It is surprising and sad to see that there are so many PTs who have so little respect for their core and traditional skills. Although I must admit that I am flattered that there are so many PTs who are OT wannabees. I think as OTs we need to re-educate PTs about the importance of their training and skills and that they don't need to waste their carreers envying us because our theory, practice and skills are beautiful.
Greg ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Willmarth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:54 AM Subject: Re: New Jersey Moviing to Adopt New PT Scope of Practice!! > Ron, > > I have an update to the scope of practice issue in NJ. As I understand it, NJOTA representatives very recently met with the PTs to discuss this bill and Meryl now reports that they have agreed " to amend the language - everywhere in the document where it lists function with be replaced by movement-related function." However we have not seen the amendment in print yet. Other language in the bill states that the PT scope of practice includes "such other treatments and functions as may be further defined by the board by regulation." This language is problematic as it would limit the PT scope of practice to the imagination of the PT board! Objections about this phrase have also been raised. We will be watching this legislation closely. > > Thanks for raising this issue with your listserv members. We expect a number of bills to be introduced in 2003 to broaden the PT scope of practice and will be working with state OT associations to modify or defeat those proposals. In some states we may need practitioners to write letters to their state legislators to raise concerns about these bills. > > Chuck Willmarth > AOTA State Affairs Group > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/29/02 07:54AM >>> > Hello All: > > In Volume 4(4) of AOTA's State Affairs Group Newsletter, there's an article > from Meryl Marger Picard, New Jersey's Legislative Chair, regarding Scope of > Practice changes to that State's PT Practice Act. > > If you are interested, you can read the proposed language at the following > address: > > http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/s2000/1663_I1.pdf > > Ms. Picard states: "APTA wants this language incorporated since the > insurance companies are so concerned about functional outcomes" (p.6) > > > Just another example of professional encroachment issues. > > Ron > > *********�************ > > Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist > > ** List messages are archived at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/otlist@;otnow.com > > *********�************ > > > *********��*********** > > Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist > > ** List messages are archived at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/otlist@;otnow.com > > *********��*********** > > *********��*********** Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist ** List messages are archived at: http://www.mail-archive.com/otlist@;otnow.com *********��***********
