

to know that if you go to PT, you should actually occasionally see a PT,

or that when you're better, you don't need to come anymore.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

" No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree that exclusive PT

ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal of our profession... "

Brett;

I recall a comment on this issue that I once heard from a therapist who at

the time was working part-time for a physician. She stated, " I hope that

POPTS are made illegal, because then I will have to quit. " Is this your

hope as well? I ask because your comment above seems to indicate to me that

you wish these situations did not exist, but in the mean time you are

comfortable with being in one yourself. Can you see how this could strike

some as simply being a rationalization?

Ken Mailly, PT

Mailly & Inglett Consulting, LLC

Tel. 973 692-0033

Fax 973 633-9557

68 Seneca Trail

Wayne, NJ, 07470

www.NJPTAid.biz

Bridging the Gap!

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

" No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree that exclusive PT

ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal of our profession... "

Brett;

I recall a comment on this issue that I once heard from a therapist who at

the time was working part-time for a physician. She stated, " I hope that

POPTS are made illegal, because then I will have to quit. " Is this your

hope as well? I ask because your comment above seems to indicate to me that

you wish these situations did not exist, but in the mean time you are

comfortable with being in one yourself. Can you see how this could strike

some as simply being a rationalization?

Ken Mailly, PT

Mailly & Inglett Consulting, LLC

Tel. 973 692-0033

Fax 973 633-9557

68 Seneca Trail

Wayne, NJ, 07470

www.NJPTAid.biz

Bridging the Gap!

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

While we are on the POPTS discussion, what does everyone expect the

ramifications to be in South Carolina now that things look good for

SCAPTA's victory?

Will they doctors have to sell the ancillary services or can they just

continue to provide them using massage therapists, ATCs or unlicensed

personnel instead of PTs and bill it as incident to? If MDs can do

this, they will continue to provide the ancillary service in-house

with cheaper personnel, which will increase their profits and give

other professions a bigger chunk of our market as PTs.

> " No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree that exclusive PT

> ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal of our profession... "

>

> Brett;

>

> I recall a comment on this issue that I once heard from a therapist who at

> the time was working part-time for a physician. She stated, " I hope that

> POPTS are made illegal, because then I will have to quit. " Is this your

> hope as well? I ask because your comment above seems to indicate to me that

> you wish these situations did not exist, but in the mean time you are

> comfortable with being in one yourself. Can you see how this could strike

> some as simply being a rationalization?

>

> Ken Mailly, PT

> Mailly & Inglett Consulting, LLC

> Tel. 973 692-0033

> Fax 973 633-9557

> 68 Seneca Trail

> Wayne, NJ, 07470

> www.NJPTAid.biz

>

> Bridging the Gap!

>

>

> FW: physician ownership

>

> Hi everyone,

>

> Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

>

> " A study

> <http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

> sp.p

> df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

> last

> week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

> emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

> to an

> increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

> 250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

> complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

> Oklahoma

> City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

> facilities,

> even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

> that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

> implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

> spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

> referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

>

> For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

> type,

> here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

> unnecessary

> increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

> evidence

> mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

>

> One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

> guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

> to

> be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

>

> Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

>

> Howell Physical Therapy

>

> Eagle, ID

>

> ptclinic@...

>

> This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

> CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

> its

> attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

> error

> and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

> copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

> you

> have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

> attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

While we are on the POPTS discussion, what does everyone expect the

ramifications to be in South Carolina now that things look good for

SCAPTA's victory?

Will they doctors have to sell the ancillary services or can they just

continue to provide them using massage therapists, ATCs or unlicensed

personnel instead of PTs and bill it as incident to? If MDs can do

this, they will continue to provide the ancillary service in-house

with cheaper personnel, which will increase their profits and give

other professions a bigger chunk of our market as PTs.

