Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Physical Therapy Practice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee refers HF 26‑89 (physical therapy direct access) after contested testimony on 90‑day guardrail
Summary
HF 26‑89 would remove Minnesota’s 90‑day referral requirement for physical therapy and modernize practice statutes; supporters cited access and evidence of safety, while physicians warned about removing a safeguard that prompts medical evaluation when patients do not improve.
Representative Dreier introduced House File 26‑89, a bill to modernize physical therapy practice law by removing the 90‑day referral requirement and clarifying supervision and collaboration rules. The sponsor said the bill reflects current doctoral‑level PT education and clinical training and does not expand scope of practice; an author’s amendment (A2) clarified supervision, strengthened title protection and added athletic trainers as non‑PT providers.
Multiple PT educators and clinicians testified in support, arguing PTs are trained to identify red flags and make timely referrals: "We do not make a medical diagnosis. We make a physical therapy diagnosis," testified Professor Holly Clinch, summarizing the distinction she described between PT evaluation and medical diagnosis. Physician groups (Minnesota Medical Association, podiatric and orthopedic groups) opposed the bill, warning that removing the 90‑day referral requirement and granting diagnostic authority without a clear statutory definition risks missed serious conditions. Lawmakers debated evidence on access, cost and safety; sponsor cited literature finding improved access and no increase in adverse outcomes in states with direct access. The committee voted to refer the bill to Judicial Finance and Civil Law (noting committee routing) for further consideration.
