I have been a PT since 1979, first in California, then 12 years in Virginia.  I am happy for the opportunity to be involved n this process, in spite of frustrations with the content. 

I am deeply concerned about the many separations of practice the new legislation is creating within our license. Historically, I sought one of the early Master's programs when there were about 5 or 6 in the country. My program in Texas required a formal thesis with presentation and defense. We were taught to be consumers of research and encouraged to participate. We were taught to respect all licenses equally. After graduation, we were quite cautious to avoid asking higher salaries or priveleges than the experienced bachelors or certificate level therapists. It was primarily a distinction in the academic realm. The natural evolution of change was all that was needed.

At this juncture, there is a dangerous precident which places a new grad years ahead on the judgement scale than experienced PT's. No matter what MD's or  legislators ask, we need to stand firm as a team. It is one thing to require proof of advanced medical screening coursework. A different issue is that of experience.
 If 3 years is the mark, then ALL should be required to have experience. Otherwise, the communtiy of consumers: patients, med practitioners, and other therapists are given a clear message that a new DPT grad has superior skills to experienced therapists.This is confusing and simply false.

Finally, I am opposed to the additional layer of recertification and the inflated fee structure. 
Would a DPT grad need to complete the screening coursework if it has been 2 years since they graduated, before they can obtain an initial certificate?? There is nothing magical about the coursework, and repeating equates to beaurocracy. I believe our time and money will be better spent on other endeavers.

Respectfully,
Pat Salin Huston