Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 87, Issue 3 , Pages 315-316, March 2006

Is PM&R Teetering on the Precipice of a Dark Age?

  • Bruce M. Gans, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to Bruce M. Gans, MD, Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, 1199 Pleasant Valley Way, West Orange, NJ 07052. Reprints are not available from the author.

Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ

Article Outline

Abstract 

Gans BM. Is PM&R teetering on the precipice of a dark age?

Physical medicine and rehabilitation has had a fascinating history of creation, growth, evolution, maturation, and challenge in the 80 or so years it has existed. Today, we are on the brink of the most serious challenges ever to face the specialty. In this address, I review briefly the history of the field, show evidence of our successes, identify the many overwhelming challenges we now face, and forecast a potential doom for our field. In the end, I offer specific strategies and tactics that the field should follow to guide us to a bright and reinvigorated future.

Key Words:  Physical medicine , Rehabilitation

 

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, in the 1920s and 1930s, built on new technologies and used physical agents to create our field of physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R). In the 1940s, the field became more formalized with organizations working to achieve recognition from organized medicine; this resulted in the establishment of the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in 1947. During the 1950s and 60s, the field grew and became a small but established specialty. During the 1970s, academic programs developed and flourished. In the 1980s, the number of hospitals that offered inpatient rehabilitation care exploded as Medicare reimbursement for acute care hospitals transitioned to the diagnosis-related groups system, and rehabilitation hospitals continued to be reimbursed on a cost basis (up to a target ceiling). The interests of incoming physiatry residents shifted substantially away from inpatient rehabilitation in the 1990s, and outpatient musculoskeletal medicine became a more dominant influence on the specialty as a whole. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, payers started assaulting reimbursement for hospital and physician care, emphasizing utilization constraints, payment avoidance strategies, and enhanced efforts to effect substitution with less-expensive services.

Over the past few years, it has become apparent to me that PM&R and medical rehabilitation are viewed by policymakers and insurers as “the problem” rather than “the solution.” We see ourselves as unique saviors for patients with catastrophic injuries and illnesses or patients with challenging musculoskeletal disorders, but policymakers and insurers see us as self-serving, profit-motivated providers promoting overutilization and unnecessary service consumption!

As a field, we have fallen from grace. Yet, we have had striking successes that should be honored.

The number of physiatrists has grown, with membership in the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation exceeding 7000, and many more professionals who declare PM&R to be their principle practice in the American Medical Association’s database.

Only rarely does the word physiatrist draw blank stares when used in a medical or lay setting.

Physiatry has even reached the general public, courtesy of Garry Trudeau’s widely syndicated comic strip Doonesbury.

PM&R has penetrated many markets to a much greater extent than ever before, and fewer patients are missed who need physiatric services to better their lives.

Several subspecialties now exist within the field to allow diplomates to refine their expertise further.

Patients have benefited from unprecedented access to care by physiatrists.

But, it seems that no good deed goes unpunished. The marvelous advances we have made in providing care to outpatients and inpatients have had unanticipated consequences.

Responding to our rapid growth rate, regulators and payers have focused on our field (generally not a favorable circumstance).

A number of other medical specialties (eg, neurology, geriatrics, palliative care) are determined to compete actively for their share of our patient market.

Rehabilitation as a value and team care as a method have been embraced (and reinvented) by many other fields.

Other professions (eg, physical therapy, psychology, podiatry) are seeking to compete with PM&R for specific segments of our patient base.

In addition, government, big business, and insurers are struggling to contain the continuing expansion of health care costs.

Medicare has targeted our field as rapidly growing (and hence defined us as a problem).

Payment for all physician procedures is under pressure, with reductions in allowable charges, reduced fee schedules, and slashed reimbursement rates.

In some ways, medical rehabilitation has been commoditized, with payers seeking to claim equivalence between hospital, nursing home, or even home-care programs (so that they can then select the least costly setting).

The programs of inpatient rehabilitation and the services of physiatrists in the office are frequently difficult to distinguish from those offered in other settings or by other providers, so that our “products” are poorly differentiated from those offered by competitors.

Payers are using utilization screens, charge denials, and arbitrary utilization caps to limit patient access to our care (perversely, caps adversely affect those with the greatest need).

