This is my first time responding and I am encouraged by the lively discussion. It's interesting to me the subject matter as I have wondered and even lost jobs over these very things (e.g., not accepting productivity standards based on everything but pt. care).
It is in fact a "pay for performance" world we live in and for better or worse not likely to change any time soon. It is my opinion, that we play a crucial role in defining the positives of this model. For example, if I were to take any tx./tx. plan I have ever offered to a pt. and try to "sell" it to that same pt. outside of the "system" would anyone "buy" it? I know this sounds very commercial and consumer driven and yet in the end none of us want to work for free. But we have assumed for years that the "system" would pay if we just jumped through the right documentation hoops. Again, it is my opinion that this is were the rub is. We've fought for and won, to varying degrees, at the legislative level but, forgotten the consumer. Look no further than No Child Left Behind or IDEA as an example. And in the end we create legions of dependants on the "system" to give them what they want not necessarily what they need. We have to go to the consumer with a "product" that is valuable and stands on its own merits and is made available through insurances. Again, I offer "alternative medicine" as an example. Not that long ago it was unheard of that insurance would consider paying for massage therapy or chiropractic intervention. Now, it is becoming commonplace. This is in part because these practice groups have "sold" their product to the consumer and at the same time focused on legislative advocacy where appropriate. I agree with the professor from TSU to some degree in that one day we will be one discipline if we do not do a better a job of explaining the "overlap" and selling the differences. Neal C. Luther,OTR/L Rehab Program Coordinator Advanced Home Care 1-336-878-8824 xt 3205 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Care is our Business...Caring is our Specialty The information contained in this electronic document from Advanced Home Care is privileged and confidential information intended for the sole use of [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the person listed above and discard the original.-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lehman, David Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:47 PM To: OTlist@OTnow.com Subject: Re: [OTlist] Blurring the lines I feel the OT profession and its association failed to promote what the true meaning of Occupational Science is and they (as well as PT) let the modern medical money making machine split the body in half. In addition, now OT is left fighting for its life in trying to get reimbursement for occupational innervation versus upper body impairment and function treatment. OT must join the evidence based wagon and show the insurance companies that true occupational therapy/science improves outcomes in daily life skills (not just focus on the general ADLs that we all work on (i.e. bed mobility, transfers, bathing, walking, etc). OT has so much to offer outside the basic ADLs and I feel for people that cannot get true OT for their lives would be so much more fulling The PT is not limited to impairment improvment and never really has been. PTs that were and some that still are caught in the mindset that treating impairments is what we do are poor clinical thinkers in that we must take impairments to the functional level or it makes no sense. What I have a big problem with is the jump PTs make from thinking that improving an impairment is actually improving a function. For example, there is no scientifc evidence that a 3/5 or 4/5 manual muscle test leads to improved sit to stand. I have to make my students think about the theory behind why they choose to improve an impairment and that theory must be related to improving function. I am going out on a limb here, but, I feel one day professions such as PT, OT, activity therapists, etc. will all be one (i.e a rehabilitation specialist) and this overlap/turf war will be gone..... Does this make any sense? David A. Lehman, PhD, PT Associate Professor Tennessee State University Department of Physical Therapy 3500 John A. Merritt Blvd. Nashville, TN 37209 615-963-5946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my website: http://www.tnstate.edu/interior.asp?mid=2410&ptid=1 This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information and is intended solely for use by the individual to whom it is addressed. If you receive this correspondence in error, please notify the sender and delete the email from your system. Do not disclose its contents with others. ________________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mary Alice Cafiero [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:14 PM To: OTlist@OTnow.com Subject: Re: [OTlist] Blurring the lines I was told almost ten years ago now that PT as a profession was beginning to see the writing on the wall for the future emphasis of functional outcomes. PT programs became more tailored to teach functional skills and functional goals to better match funding source's expectations. I don't know that it is bad that we are all focused on function. I certainly don't think it is bad that the old division of upper body vs lower body is gone. I DO worry though that PT will continue to try to take more and more things that truly should be OT realm because of our philosophical and frame of reference differences. I hate territory wars. More than that, however, I hate to see someone doing something with a patient without understanding why they are doing it. Am I making any sense? Mary Alice Mary Alice Cafiero, MSOTR, ATP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 972-757-3733 Fax 888-708-8683 This message, including any attachments, may include confidential, privileged and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the recipient of this message, please notify the sender and permanently delete the message from your system. On Aug 20, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Ron Carson wrote: > Just received a "flyer" offering two education workshops: > > 1. Using kinesotaping and splinting to improve UE function in children > w/ neuromuscular conditions > > 2. Functional anatomy of the upper limb and prehensile system > > #1 is offered by an OT > > #2 is offered by a PT > > It sure seems the the lines between PT and OT are becoming more and > more obscured. At least, in the realm of physical dysfunction. > > Ron > > -- > Ron Carson MHS, OT > www.OTnow.com > > > -- > Options? > www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com > > Archive? > www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com
-- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com
