|
|
Re: PT ownership
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Re: PT ownership - November 20, 2006 12:47:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1206
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
ONStudent - can you please let us know where you found that the pres of the college is an OT?
Because this is directly from the College website and many of us know the pres....She IS a PT.
Karen Lee, President
And yes, Ontario has been "free" for anyone to opne a PT clinic, as long as there are PTs doing the work.... I have been lobbying the OPA (irregularly) for many years now. Big issue is the LARGE number of clinics not owned by PTs - Many PTs work in them and the OPA is very very hesitant to make serious noises about the issue.
Sad. But I'll keep sending my opinion and talk to my MP and MPP and patients. It will be a looong time before I'll see change here, but - what else is there to do.
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 20, 2006 2:39:00 AM
|
|
|
ONstudentPT555
Posts: 224
Joined: July 25, 2006
Status: offline
|
Oh sorry guys ... i didnt say president but it might have sounded like thats what i meant ..I was talking about the Registrar of the College who when she came to talk to us I believe told us that she was an OT..
Executive Offices
Jan Robinson, Registrar 252
but I think the main issue is the fact clinics in Ontario can be owned 100% by non - PTs in Ontario and nothing has been done to change that while in other provinces there are restrictions. I will bring the issue up as well next time I talk to our OPA representative.
Also when I have talked to other PTs who own clincs they havent said many good and nice things about the college and how they are helping physiotherapists and the profession.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 20, 2006 5:26:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1206
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
Well, ONstudent, I have heard the same complaints about the College, but one has to remember that the College is first and foremost created as part of the legal requirements to allow PT to be an Independent Profession - and the College(s - same for MDs and OTs and so forth) is created to protect the public and the public's interests- to keep us on the straight and narrow.
This makes the ownership of PT clinics virtually a non-issue for them; unless stuff happens in those clinics that negatively affect the patients. Even then, the College can only go after the PTs - not the owners.....
Changes wil have to come from the members of the OPA and CPA - and how many do you know who are NOT members? - too many....Ours is a fragmented profession and unity on ANY subject is hard to come by.
I'll keep trying with regards to this issue!
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 20, 2006 5:42:00 AM
|
|
|
dfjpt
Posts: 238
Joined: April 9, 2006
Status: offline
|
Hurray Sebastian!
I think you are quite right, the issue of who owns PT clinics is likely more a CPA issue or a PAO (is that what the provincial branch is called in Ont.?) issue than a College issue.
The College is there to hear public complaints and yank licences away from evildoers. Fortunately they don't have to yank very often, although they regularly investigate records and issue lots of warning, especially if anyone but a PT is caught waving the magic (ultrasound) wand around. :) I think they do actually protect the scope of practice therefore, once it has been decided what that scope is.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 20, 2006 10:06:00 AM
|
|
|
rwillcott
Posts: 436
Joined: March 20, 2006
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
Thanks for the input everyone. It's a real eye opener! I had no idea Ontario had no rule regarding ownership until the past week. Presently, here in NB we are revising our Act for 2007 and are in the early stages of discussion. The argument to reduce to 75% ownership is because it provides more business opportunities to owners. The college assures me that with 75% ownership PT's will still have majority control of the clinic. However, my argument is that i"f it ain't broke don't fix it". By reducing to 75% we are only opening the doors for problems.
What are the key problems in Ontario with non-PTs as owners? Are there non-PT's performing much of the work? Or is it a case of clinic owners trying to make as much profit as possible by pumping patients through the doors?
I would really like to know your thoughts since I will presenting my concerns to the college on Friday.
Thanks again,
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 20, 2006 10:36:00 AM
|
|
|
ONstudentPT555
Posts: 224
Joined: July 25, 2006
Status: offline
|
I guess it is more unity that is needed by members of the OPA to protect and advocate for the profession ... but does that mean that PTs in the other provinces are more united and have a stronger voice than in Ontario .. why such a big difference between Ontario and the rest of the Country...?
