Physicians Cannot Refer Patients to an Employee Therapist
The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed a circuit court's summary judgment in favor of the appellees: South Carolina Board of Physical Therapy Examiners (Board), the South Carolina Chapter of the American Physical Therapy Association, the South Carolina Attorney General and the Richland County Circuit Court (South Carolina). Sloan v. S.C. Bd. of Physical Therapy Exam'rs, 370 S.C. 452, 473 (2006). The appellants, or plaintiffs initially, were physicians, physical therapists, and other professional associations.
The physicians employed the physical therapists while also referring their patients to these therapists. Different medical associations had different positions on the issue of whether a physician may employ the therapist to whom he or she refers patients. While one association considered the situation an inevitable conflict of interest, another association argued patients should have access to quality service by physicians and therapists in the same office for comprehensive care.
The Supreme Court noted that South Carolina has enacted the "Provider Self-Referral Act" in 1993. S.C. Code Ann. Sections 44-113-10 to -80. The act prohibits a health care provider from referring patients to an entity in which the provider has an investment interest or from accepting kickbacks for referring patients. The Court also noted that Title 40 of the South Carolina Code was amended to reflect the act's enactment and added violation of the act to be a ground for refusal to renew, or suspesion of, a license. S.C. Code Ann.Section 40-45-110(A)(1).
The Supreme Court held that the South Carolina Provider Self-Referral Act prohibited physical therapists from working as employees of a physician when the physician refers patients to that physical therapist for services. The court further rejected the appellants' argument that restricting the person to whom a physician may refer his patients infringes upon the physician's right to practice medicine, as provided by S.C. Code Ann. Sections 40-47-5 to -1620. The court recognized the legislature's power to regulate the profession.
Appellants also argued that the law at issue violates the equal protection rights of therapists wishing to be employed by physicians who refer patients to them. The court disagreed. The court applied a rational basis test to its analysis, stating that the law will be upheld if it bears a rational relationship to a legislative purpose. The court described the legislative purpose to be avoiding "overuse of physical therapy services by physicians who, for their own financial gain rather than their patients' medical needs, refer patients to therapists employed by the physician who will generate additional fees for the physician." Sloan, at 482. The rational basis test was met.
The court lastly held that appellants substantive and procedural due process rights had not been violated. The Board held a meeting at which appellants were able to and did make comments in support of their positions.
This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.
Posted by Ryan McCabe at 2/13/2009 5:27 PM 
Categories: Physical Therapists,Revoked license,Violation,Physicians,Canceled License
Categories: Physical Therapists,Revoked license,Violation,Physicians,Canceled License
Comments