DPT an experiment? Is it necessary?

[lee9786]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Just wondering about your opinion on this. I'm a little concerned myself to tell you the truth. I've been looking at pursuing a career in PT. In the end I am looking at around 150k of debt if I do this. The loan calculator says monthly payments will be around 1750k a month. This is ~40% of earnings going on the assumption of making 55k a year before taxes. So the bottom line is looking like my current living situation which is pretty much "survival mode" will be continued even after I start my professional work.

So I have many questions. The vision of the APTA is that 2020 all PT work will be done by DPTs. The term "vision" is what bothers me. It's not necessarily a "mandate." Currently around 8% of practicing PTs are actually DPTs (http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm...MPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=41545) The other 90% aren't DPTs.

Now there is a transition program which is "recommended." The APTA wants currently practicing PTs to participate to help establish more credibility among the PT profession. This of course costs money and resources. What if PT professionals choose not to do this?

So I guess the big question is... Is the DPT going to make the impact that the APTA is hoping (which is to create more "direct access" as well as autonomy for the PT)? Do currently practicing PTs believe it will? I've heard some say that the DPT is really just for "fluff." I guess to try and establish more credibility among the healthcare profession.

Well this is all nice but the bottom line is compensation is the same. Which an extra year of school another 25k is added to the total amount of debt to be paid.

My concern is this... I invest in the DPT program, inherit 150k of debt, than when the "vision" doesn't go as planned; the DPT is abandoned and essentially useless. It seems to me that this is all just an experiment. What do you think? Is a PT that has a DPT really that much better/more knowledgeable than a PT that has a Masters or even Bachelor's education? Please be honest. Thank you for your help.

 

[jbizzle]

OK, i'll answer.

Nope. I volunteered with an MPT and she knows her s#it.

At the same time if thats whats required then thats what I would have to do. Of course more knowledge cant hurt...as in schooling i mean.

 

[PREMEDWOAHS]

Also true, I volunteered with a women who had only her Bachelors + continuing education credits. She was better than the MPT I worked with.

 

[jbizzle]

IMHO....its also the same as school ranking. People are worried about the ranking of the school they are going to but, in the next 5-10 years it should not matter where your went to school.

 

[CroakerSoaker]

IMHO....People are worried about the ranking of the school they are going to but, in the next 5-10 years it should not matter where your went to school.

i couldnt agree with you more; even the best schools will produce less than stellar therapists and "low ranking" schools will produce outstanding therapists. I believe the faculty of a school is there to give you a base - what you do with that base will ultimately determine how skilled a clinician you will become. I guess what im trying to saw is that the school is only part of the equation; what the PT does in terms of professional development is huge

 

[lee9786]

So around 8% of PTs are DPTs according to the APTA data. That means a majority of PTs currently working are not. So the question is... Will the DPT degree increase "direct access" and compensation which is the hope the APTA had in mind or will the DPT just be looked upon as a fluffed up degree. The latter which could ultimately determine whether or not the DPT is just an idealistic concept in which in will be disregarded due to the increased cost for the credential with lacking benefits. Am I way off hear?

 

[lee9786]

Below is an article talking about the quality, the cost, and availability of patient care. What do you think?...

http://www.glgroup.com/News/Negligent-Patient-Care--The-Impact-on-the-Cost-of-Health-Care-35127.html

"There are approximately 175,000 physical therapists working in active patient care roles in the U.S. today, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. The DOL projects that these numbers will grow to 220,000 by 2016. Even with this growth, supply is unlikely to keep up with demand. According to the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), the current vacancy rate for physical therapists at the nation's hospitals is 14 percent. This is almost twice the vacancy rate of nurses."

People need help but their is not enough qualified people to give this help to them.

"Both the national nursing and physical therapy associations have initiated admission program guidelines that are not conducive to increasing the number of new graduates."

So increased demand of help with decreasing supply of qualified workers. You'd think common sense would motivate administrators to make changes that help relieve the shortages, not contribute to the problem by increasing the barrier of entry to the professions.

