Should physicians have physical therapy services in private practices?
Magistro, Charles M. “Twenty-Second Mary McMillan Lecture.” Physical Therapy Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association. 67 (1987): 1726-1732 CINAHL Full Text web 23 October 2012
The journal makes reference to a lecture given by Charles M. Magistro, Director of Physical Therapy, Pomona Valley Community Hospital, presented at the Sixty-Third Annual Conference of the American Physical Therapy Association, San Antonio, TX, June 28-July 2, 1987. The paper initially deals with the growth of the profession over the years with Magistro emphasizing that "We physical therapists never must permit our profession to be jeopardized by failing to provide those services that justify our existence” (Magistro 1728). He explains that “The most urgent of these challenges is in the matter of education” (Magistro 1728), the issue is really affected by funding concerns proposing to readers to support the foundation’s fund-raising campaign to improve the quality of PT education. He was convinced that “the foundation had unlimited potential because its goals were tied so closely to the survival of our profession, specifically providing funding for research and scholarship activities” (Magistro 1731). The author is emphasizing the need to support the foundation to improve the profession in one way or another, a message that has made the article interesting and persuasive. This article sheds light on several issues in the physical therapy profession. Magistro makes his opinion very clear on the topic of physician referral for profit. “I remain deeply concerned about anything and everything that has the potential to debase our profession, whether it be the improper use of supportive personnel by our own members or the reaping of profits by practitioners outside of our profession from their unethical referral arrangements. I stated in one of my talks on this subject that referral for profit arrangements involving physicians and physical therapists are like a cancer eating away at the ethical, moral and financial fibre of our profession” (Magistro 1731). The article states Magistro’s opinion but it doesn’t go into detail about the effects physician referral for profit can have on the profession of physical therapy. There are several quotes from the author in between the paragraphs on some of the pages that gives the reader an idea about what the next section of the paper will be about.
“Position on Physician-Owned Physical Therapy Services (POPTS).” American Physical Therapy Association. (Jan. 2005): 1-5 CINAHL Full Text web 23 October 2012 The paper discusses that POPTS was added by physicians to their practice due to their decreasing revenue and increasing costs of insurance premiums relating to malpractices despite APTA’s effort to legally prohibit the POPTS arrangement. However, APTA’s acts “are in conflict with the medical profession’s renewed push to subsume physical therapy as an ancillary service for financial gain” (1). There are two opposing forces on the issue and the major concerns are financial control over another and the potential consequences of POPTS. “First, should one profession be able to claim financial control over another? Second, what are the real and potential consequences of referral-for-profit relationships and, more specifically, POPTS?” (1).The paper also states that “Physical therapists must be unified in their vision of physical therapy as a profession, accepting their rights and responsibilities that come with such a designation” (1). When these professional become united, reducing POPTS will be possible. A conflict of interest becomes more apparent when a physician employs a physical therapist. The arrangement denies patients of their right of choice. As to economic and financial harm, POPTS arrangements “have significant...