Hello Redge: WOW!, this is news to me!! I did know that PT was seeking 3rd party reimbursement without having a physicians referral. Is this correct? If this were to happen then that would give PT's some of the same clout as Physicians. That being the ability to determine medical necessity. As it now stands, only physicians can determine medical necessity thus on therapy provided under physician referral is consider reimbursable.
I know that our University has a PT clinic that sees students for a certain number of visits and then they must seek a physicians order. The PT's are not billing for this service so it doesn't really address the issue you're discussing but it does make it more confusing. David L., can you add your PT knowledge to the PT profession seeking direct access to treating and BILLING medicare patients? Ron ************************************************* On 11/12/2002,[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RC> Ron, RC> The issue of direct access can often be a confusing topic. When I am RC> talking about direct access I am talking about direct access to Medicare RC> patients not direct access through state licensure. I am aware that RC> licensure laws vary regarding the issue of direct access to clinicians. RC> While this is all well and good. Direct access is only as accessible as RC> the payer is willing to let it be. In the case of Medicare, a therapist RC> cannot treat this category of patient without a referral from a RC> physician. The goal of the current PT legislation is to bypass the RC> physician referral for Medicare patients. If this is to pass we are RC> dealing with the concerns I outlined in my earlier posting. The issue RC> of direct access through licensure is a completely different subject and RC> one that has new complications for PTs in non direct access states RC> should this legislation pass. RC> Redge L Campbell MS OTR/L RC> Director of Rehabilitation Services RC> Harrison Hospital RC> Bremerton, WA 98310 RC> 360.792.6531 >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/11/02 04:07PM >>> RC> Hello Redge: RC> The two states I have practiced in, S. Carolina and Florida, already RC> have direct access for OT. I've always been under the impression that RC> with regards to direct access, PT is chasing OT because most states RC> already have direct access for OT. RC> Ron RC> ************************************************* RC> On 11/11/02,[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RC>> Greetings Colleagues, RC>> I have been following with great interest the strategy of the RC> physical RC>> therapy community in moving toward the entry level DPT and RC> submitting RC>> legislation to Congress for direct access and potentially RC> prescriptive RC>> authority for physical therapists. I haven't heard much concern RC> raised RC>> in the OT community or in AOTA about the risks of this to our RC>> profession. While I don't generally support OTs always chasing the RC> PTs RC>> this one has me on edge. RC>> If the physical therapists gain direct access and no longer RC> require RC>> physician 30 day certification for Part B services, they will have RC> a RC>> direct line on access to this population. If you were a referring RC>> physician, whom would you rather have treat your outpatients? A RC>> discipline which could directly manage your patient for you with RC> little RC>> or no requirement on your part, or a discipline that required you RC> to RC>> continue to follow your patient actively every 30 days, read and RC> sign 30 RC>> day recertification notes, and be held accountable for the RC> intensity of RC>> treatment provided by the discipline? RC>> My guess is that physiatrists would feel threatened and would RC> rather RC>> maintain the close contact with patients, which would benefit OT's. RC> My RC>> guess is that virtually every other referring specialty physician RC> would RC>> rather just refer to PT. The result would be a significant hit on RC> OT RC>> access to Part B patients and further increases in scope of RC> practice RC>> challenges as PT's step further into the functional skills arena. RC>> As I see it, we need to have a direct professional response to this RC> by RC>> either requiring this change to be effective for all rehab RC> ancillaries RC>> or we need to vigorously oppose this legislation at the national RC> level RC>> as a threat to patient access to OT services. RC>> Is this on anyone's radar screen? RC>> Redge L Campbell MS OTR/L RC>> Director of Rehabilitation Services RC>> Harrison Hospital RC>> Bremerton, WA 98310 RC>> 360.792.6531 RC>> *********�************ RC>> Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] RC>> In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe RC> OTlist RC>> ** List messages are archived at: RC>> http://www.mail-archive.com/otlist@;otnow.com RC>> *********�************ RC> *********�************ RC> Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] RC> In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist RC> ** List messages are archived at: RC> http://www.mail-archive.com/otlist@;otnow.com RC> *********�************ RC> *********��*********** RC> Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] RC> In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist RC> ** List messages are archived at: RC> http://www.mail-archive.com/otlist@;otnow.com RC> *********��*********** *********��*********** 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 *********��***********
