Vision 2020 says nothing about a DPT requirement

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

I've been reading/posting on this site for 2 years now....i think. And I always had the assumption that by 2020, APTA is going to require all practicing PT's to have a DPT to continue practicing by 2020. I just read the statement again and nothing on there says that.

So, if I go the MPT route, which is limited to like 2 programs now, I wouldn't need a DPT to practice after graduation and past the year 2020 right?

Originally Posted by jbizzle

I've been reading/posting on this site for 2 years now....i think. And I always had the assumption that by 2020, APTA is going to require all practicing PT's to have a DPT to continue practicing by 2020. I just read the statement again and nothing on there says that.

So, if I go the MPT route, which is limited to like 2 programs now, I wouldn't need a DPT to practice after graduation and past the year 2020 right?

The APTA has not decided yet if they will grandfather those without the DPT or require a tDPT.

.

Not sure the APTA has a lot to say about this. They don't grant me my license to practice in the state of Illinois.

as someone who has not yet began the DPT program i don't have an answer for you. however, i would just consider the pros and cons of both options. for me, while getting an MPT would be cheaper and allow me to start working faster, i don't really want to HAVE to go back to school. i'm from the cleveland area and there's a mix of pt education levels practicing but i've met a few that are doing transisitonal programs. i would just want to get it over now and not deal with a headache down the road. also, i'm not even sure which ohio programs are MPT-they seem to all be DPT nowadays. obvisouly you may have different circumstances but that's just my 2 cents

I thought they wanted all programs switched to the DPT by 2020, not practitioners. Maybe I'm wrong.

I think that my question is kind of similar but a little more specific. I guess there is a measure going through the California Congress that will allow the CSU's to give out DPT degrees. Right now only the UC's can do so.

If it passes will I be grandfathered into a DPT if I were to start in the fall of 2011 and graduate after 3 years, or will I have to go an additional year for the tDPT even though I will be essentially doing the work for a DPT?

Thanks for y'alls responses guys. I was just having a bad day the day I posted the original post. I was looking at the tuition rates for MPT and DPT....so.?????? I was like dang, why did they have to change...know what I mean.

Originally Posted by jesspt

Not sure the APTA has a lot to say about this. They don't grant me my license to practice in the state of Illinois.

Whose decision is it to grandfather PTs to the DPT? I think this would be awful and be a HUGE slap in the face for all those obtaining the eDPT as well as existing PTs that have pursued the tDPT. From what I've grasped, those that have obtained the DPT have superior differential diagnostic skills. It could also be very bad for the profession as a whole if DPTs started missing diagnosis. It could set the profession back decades. The increased risk of liability would be there for grandfathered DPTs. What could DPTs do to protect the integrity of their earned degrees?

To grandfather all PTs into the DPT claims they are all truly equivalent. State practice acts should recognize only eDPT or tDPT trained PTs. This would provide a marketable benefit to pursue the DPT, would confirm the credibility of the DPT, minimize liability thus increase sustainability of direct access practice, and reduce risks to the patient. To grandfather all existing PTs as DPTs would be a huge mistake in my opinion, and all DPTs that earned the degree should work to protect it. All PTs should support the integrity of the DPT. What can current and future DPTs do to protect the integrity of the degree that they spent so much time, effort, and money to obtain?

I am currently in a DPT program and one of my professors is a state president in the APTA. She said that the MPT and BSPT will NOT be grandfathered in to DPTs(like podiatry and pharm...who grandfathered in bachelors to doctorates). She said that the decision was made that to have the DPT degree, there must be advanced education behind it (things now are clearly different than even just a few years ago). I also think that among many, the emphasis now for the DPT is evidenced based practice (more so than advanced diagnosis, but that too for sure). The only reason there are tdpt programs are because it has been stated that there will be no grandfathering, and that the education is required.

At least in my time at clinics (where I worked with BS, MPT, and DPTs) the BSPTs NEVER talked about the literature or even varied their clincal decisions from patient to patient. THat's where I see the tDPT helping some PTs, who literally practice the same way they did 20+ years ago.


Oh...and, it does say something about DPTs in 2020...

By 2020, physical therapy will be provided by physical therapists who are doctors of physical therapy, recognized by consumers and other health care professionals as the practitioners of choice to whom consumers have direct access for the diagnosis of, interventions for, and prevention of impairments, functional limitations, and disabilities related to movement, function, and health.

Great news then!

State practice acts should recognize only eDPT or tDPT trained PTs. This would provide a marketable benefit to pursue the DPT, would confirm the credibility of the DPT, minimize liability thus increase sustainability of direct access practice, and reduce risks to the patient.

This is silly. So I would be qualified to safely practice physical therapy the day before this legislation was passed, but then unqualified the day after? That makes no sense.

And you speak of liability - why would the recognition of only therapists with a DPT reduce liability in any way?

Why are risks to the patient reduced again? See above. For example, if a therapist with a BSPT degree has been practicing safely for 30 years without one negative incident, why does taking away their right to practice make the patients they would be seeing safer? And in regards to general liability/risk to patients, negative events in PT are incredibly rare.