And if the Colleges main concern IS the publics best interests .. wouldnt it make sense for PTs to own the clinics rather than independent companys or individuals with no background in physio and purely in the business to make a profit.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 20, 2006 11:01:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1206
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
Rob, the key problems are: potential for abuse of billing numbers (=the college registration number each PT has) by the clinic's owner - at great risk to the PT's license to practice, potential for conflict of interest (the owner insisting that the front-desk staff sell all low back patients an Obusforme seat), no real CLEAR picture for the population on the true independence of the PT profession.
Having said that, there are many clinics NOT owned by PTs that operate very well and within the guidelines and standards.
ONstudent, I never said the College isn't INTERESTED or doesn't have an issue with the concept; it is simply NOT in their mandate or scope of operation to actually DO anything about it. It is indeed up to OPA and its members to change this. And the big difference between the provinces is likely rooted in the past; OHIP licensing of PT services was halted in 1966 - no more OHIP-license numbers were handed out after that. Most therapists in Ontario were hospital based and private practice was a very small part of the profession here.
It may have just been an poorly understood/valued issue when the health laws were reviewed - it took a BIG battle to get the title "physiotherapist" protected....and sometimes all the attention on ONE big one hides another big one....
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 20, 2006 11:08:00 AM
|
|
|
dfjpt
Posts: 238
Joined: April 9, 2006
Status: offline
|
Rob, hold your ground. The profession, including the private practice portion of it, should remain 100% PT owned. It won't stop some entrepreneurial PT from owning a dozen huge clinics if s/he wants to, but it will stop other um, professions, or other $ interests from skimming off the backs of PTs.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 20, 2006 1:21:00 PM
|
|
|
proud
Posts: 944
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline
|
dfjpt,
I think you hit the nail on the head. Already I have witnessed situations where a PT and a Personal trainer 'co-owned' a clinic. When a patient shows up for treatment, they are confused over who is who. As if the public is not already confused with what a Physiotherapist does.
This opens the door for a massage guy/girl to open a clinic and basically hire a PT. It really waters down the profession and is a very very bad move.
Rob, gather those proxies, I know 3 people attending the AGM, all with strong opposition to this.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 20, 2006 3:20:00 PM
|
|
|
rwillcott
Posts: 436
Joined: March 20, 2006
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
Sebastion,
Thanks for the examples. It's nice to have examples from other PT's who have witnessed this problem first hand. Hopefeully this will help other PT's to understand why this is not a good idea.
Proud,
Be sure to remind those attending to gather as many other proxies as they can from those who cannot attend. Also, advise them to be prepared with an argument as to why this should not happen. The more people who speak up the better. As a profession we sometimes are afraid to stand up for ourselves.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 20, 2006 3:55:00 PM
|
|
|
rwillcott
Posts: 436
Joined: March 20, 2006
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
Sebastian,
One more question for you. How is it that clinic owner's are abusing the use of PT's billing numbers? Can you provide me with some examples as to how this happens? If the PT is not performing the treatment then I can't see how their billing number is being used. I have heard of this happening but not sure how?
Thanks again,
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 21, 2006 12:39:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1206
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
Rob, there have been cases where the clinic (the owner) bills for "PT-services" provided by support staff, without supervision and sometimes without the PT even being present in the clinic, under the PT's number. Some have billed for services to the patient, even when the patient wasn't there! Sometimes billings were "padded" for services rendered by the PT.
The College has made very clear statements in their publication to ALWAYS check the billing practices of the place they work at, especially where it concerns their own billing number (which is their college registration number). When these practices come to light, it is the PT who has to answer to the College for the actions taken with their billing number - although the College takes the case very seriously and investigates and the PT may NOT get punished, the PT has to deal with a major HASSLE.
So, when wortking in Ontario for anyone other than oneself - check the billings regularly! Very regularly and accurately - and don't work for anyone who does not allow access to the billing files!
