|
|
Re: PT ownership
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Re: PT ownership - November 22, 2006 12:47:00 PM
|
|
|
proud
Posts: 944
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline
|
Rob,
Well done. It is great to see such pride and initiative within the profession.
I only wish that 1/10th of the profession were that driven.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 22, 2006 3:32:00 PM
|
|
|
rwillcott
Posts: 436
Joined: March 20, 2006
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
Thanks everyone. But I don't want to get too excited just yet. We still have to have the Special General Meeting to discuss the proposed change and vote on the changes to the draft. It is still important that the PT's attending voice their concerns and vote against this proposal.
It is good to see that the private practioners of this province oppose the change. I hope this is a sign of how the meeting will go on Friday!
Again, thanks for the support and I will let everyone know how things go.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 22, 2006 6:10:00 PM
|
|
|
james097
Posts: 178
Joined: January 27, 2005
From: West Vancouver BC
Status: offline
|
Physicians can no longer profit from drug sales here. This was not caused by pharmacists complaining I suspect, but because the Phyicians association realised the implications of such as overuse and bad publicity. Perhaps overtures should be made to the CMA and ask them to do for physiotherapy as they have done for drugs. There is no restriction on phyicians owning PT practiced in BC although none do that I know of. Some enterprises such as CBI do employ PTs. There is no law against a PT owning a medical clinic and employing doctors, of course the docs, unlike some PTs may not want to be enrolled in such a situation. Having for years enjoyed the luxury of making a profit from PTs, if it disapeared the docs may well employ others with less schooling but performing adequatly in their eyes.
Jim McGregor
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 23, 2006 1:49:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1206
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
Rob - well-done and good luck!
Onstudent - "uniting" a diverse and scattered group of PT-clinic owners - in a province with over 6,000 independent PTs....The PTs actually subscribing to the Private Practice group or are active in the association is absolutely minimal.....pathetic. I do what I can by communicating with those who will pay at least some attention and spread the issues...
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 23, 2006 1:56:00 AM
|
|
|
ONstudentPT555
Posts: 224
Joined: July 25, 2006
Status: offline
|
sebastian,
So is there anything in your opinion that can be done in the future to change this?... and why are private PT clinic owners scattered and not united here in Ontario .. does that have anything to do with just the large number of PTs here but even if so wouldnt it make sense for these PTs to be more united...are there some underlying issues that I am missing.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 23, 2006 3:49:00 AM
|
|
|
rwillcott
Posts: 436
Joined: March 20, 2006
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
james097:
I highly doubt a Physician would want to employ an individual with questionable training to perform rehabilitation on their patients. Many Physicians respect the level of training physiotherapists have and know that we are university educated. For that reason they feel comfortable referring to us since they know we are a direct access profession and a primary health care provider. To associate themselves with anything else would be a sign of knowingly offering substandard care. No reputable Physician wants to place themselves in that position.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 23, 2006 4:32:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1206
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
ONstudent - I don't have the answers - just suppositions. There are SO many PTs employed in PT-clinics - and quite a few in non-PT-owned - that to get any consensus on the ownership-issue, it first needs to be SEEN by them as a problem. Too many see no problems with the clinics and feel "it isn't broken" - those who see a problem with it, may not have the urge to actually DO something about it. Just because I think it should be 100% PT-owned, doesn't make it an opinion that is shared by many....
Signe Holstein of the OPA used to be a good person to get info from and bounce ideas off (I don't think she's there anymore....). But the OPA is THE agency to a) Test the waters and willingness, and b) organize action IF there is a consensus....
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 23, 2006 4:37:00 AM
|
|
|
dfjpt
Posts: 238
Joined: April 9, 2006
Status: offline
|
There was (and hopefully still is) some distinct legislation in BC that spelled out that PTs were not to "work for" anyone but another PT. I had a discussion about it with Beth Maloney (now deceased) who was head of the provincial association at the time, in 1994. I was looking for a space to open a practice, found one in a massage group practice, who would have loved to "hire" me... and although I wasn't very interested in their proposal, checked in with PABC to find out what the rules were. She explained to me in no uncertain terms that it was fine to work out of a massage clinic, but that the rent had to be a precise and consistent amount, not tied in with any income splitting, the PT practice had to be absolutely separate in every way from the massage practice, that only PTs could "employ" another PT. So it's not just physicians. I know James has a different idea about this, and I'd love to know the chapter and verse of his info. I ended up finding my own space, much more happily I might add.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 23, 2006 10:47:00 AM
|
|
|
ONstudentPT555
Posts: 224
Joined: July 25, 2006
Status: offline
|
maybe on an individual level for the PTs working in non-Pt owned clinics it doesnt matter as long as they are getting paid well and dont have to worry about anything ... but it may not be good for the future of the profession as a whole..
