Ateam hr 1137

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

CLGUY

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
82
Reaction score
0
APTA position statement regarding the Athletic Trainers' Equal Access to Medicare Act of 2009. Here's the letter I found. I'll be posting my thoughts in another post.


Dear APTA Advocate:

On Monday, February 23, Congressman Edolphus “Ed” Towns (D-NY) introduced HR 1137. This legislation would overturn the current Medicare “incident-to” rule and recognize athletic trainers as covered providers under Medicare. Please contact your Members of Congress today and ask them to OPPOSE this legislation!

APTA strongly opposes this legislation (HR 1137) and supports Medicare’s ability to require qualification standards for therapy services provided “incident to” a physician’s professional services. It is the position of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) that physical therapists are the qualified professionals who provide physical therapy examinations, evaluations, diagnoses, prognoses, and interventions. Interventions should be represented and reimbursed as physical therapy only when performed by a physical therapist or by a physical therapist assistant under the direction and supervision of a physical therapist.

Background

In November 2004, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) included provisions in the final rule for the 2005 Medicare physician fee schedule that established qualifications and clinical preparation standards for individuals who provide physical therapy services “incident to” a physician’s professional services. These provisions implement requirements adopted by Congress in 1997 to protect patient safety, ensure the appropriate use of Medicare resources, and guarantee the delivery of physical therapy services by qualified physical therapists. Opponents of these regulations were unsuccessful in their attempts to have CMS rescind the rule implemented in May 2005. These organizations also filed a federal lawsuit attempting to force their withdrawal, and a US Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision dismissing the litigation.

Talking Points

Patient Safety - HR 1137 jeopardizes the health, safety and welfare of Medicare beneficiaries by allowing non-qualified individuals to provide therapy services. The “incident to” regulations standardize existing Medicare requirements that physical therapy services must be delivered by qualified personnel in all outpatient settings. There is no evidence that these standards have restricted the delivery of physical therapy in physician offices. Without enforcement of appropriate qualification standards, it would be impossible to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive and the Medicare program pays for an appropriate level of safe and effective care delivered by an individual qualified to provide physical therapy.

Cost-effectiveness – HR 1137 is fiscally irresponsible and will cost taxpayers due to inappropriate billing of therapy services by non-qualified individuals. In a report issued in May 2006, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services found that 91% of physical therapy services billed by physicians under the old “incident to” rules in the first 6 months of 2002 failed to meet program requirements, resulting in improper Medicare payments of $136 million. The Inspector General found that the total payments for physical therapy claims from physicians skyrocketed from $353 million in 2002 to $509 million in 2004, and that the number of physicians billing the program for more than $1 million in physical therapy more than doubled in that two-year period.

This follows a report done in 1994 by the OIG that estimated that more than $47 million in unnecessary therapy services were delivered in physician offices under the old “incident to” rules. As a result of the 1994 report, Congress passed the Outpatient Physical Therapy Standards Act of 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. This legislation established a standard for physical therapy delivered in a physician’s office consistent with that in all other outpatient settings, and the regulations promulgated by CMS in 2004 implement these standards in keeping with the intent of Congress.

Quality Care – HR 1137 dilutes the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries by allowing non-qualified individuals to deliver therapy services. Medicare beneficiaries deserve a consistent standard of care that ensures that providers who deliver these services have attained the level of education and qualification necessary to provide them safely and effectively. Without appropriate personnel standards for individuals delivering highly skilled and recognized Medicare services such as physical therapy, the standard of quality is jeopardized.

What You Can Do
Contact your House Representative and ask them to OPPOSE HR 1137 TODAY!
CALL: Contact Congressman Steve Israel at (202) 225-3335 . Remember to ask to speak with the Health Legislative Assistant and ask your Representative to OPPOSE HR 1137.

EMAIL: Click Here to send an email to your House Representative through APTA’s Legislative Action Center.

If you have any questions or need additional information regarding HR 1137, contact Kelly Lavin at 1/800-999-2782, ext. 8548, [email protected]. Thanks for your help in getting the message through to Congress!

Please do not forward this email. To receive this information in another format for forwarding purposes, contact Monica Billger at [email protected].

Members don't see this ad.
 
Okay, first off I am not sure if this is truly from the APTA because I did not get it right from the APTA, but I'll assume it is for the time-being.

As an Athletic Trainer, future DPT, I am disappointed in this position.
The APTA considers ATCs unqualified? This is completely ignorant. I know from my experience in undergrad that athletic trainers are more than qualified to provide the services this act would allow them to provide. In fact, it is arguable that ATCs receive as much or more training than PTAs, aside from certain areas, such as neuro. Also, I have seen in my observations in PT that aides often provide the care in lieu of the licensed PT. Aides, not PTAs, so basically office workers without much, if any education in health fields. Beuracratic hypocracy at its finest.
I am not familiar with the money matters discussed in the letter, but I know that the act would support codes for certified athletic traininer services, not PT.
If this is truly the position of the APTA, then obviously I whole-heartedly disagree.
What are your thoughts?