> " No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree that exclusive PT

> ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal of our profession... "

>

> Brett;

>

> I recall a comment on this issue that I once heard from a therapist who at

> the time was working part-time for a physician. She stated, " I hope that

> POPTS are made illegal, because then I will have to quit. " Is this your

> hope as well? I ask because your comment above seems to indicate to me that

> you wish these situations did not exist, but in the mean time you are

> comfortable with being in one yourself. Can you see how this could strike

> some as simply being a rationalization?

>

> Ken Mailly, PT

> Mailly & Inglett Consulting, LLC

> Tel. 973 692-0033

> Fax 973 633-9557

> 68 Seneca Trail

> Wayne, NJ, 07470

> www.NJPTAid.biz

>

> Bridging the Gap!

>

>

> FW: physician ownership

>

> Hi everyone,

>

> Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

>

> " A study

> <http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

> sp.p

> df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

> last

> week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

> emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

> to an

> increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

> 250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

> complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

> Oklahoma

> City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

> facilities,

> even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

> that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

> implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

> spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

> referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

>

> For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

> type,

> here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

> unnecessary

> increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

> evidence

> mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

>

> One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

> guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

> to

> be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

>

> Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

>

> Howell Physical Therapy

>

> Eagle, ID

>

> ptclinic@...

>

> This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

> CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

> its

> attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

> error

> and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

> copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

> you

> have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

> attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

While we are on the POPTS discussion, what does everyone expect the

ramifications to be in South Carolina now that things look good for

SCAPTA's victory?

Will they doctors have to sell the ancillary services or can they just

continue to provide them using massage therapists, ATCs or unlicensed

personnel instead of PTs and bill it as incident to? If MDs can do

this, they will continue to provide the ancillary service in-house

with cheaper personnel, which will increase their profits and give

other professions a bigger chunk of our market as PTs.

> " No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree that exclusive PT

> ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal of our profession... "

>

> Brett;

>

> I recall a comment on this issue that I once heard from a therapist who at

> the time was working part-time for a physician. She stated, " I hope that

> POPTS are made illegal, because then I will have to quit. " Is this your

> hope as well? I ask because your comment above seems to indicate to me that

> you wish these situations did not exist, but in the mean time you are

> comfortable with being in one yourself. Can you see how this could strike

> some as simply being a rationalization?

>

> Ken Mailly, PT

> Mailly & Inglett Consulting, LLC

> Tel. 973 692-0033

> Fax 973 633-9557

> 68 Seneca Trail

> Wayne, NJ, 07470

> www.NJPTAid.biz

>

> Bridging the Gap!

>

>

> FW: physician ownership

>

> Hi everyone,

>

> Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

>

> " A study

> <http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

> sp.p

> df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

> last

> week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

> emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

> to an

> increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

> 250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

> complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

> Oklahoma

> City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

> facilities,

> even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

> that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

> implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

> spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

> referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

>

> For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

> type,

> here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

> unnecessary

> increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

> evidence

> mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

>

> One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

> guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

> to

> be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

>

> Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

>

> Howell Physical Therapy

>

> Eagle, ID

>

> ptclinic@...

>

> This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

> CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

> its

> attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

> error

> and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

> copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

> you

> have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

> attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Ken,

I would think any PT working in the environment they

choose is making a professional and ethical decision.

Do you think PT's working for ANYONE in the PT

environment is rationalizing?

Or is this just the PT who works for the POPTS?

Example:

Say a therapist at a hospital says.

" My hospital is a MEGA corporation who has a strong

hold on the market because they OWN the insurance

company. I wish they did not have this power so one

day all PT's would have exclusive ownership " .

Would this be considered Rationalization Ken?

Or is this okay because it is common for the PT to

work in a hospital setting for years as ANCILLARY

CARE?

Food for thought..

Russ Case PT

--- Ken Mailly wrote:

> " No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree

> that exclusive PT

> ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal

> of our profession... "

>

> Brett;

>

> I recall a comment on this issue that I once heard

> from a therapist who at

> the time was working part-time for a physician. She

> stated, " I hope that

> POPTS are made illegal, because then I will have to

> quit. " Is this your

> hope as well? I ask because your comment above

> seems to indicate to me that

> you wish these situations did not exist, but in the

> mean time you are

> comfortable with being in one yourself. Can you see

> how this could strike

> some as simply being a rationalization?