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 23, 2006 7:30:00 PM
|
|
|
james097
Posts: 178
Joined: January 27, 2005
From: West Vancouver BC
Status: offline
|
Just replyed with a whole screed and got "ubb
had encountered unexpected fatal error" and all was gone. To dfj, there was some instructional paper some years ago that wished PTs to follow certain rules such as not working for anyone exccept yourself or a PT. That has gone, perhaps challenged. I spoke to a board member today and had an answer from the registrar of PT fo BC and was informed that you can work for anyone with no restrictions. Working for a doctor is a no no here and has yet to happen that I know of.
Jim McGregor
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 24, 2006 4:22:00 AM
|
|
|
savela
Posts: 63
Joined: October 7, 2004
From: toronto
Status: offline
|
OnStudent,
I work in TO, where there are many clinics and alot of competition especially in the downtown core.
The most successful clinics, are MD owned, or at least have one on staff. I think the PT's who work in these clinics, do it for the security of always having patients.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 24, 2006 4:30:00 AM
|
|
|
dfjpt
Posts: 238
Joined: April 9, 2006
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]there was some instructional paper some years ago that wished PTs to follow certain rules such as not working for anyone exccept yourself or a PT. That has gone, perhaps challenged. I spoke to a board member today and had an answer from the registrar of PT fo BC and was informed that you can work for anyone with no restrictions. Working for a doctor is a no no here and has yet to happen that I know of.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the reply James. I would like to know what you think about this; are you for it or against it? I'm against. Why would working for a doctor be a no no but working for "anyone with no restrictions" be permissible? Sounds contradictory to me. Sounds like some sort of rule bending that came along when all the big huge back clinics started up about 10 years ago. (Or has it been since longer ago than that?)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 24, 2006 6:08:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1206
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
Savela, I think you hit the nail on the head. A steady income and caseload - no worries at night going home ...A guaranteed referal source.
And one of the arguments against 100% PT-only clinics is: "Hey, doctors can do it, work in a hospital, or clinic, or company or industry NOT owned by doctors - why couldn't we? It does not make us less professional."
And you know - I can understand their comment - especially considering their situation.
One last thing about this - we have non-PT-owned clinics here in Barrie since 1985. The owner is a heck of a successful businessman with now I think 4 clinics to his name. Pays the PTs well, good con-ed, and full caseloads - because he markets exceptionally well and owns the building with a large number of MDs and services right next door.
Good business and I admire that....but I don't like the PT-clinic being owned by anyone other than PT.
Even if it was Mahatma Ghandi...
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 24, 2006 10:50:00 AM
|
|
|
dfjpt
Posts: 238
Joined: April 9, 2006
Status: offline
|
Seb, is that a typo? "Con"- ed instead of "cont"ed? :)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 24, 2006 11:34:00 AM
|
|
|
james097
Posts: 178
Joined: January 27, 2005
From: West Vancouver BC
Status: offline
|
dfj, I myself, although retired, would still like to have every practice PT owned, but we are like any other profession and will have those with enterprenurial spirit and those without. At present in BC it's a cash system. Pay your money and collect from the insurance company if you have coverage. For every $1,000 dollars they take in they pay out less and so have a profit.
I suspect in the future that some evidence based system will come about. This should mean that if PT owned practices are superior as we hope they
are then they will flourish at the expence of others. Why so many doctor owned clinics in Ontario? I think it all started in the early 60s.
Only a low percentage of male therapists were around and the working lifespan of female PT was but a few years, they married and either gave up or were part timers, unlike the present where a most return to work. This was a perfect invironment for docs to start clinics. After many years of increase of population and low government payments private practice became a more viable proposition.
