Expands application of medical malpractice to include physical therapist assistants and occupational therapist assistants
The passage of HB 197 would directly affect not only the legal landscape for physical and occupational therapy but also the broader field of health care. By formally classifying physical therapist assistants and occupational therapist assistants as health care providers, the bill aims to enhance their accountability and ensure they have coverage under malpractice insurance. This move is expected to bolster the assurance of quality care and safety for patients, enhancing trust in these professions within the healthcare continuum.
House Bill 197, introduced by Representative Mike Johnson, aims to amend the state's medical malpractice laws by expanding the definition of 'health care provider' to include physical therapist assistants and occupational therapist assistants. By doing so, the bill ensures that these professionals are afforded the same legal protections and liabilities under state medical malpractice statutes that apply to other health care practitioners. This marks a significant change in how the law recognizes the contributions of allied health professionals in providing patient care.
The sentiment surrounding HB 197 appears predominantly positive among professional organizations representing physical and occupational therapists, who view the bill as a necessary step toward recognizing the evolving roles of these essential health care workers. However, concerns may be raised by some entities regarding the potential for increased malpractice insurance costs, which could impact the overall accessibility of services offered by these professionals.
While there is a general consensus on the importance of enhancing definitions around health care providers, potential points of contention could arise around the implications of the bill for insurance and litigation processes. Critics may argue about the increased liability burden that might fall on physical and occupational therapist assistants, which could complicate their practice and lead to higher operational costs. There is also a broader discussion about the implications for professional standards and the necessity of ensuring adequate training and protocols to mitigate malpractice risks.