>

> Ken Mailly, PT

> Mailly & Inglett Consulting, LLC

> Tel. 973 692-0033

> Fax 973 633-9557

> 68 Seneca Trail

> Wayne, NJ, 07470

> www.NJPTAid.biz

>

> Bridging the Gap!

>

>

> FW: physician ownership

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Hi everyone,

>

>

>

> Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT

> Bulletin:

>

>

>

>

>

=== message truncated ===

Yahoo! Mail

Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:

http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Ken,

I would think any PT working in the environment they

choose is making a professional and ethical decision.

Do you think PT's working for ANYONE in the PT

environment is rationalizing?

Or is this just the PT who works for the POPTS?

Example:

Say a therapist at a hospital says.

" My hospital is a MEGA corporation who has a strong

hold on the market because they OWN the insurance

company. I wish they did not have this power so one

day all PT's would have exclusive ownership " .

Would this be considered Rationalization Ken?

Or is this okay because it is common for the PT to

work in a hospital setting for years as ANCILLARY

CARE?

Food for thought..

Russ Case PT

--- Ken Mailly wrote:

> " No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree

> that exclusive PT

> ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal

> of our profession... "

>

> Brett;

>

> I recall a comment on this issue that I once heard

> from a therapist who at

> the time was working part-time for a physician. She

> stated, " I hope that

> POPTS are made illegal, because then I will have to

> quit. " Is this your

> hope as well? I ask because your comment above

> seems to indicate to me that

> you wish these situations did not exist, but in the

> mean time you are

> comfortable with being in one yourself. Can you see

> how this could strike

> some as simply being a rationalization?

>

> Ken Mailly, PT

> Mailly & Inglett Consulting, LLC

> Tel. 973 692-0033

> Fax 973 633-9557

> 68 Seneca Trail

> Wayne, NJ, 07470

> www.NJPTAid.biz

>

> Bridging the Gap!

>

>

> FW: physician ownership

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Hi everyone,

>

>

>

> Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT

> Bulletin:

>

>

>

>

>

=== message truncated ===

Yahoo! Mail

Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:

http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Ken,

I would think any PT working in the environment they

choose is making a professional and ethical decision.

Do you think PT's working for ANYONE in the PT

environment is rationalizing?

Or is this just the PT who works for the POPTS?

Example:

Say a therapist at a hospital says.

" My hospital is a MEGA corporation who has a strong

hold on the market because they OWN the insurance

company. I wish they did not have this power so one

day all PT's would have exclusive ownership " .

Would this be considered Rationalization Ken?

Or is this okay because it is common for the PT to

work in a hospital setting for years as ANCILLARY

CARE?

Food for thought..

Russ Case PT

--- Ken Mailly wrote:

> " No reasonable Physical Therapist would disagree

> that exclusive PT

> ownership of PT services has to be the ultimate goal

> of our profession... "

>

> Brett;

>

> I recall a comment on this issue that I once heard

> from a therapist who at

> the time was working part-time for a physician. She

> stated, " I hope that

> POPTS are made illegal, because then I will have to

> quit. " Is this your

> hope as well? I ask because your comment above

> seems to indicate to me that

> you wish these situations did not exist, but in the

> mean time you are

> comfortable with being in one yourself. Can you see

> how this could strike

> some as simply being a rationalization?

>

> Ken Mailly, PT

> Mailly & Inglett Consulting, LLC

> Tel. 973 692-0033

> Fax 973 633-9557

> 68 Seneca Trail

> Wayne, NJ, 07470

> www.NJPTAid.biz

>

> Bridging the Gap!

