Physical Therapy: Ancillary Service For Patients Or Referral For Profit?
I am writing in response to the recent feature article, “How To Provide Physical Therapy As An Ancillary Service,” written by Jonathan Moore, DPM (see pg. 36, February issue). Unfortunately, the article may lead some readers to believe that adding physical therapist services to a physician/medical practice is not without potential harm or controversy.
Dr. Moore stresses that providing such services can improve your “bottom line” and that the profit potential is mostly dependent on the number of referrals the investor directs to his or her physical therapy program. This describes a practice that, in many situations, is referred to as “referral for profit.”
Referral for profit arrangements can create relationships between physical therapists and referring physicians that are based on financial incentives rather than patient care, professional collaboration and mutual respect. In many cases, such as the cases Dr. Moore appears to encourage, patients would be referred to highly qualified independent physical therapist practices except for the fact that physicians can create arrangements to profit from the patient referrals.
Issues related to financial conflicts of interest in healthcare, including the recent growth in physician ownership of physical therapy services around the country, are drawing increasingly serious concern from government agencies. Entering the physical therapy “business” may not be as risk-free and profitable as the article may have suggested. The ethical, business and legal aspects of these types of relationships are being closely scrutinized in terms of restraint of trade and competition, and interference with consumer choice.
The American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) opposes situations in which physical therapists or physical therapy assistants are employed by or under agreements with referring practitioners in which the referring practitioner receives compensation either directly or indirectly as a result of referring for, prescribing or recommending physical therapy. The APTA believes these arrangements inherently create a serious potential for abuse that your readers need to be aware of and that the effective provision of physical therapist services is enhanced when such arrangements are avoided.
Given their professional history, podiatrists should recognize that physical therapy is a separately licensed, regulated and recognized profession. The purpose of the rehabilitative care and services provided by both podiatrists and physical therapists is to better the lives of our patients, not to be a revenue source for other health care providers.
— Fran Welk, PT, DPT, MEd
Chair, Task Force on Referral for Profit
American Physical Therapy Association
Defending Physician-Owned Physical Therapy As An Ancillary Service
Dr. Moore responds: Thank you for your letter of concern. It is well known and documented that the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) has for years vehemently battled (and continues to do so across the country) against all forms of physician-owned physical therapy. Before I bring up a few important points to highlight from your letter, it is important to point out (as I did many times in my article) that providing physical therapy as an in-office ancillary service should be done for the express purpose of providing a patient service that improves outcomes.
As this article was written as a practice management article, would it not be natural to discuss practice growth and issues surrounding one’s “bottom line”? Although the APTA would love to make my article sound like a “referral for profit” scheme, nothing could be further from the truth. The main emphasis of my article is, in fact, how to improve patient outcomes, compliance, convenience and patient satisfaction through a very legal and ethical collaboration with physical therapy.