Physical Therapists and the Chiropractic Practice Act Denise Natale, D.C. Vermont Board of Chiropractic

History March 2005 –PT Advisor Board proposes “housekeeping” changes to practice act, including adding mobilization April 2005 –VCA responds with concerns July 2005 –PT publishes draft language for proposed act

History September 2005 –PT responds to VCA April 2005 letter, claiming qualifications November 2005 –PT requests meeting with VT Board to discuss definitions of manipulation, mobilization December 2005 –PT and VT Board meet for fact-finding

History January 2006 –PT’s invited back to VT Board –PT’s respond with letter

The Problems PT’s offer language from their Federation of State Board of Physical Therapy Model Practice Act

The Problems OPR/Legislator confusion –Both PT’s and DC’s offer their version of the truth The PT language offers mobilization and manipulation as synonyms

The Problems No good universal definition of manipulation, mobilization seemed to exist –Many suggested definitions are Politically motivated Old chiropractic dogma Not reflective of current, unbiased science Not defensible in court

The Problems Compared to the extensive background work PT’s have conducted, DC’s are not prepared to defend their practice to legislators

The Problems To stay out of the “turf war” trap –This is not about politics –This is a public protection issue

The Problems We need resources!!!

Concerns Raised by Colleagues % of PT’s who currently perform manipulation –% of their patients receiving manipulation PT’s ability to assess contraindications to manipulation DC’s ability to present a united front

Solutions Education –Define mobilization/ manipulation –Safety record of DC’s vs. others –Present to OPR, Board, Legislature prn

Resources FCLB Becoming an expert –Definitions –PT’s practice “medical” differential diagnosis vs. PT diagnosis –Risks and benefits of manipulation

When we circle the wagons this time, let’s not shoot in!