"How do we increase the number of quality health care providers? First, the admission criteria to medical programs, the curriculums and the instructor's qualifications need to be re-evaluated. The curriculums need to focus on supervised practicums for the front line health care providers. "

What needs to change to decrease the barrier of entry into the professions?... "admission criteria." Also supply of PT and nursing educators to increase applicants acceptance. So basically lowering the standards which is the opposite of what the APTA is doing with a mandated DPT degree.

"Another practice contributing to the shortage of physical therapy is the 2020 requirement by the American Association of Physical Therapists which requires that all physical therapists to have a doctorate degree to be licensed to practice. Do we really need doctorate prepared physical therapists to deliver physical therapy exercises to an elderly patient with a broken hip? Today, a physical therapist makes an average salary close to six figures. The doctorate requirement will only increase the average salary and increase the cost of health care."

So here is the ultimate question... "Do we really need doctorate prepared Physical Therapists to deliver physical therapy exercises to an elderly patient with a broken hip?" This is the question that legislators will ultimately be asking when they re-evaluate health care costs and start making cuts. This is my thinking anyways... Your thoughts...?

(...side note... average salary is six figures for PTs?... what data is this guy looking at?... another side note... the DPT requirement will increase the average salary of PT services? From what I've been reading people hiring don't seem to really distinguish between a DPT and a MPT. The mean salary per year is like $500 difference. Not a big increase in cost if you ask me.)

"Due to the shortage, many health care professionals work independently and without supervision. This practice is often associated with compromised care and short cuts. The lack of supervision of health care professionals leads to the second area of where action needs to be taken. Health care professionals need to be more closely supervised. They need to immediately experience the consequences of their substandard practice."

The DPT is suppose to increase autonomy of the profession. The idea is to work more independently. Well according to this article this independence compromises healthcare. Will the DPT do for the profession what is thought? Will it be seen as providing the knowledge required to work with more "direct access." Will it increase the compensation down the road for PT services? If it does than it increases costs and is counterproductive right?

It seems to me that we have two forces working against each other. In the end both the PTs and the Patients lose. It doesn't seem to follow the general guidelines of "common sense." It seems to me eventually the bottom line will be decreasing the barrier of entry into the profession or increasing the acceptance of applicants. Why...? because they will have to. There will have to be an adjustment in some way to increase the supply to meet the demand. The biggest barrier of entry is the cost of the required education. With the PT field it seems that the cost of attaining the credential is increasing but the compensation is staying pretty much the same. Loan calculators don't like the math.

according to the loan calculator below (very rough estimate but it works) someone making 55k/year should have around 40k of loans. That's almost a joke. So will the high cost of education deter people from entering the PT profession? I know it has me thinking twice? I'm trying to cope with the fact that if I do this than ~40% of my paycheck is looking like it's going to go to education for the first ten years of me being in the workforce.

As we all know education is also a business. If they don't have the applicants than they will not have the program. They'll cut back the education to the masters again. This is my thought process anyway... what do you think.?

http://www.finaid.org/calculators/scripts/loanpayments.cgi

 

[pwrtrainer]

You could spend your time becoming an investment banker, or get your MBA. I am not in it for the money. If you are, more power to you, but your career will burn out rapidly. The DPT makes sense to me. Not because of the title, but because if I want the profession to evolve, I feel educated people are the ones who will be able to make it happen. PT is not the only field that is going to be strained in the next decade. Lowering the standard IMO is not the answer. As unnecessary as you may feel your last year may be while getting your DPT, it is your responsibility not to let it be. If you want to learn more in that year, thats up to you. Putting you out in the workforce a year early may not be a great idea. You may be a genius and be great out the gate, but an extra year focused on learning more about your craft in a setting that allows you to try many different arenas is a good idea. If you don't agree that is fine, but have a conversation with some of your peers at the interviews and you will see that an extra year will not only teach them a bit more, but it will allow them to grow up a bit more and be more mentally ready for the real world. If you want an MPT go ahead and get one, if you don't want the DPT don't apply.

150k in debt sucks a lot, but thats life and it is a choice.

 

[mcc0037]

The PT I work with has his bachelors and is the hot commodity in the Dallas area. I also work with two young MPTs and they are great as well.