>

>

> FW: physician ownership

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Hi everyone,

>

>

>

> Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT

> Bulletin:

>

>

>

>

>

=== message truncated ===

Yahoo! Mail

Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:

http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Ken, I believe very strongly in the model I work under. Practicing as a

clinical, if not an economic peer, with physicians, PA's of all areas of

medicine. You can't beat it. If POPTS were to become illegal tomorrow,

my situation would change in only one way - the dollars that now flow to

the practice would redistribute themselves somewhat. But the group

practice model, my chosen area of practice, remains the same. Altering

the economics of the arrangement does not change what I believe to be a

great way to practice my craft, but I'm sure you can see why I am not

opposed to the concept of PT ownership? Why on earth would I be?

One can only hope that in the meantime big brother is not successful in

legislating who I can and can't work for. Nobody has the right to tell

me where and for whom I can practice Physical Therapy.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Ken, I believe very strongly in the model I work under. Practicing as a

clinical, if not an economic peer, with physicians, PA's of all areas of

medicine. You can't beat it. If POPTS were to become illegal tomorrow,

my situation would change in only one way - the dollars that now flow to

the practice would redistribute themselves somewhat. But the group

practice model, my chosen area of practice, remains the same. Altering

the economics of the arrangement does not change what I believe to be a

great way to practice my craft, but I'm sure you can see why I am not

opposed to the concept of PT ownership? Why on earth would I be?

One can only hope that in the meantime big brother is not successful in

legislating who I can and can't work for. Nobody has the right to tell

me where and for whom I can practice Physical Therapy.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Ken, I believe very strongly in the model I work under. Practicing as a

clinical, if not an economic peer, with physicians, PA's of all areas of

medicine. You can't beat it. If POPTS were to become illegal tomorrow,

my situation would change in only one way - the dollars that now flow to

the practice would redistribute themselves somewhat. But the group

practice model, my chosen area of practice, remains the same. Altering

the economics of the arrangement does not change what I believe to be a

great way to practice my craft, but I'm sure you can see why I am not

opposed to the concept of PT ownership? Why on earth would I be?

One can only hope that in the meantime big brother is not successful in

legislating who I can and can't work for. Nobody has the right to tell

me where and for whom I can practice Physical Therapy.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

Hi everyone,

Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

" A study

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

sp.p

df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

last

week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

to an

increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

Oklahoma

City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

facilities,

even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives noted

that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

type,

here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

unnecessary

increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

evidence

mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just as

guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies continue

to

be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

Howell Physical Therapy

Eagle, ID

ptclinic@...

This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of

its

attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

error

and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If

you

have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

I believe that the physicians will attempt to change the legislation -

what people need to understand is that without ancillary service income,

physician group practices cannot make money. MD's just can no longer

make ends meet on the strength of their own professional services. Until

that fact changes, the MD's will go to war to in order protect that.

It's an ugly reality, but it is nevertheless, reality. PT is caught in

the cross fire. That's why I believe we need to be very careful in how

we approach the changes. It has to be done by normalizing market forces.

I realize this is a novel concept in an era where we expect government

to solve all our problems, but free enterprise can and will solve this

problem. We need the government out of the way, not in the way. Only

then can we create a level playing field - allow the docs to make fair

money for their services and they'll not have as strong an incentive to

own ancillaries. Give us unrestricted direct access, to patients and

insurance and the incentive becomes even less.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

>

> Hi everyone,

>

> Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

>

> " A study

>

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

> sp.p

> df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

> last

> week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

> emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

> to an

> increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

> 250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

> complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

> Oklahoma

> City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

> facilities,

> even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives

noted

> that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

> implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

> spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

> referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

>

> For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

> type,

> here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

> unnecessary

> increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

> evidence

> mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

>

> One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just

as

> guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies

continue

> to

> be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

>

> Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

>

> Howell Physical Therapy

>

> Eagle, ID

>

> ptclinic@...

>

> This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

> CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any

of

> its

> attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

> error

> and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

> copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited.

