tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-393067768850767704.post7088085396540533580..comments2014-08-15T19:08:33.862-05:00Comments on Evidence Based Rehab: A Response to My "NATA vs APTA" PostJason L. Harris, PT, DPThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08892392535366579228noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-393067768850767704.post-23778179540287701412008-05-19T22:49:00.000-05:002008-05-19T22:49:00.000-05:00FALSE STATEMENT on the NATA website.#1"While pract...FALSE STATEMENT on the NATA website.<BR/><BR/>#1<BR/>"While practice act oversight varies by state, athletic trainers practice under state statutes recognizing them as health care<BR/>professionals similar to physical therapists, occupational therapists and other health care professionals. Athletic training<BR/>licensure/regulation exists in 46 states, with aggressive efforts underway to pursue licensure in the remaining states and<BR/>to update outdated licensure. Athletic trainers practice under the direction of physicians"<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>FALSE STATEMENT #2<BR/><BR/>"The AMA states that the term “provider,” as found in the Physical Medicine section of the CPT code, is a general term<BR/>used to define the individual performing the service described by the code. According to the AMA, the term “therapist”<BR/>is not intended to denote any specific practice of specialty field. Physical therapists and/or any other type of therapists<BR/>are not exclusive providers of general physical medicine examinations, evaluations and interventions. Similar to the<BR/>athletic training evaluation and re-evaluation codes, other therapists have their own specific evaluation codes."<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>THESE STATEMENTS ARE FALSE AS PER MEDICARE RULINGS!! SEE BELOW... <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>On November 15, 2004, the Secretary issued a final rule entitled 42 CFR Parts<BR/>403, 405, 410, et. al. Medicare Program: Revisions to Payment Policies Under the<BR/><BR/>Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 2005; Final Rule (the “Final Rule”). 69<BR/>Fed. Reg. 66,235 (Nov. 15, 2004). Among other revisions, the Final Rule modifiedthose portions of the Medicare regulations pertaining to therapy services which are included under the “incident to” coverage of Medicare Part B. Id. The relevantCase 3:05-cv-01098 Document 60 Filed 07/21/2005 Page 4 of 27<BR/><BR/>- 5 -<BR/><BR/>provisions of the Final Rule at issue authorize payment for occupational therapy and<BR/>physical therapy services which are provided “incident to” a physician’s professional<BR/>services only if therapy services are provided by an occupational or physical therapist<BR/>who meets the qualifications provided by 42 C.F.R. § 484.4. Id. at 66,421-66,422<BR/>(revising 42 C.F.R. §§ 410.26(c)(2), 410.59(a)(3)(iii), 410.60(a)(3)(iii)) (the “New<BR/>Rules”). The New Rules provide:<BR/>§ 410.26 Services and supplies incident to a physician’s<BR/>professional services: Conditions.<BR/><BR/>* * *<BR/><BR/>(c) Limitations<BR/><BR/>* * *<BR/><BR/>(2) Physical therapy, occupational therapy and speechlanguage<BR/><BR/>pathology services provided incident to a<BR/><BR/>physician’s professional services are subject to the<BR/><BR/>provisions established in § 410.59(a)(3)(iii),<BR/><BR/>§ 410.60(a)(3)(iii), and § 410.62(a)(3)(iii).<BR/><BR/>IT SEEMS AS IF THE NATA WANTS TO PORTRAY THE ATHLETIC TRAINER AS A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL, WHICH IN THE EYES OF MEDICARE ARE CERTAINLY NOT!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-393067768850767704.post-9938520592070163512008-03-06T11:57:00.000-06:002008-03-06T11:57:00.000-06:00It is not the fact about the teaching on the manua...It is not the fact about the teaching on the manual therapy class, I am an AT, and I learned my manual techniques from a DO and I could have taught the class, but it is the discouragement of the profession that is the problem. After all, why do some PT's attend AT seminars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-393067768850767704.post-42998844284520688652008-02-06T11:53:00.000-06:002008-02-06T11:53:00.000-06:00Considering I admit to know next to nothing about ...Considering I admit to know next to nothing about ATCs, but having read the official papers/letters regarding the law suit, and reading Dr. Scifer's post, I must comment that if ATCs were so well trained in evaluation and manual therapy it should not bother NATA the fact that we (via our association) choose not to teach techniques we use. Must we be blamed for it?Armin Loges, PThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10260422524664105007noreply@blogger.com