- Physical therapists working for POPTS in California have been given a deadline of September 1, 2011 to submit a "plan" for compliance to the board. All physical therapists working for a POPTS should either find new employment or submit your compliance timeline prior to this date or face penalties regarding your PT license. A letter was sent out to 155 therapists on 7/22/11 that had been reported to the board for being involved with a POPTS. A copy of the letter can be viewed at the following link: stoppopts.org.
- It should be noted that the board is not doing a systematic review of all clinics in California, nor is it sending this letter out to all its licensees, which in my opinion would be the correct thing to do. If they were to do so they could immediately take out the excuse "I didn't know" from every therapist in the state that is working for a POPTS and hasten their ability to have their new ordinance take effect. Isn't that what they are shooting for anyway? More importantly, from a governance standpoint, they would be taking control of this issue in a clear voice, instead of letting the private practice special interest group be their mouthpiece.
- To get a feel for what I am referring to, see: http://cppsig.com. The amount of rhetoric that has come from this group regarding the topic of AB 783 has been unparalleled to any other debated issue I've seen come down the pipe in my twelve years as a therapist. Note, they are the entity that has lobbied to stop POPTS over the past 2+ years.
- Please note, at this time, the board has chosen to send out these letters to only therapists that have been reported to be in violation of current California law by either the public or other therapists. Who do you think the vast majority of these "complaints" have come from? Yes, your guess is probably the same as mine; the complaints are coming from the same disgruntled private practice PT's that feel they are loosing business from their accused brethren.
- As a matter of fact, all POPTS PT's that testified in front of the state congress at the beginning of the summer in support of AB 783 were all conveniently added to this list of 155 by the special interest PT group sitting across the isle from them. So much for first amendment rights!? If you don't believe me, ask a person who went and testified what they found in their mailbox this week.
- As a result of how this matter is being handled, it has turned into a campaign of back biting and betrayal amongst our own profession. PT's snitching on PT's in hopes of putting competing clinics out of business to better their own practice. A very unifying message. Bravo. I'm sure the doctors couldn't be happier as they watch us rip the unity of the CAPTA apart.
- A final note. For those of you that have participated in this noble practice of reporting other PT's to the board, if you think this is going to solve your problems, please review the reimbursement rates of your major insurance contracts before you breathe a sigh of relief. The reality is: they aren't going to get any prettier in the coming months, with or without a POPTS around the corner, and that is the real anchor around your neck whether you want to admit it or not.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
CA PT Board posts a deadline
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
POPTS are not going away. There will be another way to "re-organize." There is too much money involved and plenty of intelligent business people.
ReplyDeleteYou are right Mark, if there is sub-standard PT care, it is on them (us), not the employer, whether MD or PT. We need to realize that.
My issue is reimbursement. I don't want to get paid less for the same service as the guy across the street b/c the ownership is different. The APTA missed the boat, is missing the boat, and will con't to miss the boat if it doesn't go all in on reimbursement. That is how the playing field gets leveled, lobby money goes up, and membership gets happier. But be careful what we wish for. Maybe the playing field will be leveled at a very low payment schedule. Dropping everyone to the 65% of Medicare plan isn't preferred!
Good blog.
Should have been called the "Red Sweat Pants Diary!"
Kash in Virginia
Kash, all good points. I plan on a separate entry or two about reimbursement, but you are 100% right. Other than having a legitimate direct access law on the books (which we of course lack in CA), the next most important thing is having a reimbursement scheme that is equal and fair. It couldn't be further from that at this point. Insurances providing different rates of reimbursement for the same services provided at out patient clinics owned by PT's, out patient clinics owned by MD's, and the most egregious of the group would be the rates the hospitals get for the same out patient services.
ReplyDeleteFor example, most PT practices in SoCal get close to 100% RBRVS for Medicare patients due to the expense of doing business here. POPTS get closer to 120% RBRVS, and hospital out patient PT gets over 200 %! And lets not forget that hospital out patient PT is NOT capped for Medicare. So how is that one of the more prescient issues when talking about how to save the Medicare system many millions of dollars???
Second, tell me why this has not been even a blip on the radar for the arguments against POPTS? This is one of the worst offenses; getting paid more simply because you submit your bill under an MD license. Complete BS! Where is the APTA on this argument? Your guess is as good as mine. POPTS will reorganize, and it more than likely will be in the form of ACO's. I will speak to this in an upcoming post. And lastly, yes the quality of care that ANY PT provides is ultimately a reflection on the PT profession and the APTA. We all hold the same license. If we feel there is substandard care being provided by our constituents, we should clean up our own house, not point the finger at the MD's. What do they have to do with how we treat or a lack of skills for a given PT? It is yet another soft, cop-out by the whiney out patient therapists that feel the world is being brought down around them because of MD's. Maybe one day they will see the light.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete