Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Recently there was a thread in the Canadian section here, about a company employing both the prescriber and provider of orthotics, by employing both a Podiatrist and a Pedorthist.

It's an interesting subject, can a prescriber be a provider?
As l look at some of my clients l think it is unfair that they need to get a referral/prescription for an existing condition which is the process that the government has in-place for funding.

For example, clients with C.P, they need to get a prescription for MGF from a referrer/prescriber, their condition does not get any better and it is a complete waste of their time and money to meet these requirements.

Then l saw this story on TV last night, not quite the same l know, but balances and checks are important when you come up against the unscrupulous.

If the Dentist in question required a referral/prescription before the work was "done", this may have never happened, l am surprised they dont, as most of it was for DVA clients.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/latest/article/-/19300528/phantom-dental-work/

 

David,

Optometrists are both the prescriber and the supplier of optical devices.

Most podiatrists both prescribe and supply orthoses.

Pharmacists, are both the prescriber and supplier of OTC medicines.

For the medical profession (in Australia) the Medicare billing rules mostly prevent the prescriber also being the provider (Drs don't usually dispense drugs, they provide referrals for diagnostic services to be funded etc.)

But when it comes to instigating other forms of treatment, the prescriber is always the supplier. If a surgeon "prescribes" surgery, they will be the one performing it etc.

So the issue is a mix of professional ethics and informed consent.