BTW, for those who are interested, here is a link that will connect you to the actual text of the bill. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1137/text
 
Last edited:
CLGUY,

This is indeed from the APTA. I'll post a reply to your response when I've got a bit more time to put together a cogent entry.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
CLGUY,

I know from my experience in undergrad that athletic trainers are more than qualified to provide the services this act would allow them to provide. In fact, it is arguable that ATCs receive as much or more training than PTAs, aside from certain areas, such as neuro.

This position statement isn't solely about what services that ATCs would be allowed to provide, rather it is probably more about who the services would be provided to. From personal experience, many of the ATCs I have worked with have had both limited didactic preparation and clinical exposure to the medicare population. The ATCs I have worked with recently are young and a quite recent graduates, so I assume that their assessment of their curriculum, including what they percieved as minimal didactic preparation for dealing with the elderly population, is accurate. I am a PT, not an ATC, so I have no first hand experience.
As you might expect, the Medicare population typically has a far greater number of co-morbidities than the non-Medicare population, and the APTA thinks that this may be a safety issue should ATCs become recognized providers for Medicare. So do I, for that matter.

I have no doubts that an ATC could provide competent care to a healthy, 65 year old with rotator cuff impingement and a partial thickness rotator cuff tear that they injured during their weekly tennis match. I do have concerns on how well they could manage the same injury in a 65 year-old with a history of lung cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol and veritgo ( I have a patient like this on my caseooad right now). As you can imagine, these two patients would present quite differently.

Also, there is concern on where these ATC would be employed. Likely, should Medicare recognize them, many would be employed in physician-owned practices. As you are probably well-aware, the APTA has taken a firm, and in my opinion correct, stance against POPTS.
 
CLGUY,


I have no doubts that an ATC could provide competent care to a healthy, 65 year old with rotator cuff impingement and a partial thickness rotator cuff tear that they injured during their weekly tennis match.

You validate my point in your post. There ARE 65+ patients who an ATC is qualified to treat. No matter how small that number may be, an ATC should have the right to provide athletic training services for them. At this point in my education I would never presume to know how to treat a CVA or cancer patient, but I know I am qualified to provide rehabilitative therapy (not PT) to an otherwise healthy 65 year old with a orthopedic injury.
Some say this opens the door for physicians to refer patients with other conditions/injuries to ATs. This argument is a slippery slope fallacy. Any physician refering such cases to an AT either made a big mistake or is incompetent. Any AT that treats such a case is irresponsible and should have their licensure/certification revoked.

What is all comes down to is the APTA feels like AT is encroaching on their turf, which is not a good enough excuse fight against this legislation. The quality of care for the cases both you and I mentioned would not be decreased.

As far as physician owned practices, you are completely correct, although I don't believe that this would necessarily be the major employment setting for ATs if this bill passed. Physician owned practices create a bias issue, and the physician should not be able to refer to their own practice IMO.

With all that said, its sad, but I believe the unfortunate truth is that this bill will not be passed. It will not be for the reasons the APTA has put forth, but because of the fact that AT is relatively unknown in the political world. Many of the politicians that will be considering this bill will likely think of athletic trainer as just the "trainer" who gets water and manages equipment. They will then, obviously, take the words of PTs and the APTA over ATs and NATA.
 
Last edited:
Also, you probably already know this, but the bill is targeted toward Medicare because other providers usually follow the lead of Medicare. So in time, ATs will be able to bill for their services to younger populations.
 
You validate my point in your post.


It seems to me that jessept completely refutes your point. You failed to take away from the post the real meaning--ATCs are not qualified or trained to recognize and deal with the multitude of problems that can present in medicare populations that sit outside of the initial Diagnosis. EDIT: Physicians don't always send you patients that they check for all other ailments, that is you don't always know if the pt is healthy based on the Doctor's orders. With that in mind, PTs are trained to serve as a safety net and additional screening tool in all instances so those specific cases are (hopefully) caught and remedied.

Right now you are thinking to yourself that the statement is full of squak...but we had a conversation about his very subject in a professional issues class on Monday and the AT's in there even agreed that their experience and training in no way reflected the amount or responsibility that would be given to AT's in HR 1137.

Regardless of your background in Athletic Training, you should oppose this bill because it is just one more chunk of your future practice (as a PT) that is being divvied up and spread around to other less qualified professions (you would oppose the legislation if, say, the NSCA was pushing for their CSCS or NSCA-CPTs to have the same benefits...this is really no different...you just happen to have the ATC credential...and as a disclaimer I have both the CSCS and CPT creds and would vehemently oppose any legislation allowing either to bill for medicare services in a similar manner).

To me, HR 1137 is like saying a Massage Therapist can take on the responsibilities of Gait training within his/her scope of practice (may be a bit of a stretch in the analogy on my part, but I feel it illustrates my point) because s/he has some training on how the body moves and how muscles work. No, I am not saying AT's are not trained in evaluation and treatment of injuries...I am just illustrating a point.
 