Rob, If by some miracle every PT in the employ of
a doctor left do you think they wouldn't want to fill the space? You think more highly of docs who employ PTs than I do. Massage practitioner now train for three years and don't study much of the stuff that I never used. Many have degrees or some college before they begin. Kinesiologists are opening rehab clinics, even personal trainers have courses to call themselves rehab experts. Chiropracters are beginning to move into medical clinics. About twenty years ago I wrote an act for the private practitioners which included clauses such as Pts would not work for anyone but PTs and how we should advertise ect. It had absolutely no legal standing but it did form the ground work of how PTs felt at that time. When the number of practices grew we ditched that and went with the CPA. With the return of the Constitution to Canada and with the bill of Rights, banning Docs from employing PT will be a moumental task. It will be interesting to see if the scene changes over the next generation with the advent all PTs having a doctorate.
Jim McGregor
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 24, 2006 4:18:00 PM
|
|
|
rwillcott
Posts: 436
Joined: March 20, 2006
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
Just wanted to update everyone on the recent Special General Meeting of the NB College of Physiotherapists. The proposed change to 75% has been removed for the time being from the current draft of the NB Physiotherapy Act for 2008! There were so many questions and concerns from both private practice owners and PT's that it has been removed from the draft until it has been discussed further.
The college has agreed to meet with NBPPP to discuss their concerns. But as it stands right now we will maintian 100% PT ownership in New Brunswick.
There was a lawyer present who was trying to defend the change to 75% ownership. In her opinion this would only affect the professional corporation and has no bearing on the practice of physiotherapy. Which is true to an extent. However, what she failed to realize is that many PT's in private practice are employees of these corporations and it does affect how we practice. I explained the situation in Ontario and how non-PT owners can directly influence PT's in terms of number of patients seen etc.
Needless to say I am in a good mood and want to thank everyone for their input. It goes to show that this board is very useful and we as PT's should continue to support eachother since we can make a difference!
Sincerely,
Rob
PS
My next task involves the Massage Therapists of New Brunswick. They are also drafting a new Act and are planning on making manipulation, US, IFC etc. part of their scope of practice! There are many Chiropractors upset about this as well. Any thoughts? I will keep everyone updated!
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 24, 2006 6:46:00 PM
|
|
|
ONstudentPT555
Posts: 224
Joined: July 25, 2006
Status: offline
|
>>>>>My next task involves the Massage Therapists of New Brunswick. They are also drafting a new Act and are planning on making manipulation, US, IFC etc. part of their scope of practice!>>>>
How could massage therapists make manipulations part of their scope... do they have access to manual therapy courses and training?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 24, 2006 8:26:00 PM
|
|
|
dfjpt
Posts: 238
Joined: April 9, 2006
Status: offline
|
Thanks for the background James. Way to go ROB!!! :D
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 25, 2006 3:11:00 AM
|
|
|
james097
Posts: 178
Joined: January 27, 2005
From: West Vancouver BC
Status: offline
|
ON, I don't think most PTs have any idea just what massage therapists are up to. Pick up a copy of the massage magazine and see. You ask "How could massage therapists make manipulation part of their scope" You can get books, get DVDs, get on all sorts of courses. Exactly the same question was made by chiropractors of us some thirty years ago. Are we going to use the same arguament aginst them. Some MTs are treating patients in the same way as Butler, mobilizing the nervous system. Many PTs have never even heard of the Australians ways. Remember MTs entrance qualifications are probably more rigerous than that of PTs in "the old days". If you couldn't get into PT school nowadays and got into massage would you be content to rub backs all day? I don't think so. Like others, MTs have mountains of literature showing that they are as good as anyone else. We have three massage schools in BC, one either in a college or about to enter. That alone gives them a sense of cashet. They are just churning out MTs by the hundreds.The next move for MTs is to change their name. How about Musculo Skeletal Therapists?
I wonder where they will all find work?
Good work in the East Rob.
Jim McGregor
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT ownership - November 25, 2006 6:48:00 AM
|
|
|
dfjpt
Posts: 238
Joined: April 9, 2006
Status: offline
|
You are quite right James, about the new waves of MTs coming out these days. They've got cont-ed and con-ed both, just like us, generally have a very contented working relationship with chiro (a potential detriment), and no baggage that involves having training to be a nice cog in a hospital wheel, or to look after medical misadventures, or to legislatively depend on referrals from medicos. They can approach the public free and clear.
[QUOTE]The next move for MTs is to change their name. How about Musculo Skeletal Therapists?
I wonder where they will all find work?[/QUOTE]They are schooled in the ways of the world, and exit the chute already capable of growing and sustaining a private practice.
There's no time to lose.
|
|
|
|
 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 |
|
0.094
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> Re: PT ownership 