Originally Posted by jesspt

This is silly. So I would be qualified to safely practice physical therapy the day before this legislation was passed, but then unqualified the day after? That makes no sense.

And you speak of liability - why would the recognition of only therapists with a DPT reduce liability in any way?

Why are risks to the patient reduced again? See above. For example, if a therapist with a BSPT degree has been practicing safely for 30 years without one negative incident, why does taking away their right to practice make the patients they would be seeing safer? And in regards to general liability/risk to patients, negative events in PT are incredibly rare.

+1

From the PT's I've talked to, the DPT is a huge push to gain "street credit." I'm a huge fan of the MPT - it's cheaper and the syllabus for many programs are essentially the same.

Originally Posted by jesspt

This is silly. So I would be qualified to safely practice physical therapy the day before this legislation was passed, but then unqualified the day after? That makes no sense.

And you speak of liability - why would the recognition of only therapists with a DPT reduce liability in any way?

Why are risks to the patient reduced again? See above. For example, if a therapist with a BSPT degree has been practicing safely for 30 years without one negative incident, why does taking away their right to practice make the patients they would be seeing safer? And in regards to general liability/risk to patients, negative events in PT are incredibly rare.

The suggestion was for third-party payer reimbursement for solely DPTs with no change to the current way licensed PTs practice - including cash-for-service direct access.

Direct Access currently exists in 43 or so states; but how much, to what extent, and for what population is it utilized? Wouldn't it be a wise to provide some type of checks and balances within the PT community to assure it's providers are sufficiently capable of providing care to 1) potentially high volume of patients, 2) to a predominantly geriatric population?

Originally Posted by lee9786

The suggestion was for third-party payer reimbursement for solely DPTs with no change to the current way licensed PTs practice - including cash-for-service direct access.

Direct Access currently exists in 43 or so states; but how much, to what extent, and for what population is it utilized? Wouldn't it be a wise to provide some type of checks and balances within the PT community to assure it's providers are sufficiently capable of providing care to 1) potentially high volume of patients, 2) to a predominantly geriatric population?

I don't see this suggestion in your previous posts. Rather, you state:

State practice acts should recognize only eDPT or tDPT trained PTs.

I see no mention of third-party payors.

Also, why do you assume that the population will be primarily geriatric. I have yet to practice in an outpatient ortho clinic where Medicare outnumbers private insurance.


And in regards to your latest post, which is in quotes at the start of this post, why is the DPT any type of checks and balances? We have minimal if any data that suggests the product a DPT program puts out differs in any real meaningful way from a Master's program. We however, do have data that early access to any PT leads to fewer lumbar surgeries and greater function in the Medicare population. Additionally we have data that indicates that board certified clinicians (OCS, SCS) practice more efficiently (achieve their outcomes in fewer visits). I could go on and on.

I am in favor of Vision 2020. I think that a clinical doctoral degree is the way the profession should head. I just disagree with how it is implimented. The DPT continues to make graduates general practitioners of physical therapy, rather than content experts in specific areas of PT. A better model would be areas of concentration within the curriculum, so a recent DPT graduate with musculoskeletal concentration would be prepared to deleiver higher quality of care than the typical general DPT or Master's level graduate. This may exist in a few programs, but they are in a severe minority if they exist at all.

The APTA is at odds with itself. It has previously declared board certified therapists as experts in their chosen areas of concentration. If that's true (and I beleive that it is) who better than them to deliver point-of-contact care? A recent general practioner DPT graduate? Are you serious? It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by jesspt

I don't see this suggestion in your previous posts. Rather, you state:


I see no mention of third-party payors.

Also, why do you assume that the population will be primarily geriatric. I have yet to practice in an outpatient ortho clinic where Medicare outnumbers private insurance.


And in regards to your latest post, which is in quotes at the start of this post, why is the DPT any type of checks and balances? We have minimal if any data that suggests the product a DPT program puts out differs in any real meaningful way from a Master's program. We however, do have data that early access to any PT leads to fewer lumbar surgeries and greater function in the Medicare population. Additionally we have data that indicates that board certified clinicians (OCS, SCS) practice more efficiently (achieve their outcomes in fewer visits). I could go on and on.

I am in favor of Vision 2020. I think that a clinical doctoral degree is the way the profession should head. I just disagree with how it is implimented. The DPT continues to make graduates general practitioners of physical therapy, rather than content experts in specific areas of PT. A better model would be areas of concentration within the curriculum, so a recent DPT graduate with musculoskeletal concentration would be prepared to deleiver higher quality of care than the typical general DPT or Master's level graduate. This may exist in a few programs, but they are in a severe minority if they exist at all.

The APTA is at odds with itself. It has previously declared board certified therapists as experts in their chosen areas of concentration. If that's true (and I beleive that it is) who better than them to deliver point-of-contact care? A recent general practioner DPT graduate? Are you serious? It makes no sense.

Not much makes any sense. I think that's the conclusion. Time to stick the head back in the sand with the rest and hope it just all works out.