I get what is being said but you just have to give DPT a chance to breath. It seems like some are wanting to suffocate the profession because of the transition. You have to let time play itself out with the gradaute program and the profession. It sounds ridiculous now with the tuition debt and pay ratio but this is still the infancy stage of the DPT era. I do not consider this an experiment but progress to the profession. It is not the solution but it is a step on advancing the PT profession in a positive direction. I say one should properly evalute the transition in about 15 to 30 years in order to see any realistic transformation in the profession. Right now, we can talk about the profession all we want about projecting its future in healthcare but the zeitgeist will dictate its place and that will lie within the politics of the system.

 

[pwrtrainer]

...

 

[lee9786]

The PT I work with has his bachelors and is the hot commodity in the Dallas area. I also work with two young MPTs and they are great as well.

I get what is being said but you just have to give DPT a chance to breath. It seems like some are wanting to suffocate the profession because of the transition. You have to let time play itself out with the gradaute program and the profession. It sounds ridiculous now with the tuition debt and pay ratio but this is still the infancy stage of the DPT era. I do not consider this an experiment but progress to the profession. It is not the solution but it is a step on advancing the PT profession in a positive direction. I say one should properly evalute the transition in about 15 to 30 years in order to see any realistic transformation in the profession. Right now, we can talk about the profession all we want about projecting its future in healthcare but the zeitgeist will dictate its place and that will lie within the politics of the system.

You're right! Thank you for your comment. I was hoping someone came out and said this because it was one way I was thinking. The DPT is still in the beginning stages of development. So the DPT transition can be looked at with optimism or pessimism.

What has me cross checking is when the PTs, doctors, and other health professionals who don't think it's a good idea. They feel that nothing will really change except the amount of debt incurred for PT students. An increase cost in the education expense will lead to an increase in pay which ultimately increases healthcare costs overall. This the counterproductivity I've been talking about. I've been trying to prospectively look at this issue to get a generally hypothesis of what this career will be like down the road. I've been trying to look at trends and get current PTs prospective.

The bottom line though is that DPT is an experiment. It's a calculated risk. Ultimately time will tell regarding the effectiveness of the DPT and if it is was a good or bad idea. It's up to future DPTs to make this disctinction and proove that the implementation of the DPT was a good idea.

 

[lee9786]

You could spend your time becoming an investment banker, or get your MBA. I am not in it for the money. If you are, more power to you, but your career will burn out rapidly. The DPT makes sense to me. Not because of the title, but because if I want the profession to evolve, I feel educated people are the ones who will be able to make it happen. PT is not the only field that is going to be strained in the next decade. Lowering the standard IMO is not the answer. As unnecessary as you may feel your last year may be while getting your DPT, it is your responsibility not to let it be. If you want to learn more in that year, thats up to you. Putting you out in the workforce a year early may not be a great idea. You may be a genius and be great out the gate, but an extra year focused on learning more about your craft in a setting that allows you to try many different arenas is a good idea. If you don't agree that is fine, but have a conversation with some of your peers at the interviews and you will see that an extra year will not only teach them a bit more, but it will allow them to grow up a bit more and be more mentally ready for the real world. If you want an MPT go ahead and get one, if you don't want the DPT don't apply.

150k in debt sucks a lot, but thats life and it is a choice.

Feel free to read back over my post. This isn't about greed. It's about survival. 150k of education debt with a 55k/year job... you do the math. The ten year payment plan doesn't look so hot. It looks kind of like 50% of your net paycheck is going to pay for student loans. I kind of looks like you may want to hold out on having kids.

No it's not about the money. I'm right with you. For me it's about being able to help people and do something productive with my time. Maybe I can help change someone's life. Money has a funny way of creating a financial crutch if you bury yourself without a clear-cut plan. This is what I'm trying to do.

If I go for PT, which I'm actually on track for applying in December, than I will be applying for the DPT. I'm not trying to disrespect DPTs. I'm trying to attain more of an understanding.

 

[jesspt]

lee9786 -

When I click on the link you provided earlier, I don't get the article you're referencing. Regardless, I think you should ask yourself a few questions about it:

1. Who wrote the article?
2. What is his or her background?
3. What are their references supporting their position on healthcare?

It sounds like opinion and conjecture and I disagree with almost all of the opinions that are from that article in your previous post.