If

> you

> have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

> attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

I believe that the physicians will attempt to change the legislation -

what people need to understand is that without ancillary service income,

physician group practices cannot make money. MD's just can no longer

make ends meet on the strength of their own professional services. Until

that fact changes, the MD's will go to war to in order protect that.

It's an ugly reality, but it is nevertheless, reality. PT is caught in

the cross fire. That's why I believe we need to be very careful in how

we approach the changes. It has to be done by normalizing market forces.

I realize this is a novel concept in an era where we expect government

to solve all our problems, but free enterprise can and will solve this

problem. We need the government out of the way, not in the way. Only

then can we create a level playing field - allow the docs to make fair

money for their services and they'll not have as strong an incentive to

own ancillaries. Give us unrestricted direct access, to patients and

insurance and the incentive becomes even less.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

>

> Hi everyone,

>

> Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

>

> " A study

>

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

> sp.p

> df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

> last

> week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

> emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

> to an

> increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

> 250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

> complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

> Oklahoma

> City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

> facilities,

> even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives

noted

> that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

> implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

> spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

> referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

>

> For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

> type,

> here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

> unnecessary

> increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

> evidence

> mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

>

> One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just

as

> guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies

continue

> to

> be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

>

> Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

>

> Howell Physical Therapy

>

> Eagle, ID

>

> ptclinic@...

>

> This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

> CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any

of

> its

> attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

> error

> and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

> copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited.

If

> you

> have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

> attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

I believe that the physicians will attempt to change the legislation -

what people need to understand is that without ancillary service income,

physician group practices cannot make money. MD's just can no longer

make ends meet on the strength of their own professional services. Until

that fact changes, the MD's will go to war to in order protect that.

It's an ugly reality, but it is nevertheless, reality. PT is caught in

the cross fire. That's why I believe we need to be very careful in how

we approach the changes. It has to be done by normalizing market forces.

I realize this is a novel concept in an era where we expect government

to solve all our problems, but free enterprise can and will solve this

problem. We need the government out of the way, not in the way. Only

then can we create a level playing field - allow the docs to make fair

money for their services and they'll not have as strong an incentive to

own ancillaries. Give us unrestricted direct access, to patients and

insurance and the incentive becomes even less.

Brett Windsor, PT, OCS, COMT, FAAOMPT

Director of Ancillary Services

The Vancouver Clinic

(office)

FW: physician ownership

>

> Hi everyone,

>

> Many of you have read the following synopsis from PT Bulletin:

>

> " A study

>

<http://www.aha.org/aha/key_issues/niche/content/effectslimitedserviceho

> sp.p

> df> by town University economist M , PhD, released

> last

> week by the American Hospital Association (AHA), concludes that the

> emergence of physician-owned limited-service hospitals in Oklahoma led

> to an

> increase in utilization of high-cost procedures. Looking at more than

> 250,000 workers' compensation claims, found the incidence of

> complex spinal fusion surgeries and other highly paid procedures in

> Oklahoma

> City and Tulsa rose following the emergence of physician-owned

> facilities,

> even though the number of worker injuries declined. AHA executives

noted

> that the findings raise " serious concerns about conflict of interest,

> implications for patient care and unnecessary increases in health care

> spending, " and urged Congress to make permanent the ban on physician

> referral to new limited-service hospitals they own. "

>

> For those that are still defending physician owned practices of any

> type,

> here is yet another study that is showing physician ownership =

> unnecessary

> increased in health care spending. Please think about it. As the

> evidence

> mounts, can we as a profession continue to support it??

>

> One caveat, I do understand that PT owned rehab practices may be just

as

> guilty of over utilization and overcharging. Let these studies

continue

> to

> be a wake up call to all of us to do better.

>

> Tom Howell, P.T., M.P.T.

>

> Howell Physical Therapy

>

> Eagle, ID

>

> ptclinic@...

>

> This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or

> CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended

> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any

of

> its

> attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in

> error

> and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing or

> copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited.

If

> you

> have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all

> attachments and notify the sender by reply email.

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...