Nipping at the heels of our field are many threats, including the following:

the dreaded “75% rule” to reduce inpatient rehabilitation hospital utilization and demand for physiatry

local coverage determination policies by the Medicare fiscal intermediaries designed to deny access by patients to hospital care based on gross assumptions and biased standards

managed care organizations that are seeking to reduce overall health care utilization and trying to lower the expectations of patients as to what they need and what is medically appropriate

arbitrary caps on annual therapy expenditures unrelated to clinical need in both the Medicare program and many private insurance policies.

new restrictions on the “incident-to” billing requirements for physicians, which actually reduce services a physiatrist can provide in his/her office, promote the practice of our competitors, and increase health care expenditures unwisely

aggressive competition by the nursing home industry for our inpatient market without regard for the lack of equivalency for most programs and patient care services

proposed draconian cuts in the Medicaid program that would drastically reduce the rehabilitation benefits offered by states

action by many other disciplines to expand their scope of practice legislation in the states to allow them to further encroach on the practice of physiatry

and last, a shamefully tarnished image for our field, fueled by the abusive practices of a small number of physicians and administrators, that has been overly generalized by regulators and made the field of PM&R look like a predatory rather than humanitarian branch of medicine.

So, despite our marvelous history and our glorious successes, the challenges we now face from within and without the field are putting us at high risk for a dark future. It is possible that without deliberate and aggressive intervention, our field could face the following fate:

a decline or closure of the majority of rehabilitation hospital beds

loss of all physiatrists with an interest and passion for inpatient hospital-based patient care

only the rarest patient gaining access to a rehabilitation hospital for needed care

a sharp decline in the number of residency training programs and departments of PM&R in medical schools

dramatic declines in reimbursement, heightened rejections of preapprovals, and accelerated retroactive denials of payment for outpatient practitioners

a drop in membership in our professional societies and a failure of our smaller organizations

competing physicians and other professionals acquiring all of our market share but not providing the same value or quality of care for the patients

practice expenses soaring while revenues fall, leading to practices closures.

And so, the field fades from existence, and patients lose access to the caring physicians we are who see disease and impairment in a functional and societal context.

But, we can avoid this impending doom, and transform this potential Dark Age into a new Golden Era for PM&R.

To do so, we must hold true to our values and truths. We must be prepared as individuals and organizations to speak out loudly and boldly for the things we believe are right. We must fight to preserve respect for our specialty and for our patients. We must expose our plight to the public and make it their concern for our society, not just our concern for our livelihoods. And, we must embrace the responsibility for self-monitoring our field and be accountable to the public for our practices through tools such as maintenance of certification and public disclosure of outcomes.

Because PM&R is a small field, we must ally ourselves with other groups that share our values. They will include the following:

our patients and the organizations that represent them (eg, the Brain Injury Association of America)

our sister professional societies (eg, the North American Spine Society, the Association of American Medical Colleges)

related provider organizations (eg, American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association)

other stakeholders (eg, the American Physical Therapy Association) with whom we share common concerns such as the advancement of research.

We should grow Academy membership as well, not only by capturing and retaining all physiatrists as members but also by expanding our membership categories to include others with similar interests and common values.

We must also continue to embrace innovation and change to stay current with the needs of our members, our patients, and our society (eg, the Academy should be prepared to launch a new publication if it will better meet the interests and needs of members). The specialized interests of our members should be addressed, and we should add educators’ and researchers’ councils to the structure of the Academy to include these priorities in the mainstream of our field.

It is imperative that we grow the scientific knowledge base of the field. We need to advocate for enhancing our research capacity (following through with the wonderful start made by the Research Capacity Summit that was held in April 2005). Growth of support for rehabilitation and disability research within the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research must be encouraged by the creation of coalitions to support rehabilitation research that will include consumers as well as professionals.

The international rehabilitation community must be fully embraced as well. We in the United States have much to learn and much to offer our colleagues in other nations and international societies, and we need to increase our interaction and participation in the global community of medicine.

In conclusion, the dark future I have portrayed must not be allowed to come to pass. We, as individuals and a specialty, must have the courage of our convictions to think expansively, act decisively, and be motivated by our compassion. We must hold true to our values and beliefs. And, most importantly, we must test our every action and decision against what value it will bring to our patients and their families.

By never straying from our commitment to doing the right thing for our patients, we will shape a bright new era for our patients and ourselves.

 No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.

PII: S0003-9993(05)01420-6

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.009

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 87, Issue 3 , Pages 315-316, March 2006