Professional- licensure, reimbursement, other

Quoted Text

Now, one could argue that if we had a license that insurance companies, etc may be more likely to reimburse for services, but I have not seen that proven.

Good point. People often believe that licensure is necessary for reimbursement when, in fact, they're two distinct concepts. You get reimbursed by a third party payor (insurance company) if and only if they have contracted with you to pay for a service that you can provide. Depending on what the service is, you may or may not need a license to be able to legally provide that service in a given jurisdiction. Licensure and reimbursement are connected sometimes, just not in the way some people think they are.

I tend to agree with Clinton. What licensure can offer is not more jobs. That is advocacy. Now, one could argue that if we had a license that insurance companies, etc may be more likely to reimburse for services, but I have not seen that proven. What will get us traction in both areas is to gain in the areas of consistent preparation in both education and practical experience at a level consistent with the job that is to be performed. That we do not have at this point. The certifications only survey if one has minimal competency (and that could be argued) to perform the job. It does not survey the educational foundation or experience of the individual, nor if they are good at what they do.

Good question Bob. I often hear people state that licensure will create more job opportunities, increase salaries, and improve respect from other health professionals. This is not true. These are outcomes of advocacy, not licensure. An important reason a state would create a licensure law is to protect the public by defining who can practice as a CEP- eg, government regulation of the profession.

How important do you think licensure is for the advancement of the profession of clinical exercise physiology, and why?