I think Melissa makes a good point about VPTA
participation. My observation after being involved on
the leadership level for eight years is that there is
a small number of members who are active in VPTA
activities, and they are generally the same people
each year. The attendance at the Issues Forum last
conference was very minimal, and again was pretty much
the same group of regulars.

Starting back in December 2006 I received (as a VPTA
member) a number of emails asking for input on the
language of the Direct Access legislation and for
general feedback overall. Many of the points stated in
the "united4achange" email were addressed in those
VPTA emails, so I am assuming that the current issue
brought forth is how input was solicited (or not
solicited) prior to the draft of the legislation.

I would ask how much more could have been done to
engage the membership to discuss this matter? I don't
believe that there would be much more participation
overall. I would also like to have more details about
the statement "A request to present an opposing
viewpoint to the membership on this legislation, prior
to its passing, was denied." Was there an explanation
for the denial?

Julie DoBias, PT
Rural Infant Services Program



--- "Wolff-Burke, Melissa" <mwolff@...> wrote:

> Dear Bill and colleagues,
>
> I speak for myself in this response to the email
> from "United4achange."
>
>
>
> I applaud your efforts to engage more of the
> membership in active
> dialogue, but feel the time for
> complaining/discussion on the bill is
> over and now we need to be active participants in
> determining what the
> "minimum education, training, and experience
> requirements" are for the
> certification criteria. It's just a continuing
> education course for
> heaven's sake! I just am not seeing the trauma here.
> Please consider
> that there are many PTs who need this push to
> practice in a manner that
> represents the doctoring physical therapist of
> current and future
> practice. How do I know? Because it is my job (as an
> academic you know),
> to see what is going on out there, and what I see is
> not the level of
> practice across the state, that you and your
> colleagues may practice,
> and what many of us desire.
>
>
>
> What do you expect to gain by this email? Do you
> want the VPTA president
> to resign? Do you want the entire VPTA Board to
> resign? Do you want the
> Governor to repeal it (if that is even possible)?
>
>
>
> Let me address your points:
>
> It is NOT more expense. It means that you use your
> continuing education
> money for the course, and next year, you use your
> money for something
> else. (And in fact, we do not even know what the
> group will recommend to
> the PT Board.)
>
>
>
> We have had seven years of an independent board and
> it still is
> independent (unless I did not read the bill
> correctly and the Medical
> Society of Virginia folks are now ON the PT Board).
>
>
>
> Yes - we still have restrictions. When we tried to
> do away with them
> last year, we got NO WHERE. And now we got
> somewhere; not where we want
> to be, but a step ahead from where we were. A
> patient will be able to
> see me off the street now, and he/she could NOT do
> that before.
>
>
>
> The five year moratorium makes sense because we do
> not have the money,
> organization or political clout to take on the
> Medical Society and
> Orthopaedic Society of Virginia. With less than 45%
> membership (and even
> less who actively engage) it will be a long time
> coming until we can
> hope to succeed in that area. The APTA is NOT going
> forward with a
> national mandate to stop Referral for Profit (RFP).
> As I understand it,
> they are in a go-slow, collect-data phase. Hence,
> Virginia is not in
> opposition to the efforts in the House of Delegates,
> and we will be
> working in concert with the APTA, and the RFP task
> force to collect
> CURRENT data and devise an action plan.
>
>
>
> The VPTA is a representative democracy. It doesn't
> always go the way
> everyone wants it to. If folks want to be
> represented, then they need to
> be involved. Period.
>
>
>
> In conclusion, I AGREE that the new law is not
> perfect; it is a step
> forward and was done with the best interests of the
> physical therapy
> profession and physical therapists in Virginia in
> mind.
>
>
> Melissa Wolff-Burke, PT, EdD, ATC
> Shenandoah University
> Division of Physical Therapy
> 333 West Cork Street, Suite 40
> Winchester, VA 22601
> (w) 540-545-7238
> (fax) 540-665-5530
>
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/