APTA's projected Surplus of PTs by 2025?

[flyingsquirrel]

"While there are plenty of variables that could lead to different outcomes over the coming years, the latest APTA models of future supply and demand for physical therapists (PTs) include a first: the possibility of an oversupply of PTs by 2025. ...That shortage flips to a 736-PT surplus should the attrition rate occur at 2.5%, and grows to a surplus of 21,494 PTs at the 1.5% rate"

http://www.apta.org/PTinMotion/News/2016/5/27/PTWorkforceProjections/

With in the expanding increase of schools and campuses I'm not sure how I feel about this. What do you guys think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[redrose424]

"While there are plenty of variables that could lead to different outcomes over the coming years, the latest APTA models of future supply and demand for physical therapists (PTs) include a first: the possibility of an oversupply of PTs by 2025. ...That shortage flips to a 736-PT surplus should the attrition rate occur at 2.5%, and grows to a surplus of 21,494 PTs at the 1.5% rate"

http://www.apta.org/PTinMotion/News/2016/5/27/PTWorkforceProjections/

With in the expanding increase of schools and campuses I'm not sure how I feel about this. What do you guys think?

I think you meant undersupply in your first statement. I think this:

"Since there was no known attrition rate available for the profession, two percentages were selected to estimate attrition, 3.5 and 1.5 percent. These percentages were selected based on a number of sources. More specifically, the percentages of attrition used in the projections were based on the following sources and decisions. A study of nursing, published by the Healthcare Association of New York State (HANYS) estimated that the attrition rate among nurses in New York was 4.2%; a study conducted by the Lewin Group among physician assistants indicated a national rate of 5%; and a study conducted by the Conference Board among health care workers reported an attrition rate of 1.5%. Since each of these estimates differed, the decision was made to select a percentage that would account for each of these estimates. Thus, the figure of 3.5% was used. Since there was clearly error around this estimate, we also selected a lower rate (1.5%) and included that to be used in a second projection. "

Basically, the numbers mean very little to me, as they are based on a guesstimate for the attrition rate. The number of 3.5% seems fair to me, and I realize that the lower rate of 1.5% is mainly used to account for error (and is the number that estimates that huge surplus). I'd stick around the 2.5-3.5 attrition rate, so it goes from undersupply to a slight surplus.

This is also of importance: "The model has its limits: it does not factor in the impact of shifting demographics—such as the aging of the baby boomer generation—into its demand calculations, nor does it account for regional variables in demand for PTs. Also not included in the model: possible variations in supply and demand according to types of PT practice."

 

[scrawnyguy]

To be fair the article also says there may be a shortage of more than 18k if the attrition rate is 3.5%. I don't think the sky is falling yet, but it does seem as though there are schools popping up left and right, particularly for-profits that just want to make a quick buck (read: South College).

 

[starrsgirl]

I think this is an important article. Before this, I'm guessing all 3 levels of calculations showed an undersupply. So now, 2/3 calculated rates show an oversupply. This lines up more with what I see with school size, salary, job availability in my area, graduation rate and PTs who stay in the field (more a general observation of the older workforce sticking around because many can't afford to retire).

 

[redrose424]

I think this is an important article. Before this, I'm guessing all 3 levels of calculations showed an undersupply. So now, 2/3 calculated rates show an oversupply. This lines up more with what I see with school size, salary, job availability in my area, graduation rate and PTs who stay in the field (more a general observation of the older workforce sticking around because many can't afford to retire).

2/3 might say that but it doesn't really mean anything if the numbers aren't accurate.