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 21, 2006 12:40:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1206
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
BTW, it is a situation that CAN occur even with PT-owned clinics, but because ANYONE can own PT-clinics here, it is easier for EVERYBODY to get tempted - making the issue much likelier than with only PT-ownership....
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 21, 2006 1:23:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1206
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
BTW 2: Yes, ONstudent you were right: Jan Robinson is OT, and that should NOT be an issue. She is the Registrar and has an excellent track record. She is the CEO of the College and under the direction of the College Counsel - oh heck, here's some of the bylaws:
The Registrar is the chief executive officer of the
College.
(2) The Registrar is subject to the direction of
Council and between meetings, the related
guidance of the Executive Committee and the
President.
The Registrar shall perform those duties and
responsibilities set out in the RHPA ( the new health legislation of 1993) , the Act,
the regulations and the by-laws of the College
and the policies approved by Council.
The Registrar shall assume responsibility for
monitoring relationships with external
organizations and for the use of any grant or
other money received.
The Registrar shall maintain responsibility for the
management and maintenance of all College property.
(Italics are mine)
Like any good CEO, the skills are in the management of the netity, not in their paper qualifications.....And she is under direction of the PTs of Ontario, represented by the Council and the President. Just to set the record straight....
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 21, 2006 2:53:00 AM
|
|
|
proud
Posts: 944
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline
|
Basically PT has NOTHING to gain and PLENTY to lose.
So why change it? Really makes me wonder where this came from and who initiated the proposed change. It is certainly not in the best interest of our profession. I think it is in the best interest of a group of current owners, I suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 21, 2006 2:58:00 AM
|
|
|
dfjpt
Posts: 238
Joined: April 9, 2006
Status: offline
|
I bow to your assertion Sebastian. When I thought about it I thought of lots of people in CEO positions that various branches of the profession have hired, and who are not PTs, and you're quite right; it makes sense that they could be whoever they are, but hired to do the job of CEO while under the direction of a board of PTs or guidance of an executive. In fact our BC provincial branch has never done so well as it has since a nonPT has been CEO. (Sound of DFJPT's horns pulling all the way back in..)
However, this whole less than 100% PT-owned thing is still a major problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 21, 2006 6:26:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1206
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
Diane - your sound-effects are funny! And I had the same reaction as you when I found out last year....until they pointed out the bylaws....
BTW, I intend to use the "edit" feature more....("netity" for "entity"?!?)
Yes, the ownership is a BIG one and I certainly hope the other provinces will NOT be going down "our" path here in ON. So Rob, please keep it clear and easy: PT-clinics by PTs ony. Good luck! You will run into some wishy-washy arguments about it being easier to raise money to start a clinic - that is bunk. I did it on a shoestring (with a few leases LOL) and that was 12 years ago....
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 22, 2006 10:00:00 AM
|
|
|
rwillcott
Posts: 436
Joined: March 20, 2006
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
Sebastion,
I have spoken with the head of the New Brunswick Private Practice Physiotherapists (NBPPP). He had sent a letter to all clinic owners in the province and 86% responded back to him. Of the 86%, 76% opposed the change to 75%. So it is clear that there are only a small number of owners in favor of this change. Fortunately, many are not and will be voicing their concerns this Friday.
I have written out some main points to present including some of the examples you had provided.
Thanks again for your input as well as everyone else! I will keep everyone informed.
Sincerely,
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 22, 2006 10:08:00 AM
|
|
|
dfjpt
Posts: 238
Joined: April 9, 2006
Status: offline
|
Way to go Rob!
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 22, 2006 12:31:00 PM
|
|
|
ONstudentPT555
Posts: 224
Joined: July 25, 2006
Status: offline
|
It's nice to see that physios are standing up for what they want.
Why don't physios in Ontario unite and adress this issue in the same way that Rob has done in NB?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.109
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> Re: PT ownership 
