We may have to weigh the scales here. The designation of a DPT may be positive in terms of direct access as is the case in states such as CA et cetera. However, would such usage of designations put the PT practioner & community at large in direct conflict with the referring MD ?

I totally agree with Dr. Benz’s prescription to make the PT-patient relationship a long term commitment defined by patient need, not by a physician’s order.

This relationship puts the patient in the driver’s seat as far as determining ‘value’ (a struggle third party payers are currently unable to win).

Unfortunately, their is no future in a cash pay system where the patient chooses providers based entirely on short-run benefit. These systems exist and are often dominated by excessive reliance on ‘rubbing’ or the ‘unsavory chiro model’ you mentioned in your post.

No, the American PT of the future needs to keep a sharp focus on risk reduction to demonstrate value. Risk reduction (such as falls or reducing chronic re-occurances of LBP)is a long-term outcome that is only measurable by large, well-organized payers or their surrogates.

Tim

I also disagree with his stance against PTs getting involved in more wellness dimensions. A therapist’s competencies can and should extend to the breadth of human movement, both well and dysfunctional. The characterization of Pilates and Gyrotonic as “flavors of the month” seems to run counter to the previous interview’s theme from Alison Cabot. I realize you are presenting a different viewpoint, and I am all for seeing many sides of an issue, but it seemed a bit derisive in the tone with which it was discussed.

I applaud Benz’s focus on evidence and relying on our expertise in efficacy and cost control. I think that as we keep ourselves “open” to the deepening of our knowledge of what the research supports we don’t “close” ourselves off to the new avenues of knowledge and practice growth, yet to be justified with literature but still delivering significantly positive outcomes in clinics everyday.