Last edited:
You make good points, although my mind hasn't been changed. Forgive me, but I'm giving up debating over this topic. I've been on rehabedge debating it and have just gotten tired of hearing/saying the same things with no progress in either direction. Most people that have taken sides on this issue are firm in their opinions and nothing I say will change their mind.
That said, I do still support this legislation, and will be writing to my congressman to ask for support when I have a little more time.

I will say this though, one reason you stated that I should oppose this is because it will take away some of my future practice. This has been one of the points of many opponents of the legislation that I disagree with completely. It is based in greed and IMO only decreases the validity of the argument against the bill.
 
You make good points, although my mind hasn't been changed. Forgive me, but I'm giving up debating over this topic. I've been on rehabedge debating it and have just gotten tired of hearing/saying the same things with no progress in either direction. Most people that have taken sides on this issue are firm in their opinions and nothing I say will change their mind.
That said, I do still support this legislation, and will be writing to my congressman to ask for support when I have a little more time.

I will say this though, one reason you stated that I should oppose this is because it will take away some of my future practice. This has been one of the points of many opponents of the legislation that I disagree with completely. It is based in greed and IMO only decreases the validity of the argument against the bill.

I have to agree with you CLGUY. Clearly proper patient screening must take place prior to the ATC working with the medicare patient, however if the pt diagnosis falls within the realm of an Athletic Trainer's scope of practice, it is discrimination to not allow the ATC to rehabilitate the patient. It is true that ATCs are not qualified to handle certain medical conditions, yet many patients who have other insurance may have said conditions as well. Those patients, like medicare patients with the same conditions should be and are seen by Physical Therapists.
Fallbackplan, I think that the comparison to massage therapists, CSCS or CPT designations is apples to oranges. Those are professional certifications that are used in health/wellness/fitness careers OR in adjunct with a professional healthcare provider license and academic degree. CSCS/CPTs are NOT qualified to evaluate and treat musculoskeletal injuries, nor do they claim to be, yet ATCs are. You will admit that much, so I don't understand how you think that comparison can be made.
No one is arguing that ATCs should some how become autonomous, but they are being denied a fair share of their scope of practice due to bureaucracy and what appears to be greed by the APTA.
 
Coach Hoski

First of all, thank you for being patient while waiting for my response...been a little busy. Second, thank you for reiterating my point about the comparisons (something I thought I made apparent in the thread...and on reflection probably should not have even written)...your ability to let me know the spade is indeed a spade is much appreciated on my end.

I think what you and CLGUY fail to realize is that Physical Therapy services would be provided to these patients without the PT being present, or for that matter even in the loop.

Is it a case of greed as you put it? In a loose definition of the word "greed," then yes it is a case of that.

I would hope that by now you have read language of the bill. If not, go here:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1137/text

These services are provided to the patient under the supervision of the Physician (Section 3 (a)(2)(...)). Let me repeat this, these services are provided to the patient under the supervision of the Physician. I would hope that you both would agree that POPTS are bad...this is no different.

What will keep a Physician from referring a patient to his own ATC (who is employed in said Physician's clinic...although, on second thought, this would undoubtedly get rid of ATCs really needing to know how to deal with multiple co-morbidities, thus negating one of my earlier posts) and then billing Medicare (or other third party insurers) for these rehabilitative services? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

So I have to ask is it really a case of greed or livelihood? To completely spell it out, this would mean the Physician would refer more to him/herself and his/her clinic meaning decreased referrals to you for all Physical Therapy services over time...not just those related to Ortho injuries (there is the case of greed I see stemming from the legislation).

Also, why (as future PTs yourselves) would you want to water down the rehabilitative field with other providers that will try to do what you do (albeit no where near as well trained as you will be) for less than you will want to make?

The fact of the matter is that neither of you will be swayed by any argument anyone makes--CLGUY, because you are an ATC and are standing up for your profession and training (not a bad thing...just unfortunate in this circumstance), and Coach Hoski...well I cannot think of a reason why...you just seem steadfast in your assessments--but the idea behind the bill is a bad one (certainly this is my opinion speaking, but it falls along the same opinion as many in our field).
 
This may make me look like an ass for all the support I've had for this legislation on here and on rehabedge, I feel I've got to say it anyway.
I no longer support this legislation. I'm as shocked as you J , and my undergrad professors would probably be very disappointed in me to hear this. Elbrus mentioned in another thread the several instances where he found serious co-morbidities that a physician missed. These included cancer, osteomyelitis, discitis, MS, etc. The truth is, while athletic trainers are capable of rehabilitating orthopedic injuries to many medicare patients, the AT curriculum does not educate us enough to catch these conditions and refer back to a physician. So yes, for the safety of the patients, this bill should not pass. And until the curriculum is changed, no future bill should be either.

Edit: And fallback plan, I know you mentioned this concern and the "safety net." I guess it just took some real life examples in an unrelated thread (so it didn't feel like just another argument against the bill).
 
Last edited:
Top