Sue Sulley has seen her staff at Rascal Creek Physical Therapy in Merced shrink by nine employees in the past 12 months -- and she says legislation may have an even greater impact.
Assembly Bill 783, legislation sponsored by Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi, D-Hayward, would add licensed physical therapists to the list of professionals that physicians and medical corporations could employ. Supporters of the bill say it would help physical therapists working for physicians or medical corporations continue to be employed since it would clarify an existing law. They also say it would allow patients to receive all of their services under one roof.
Opponents of the bill, such as Sulley, say it could result in higher treatment costs and adversely affect private physical therapy practices because doctors essentially would make referrals to professionals in their own office.
Physical therapists in private practice say they've been struggling financially for a while and AB 783 won't alleviate the situation. Over the past few years, they've been losing patients, the number of visits have gone down, reimbursements have decreased and some private physical therapy clinics have closed.
"It's very difficult to survive in private practice these days," Sulley said. "Economic times have come down very hard on us."
Sulley, who's operated her private practice in Merced for about 24 years, said AB 783 would be a conflict of interest because physicians could refer their patients to their own businesses.
Physicians have been employing physical therapists for a number of years; the bill would formalize that relationship. Although there are no physicians or medical groups that employ physical therapists in Merced, the ripple effects of the proposed law could result in fewer patients for private practices in the area, Sulley said.
Many Mercedians travel to larger medical facilities to get care but receive physical therapy locally to reduce out-of-town travel.
"At least 15 percent of our business comes from an out-of-town physician referral," Sulley said.
Mercedians who receive their medical care elsewhere might be referred for physical therapy at the same location if the bill were to pass, she said.
"If the physician says, 'Here's a physical therapy prescription, I want you to go to my physical therapist in Fresno,' then you may drive to Fresno every day versus getting your (therapy) locally," Sulley said.
Opponents claim it would be a conflict of interest for physicians because it would be the same as a self-referral.
Paul Gaspar, who owns his private practice in northern San Diego County, opposes the bill. Gaspar, who's also a board member of the California Physical Therapy Association, has led statewide efforts to help defeat the bill. He started a petition and has collected 3,500 signatures.
"It's very clear that this is being done for financial motive, and several of us have been told that," he said. "Our profession is being exploited for their financial gain."
Doctors would make a profit by referring patients to their own office, Sulley said. "The potential for abuse is too big," she said.
She compared the issue to doctors owning their own pharmacies in the past. The more prescriptions they wrote, the greater the profit. The federal government made it illegal for doctors to own pharmacies.
A study that appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1992 concluded that physical therapy patients receive at a doctor's office isn't of the same quality they would receive at an independent practice, Gaspar said. Each therapist sees as many as 30 patients, "which is two to three times above the standards," he said. "They are forced to treat more patients than is appropriate."
E-Mail
Print
