工伤补偿制度中物理治疗量与旷工时间和费用关系的回应。

Nina Leung, X. Tao, E. Bernacki
{"title":"工伤补偿制度中物理治疗量与旷工时间和费用关系的回应。","authors":"Nina Leung, X. Tao, E. Bernacki","doi":"10.1097/JOM.0000000000001758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"W e appreciate the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by Leung et al. We are delighted that our research has garnered interest and intellectual discussion among the research community. Several concerns were raised by Leung et al regarding the provider types associated with current procedural terminology codes as listed in Appendix A of the previously published article. Our manuscript does not focus on specific provider types and instead focuses on the outcomes related to billable, physical methods for the treatment of injury. Similar methodologies in assessing ‘‘physical therapy’’ on healthcare utilization and cost has been applied in previous studies. We agree that effective physical therapy services may differ between providers and our article was careful to avoid generalizing to specific practitioners and as such, does not assess variations in care by provider types. Another issue discussed in the comment related to the categorization of physical therapy visits among claimants without services (zero visits) and those with one to three visits. Significant differences were not observed for claim characteristics and","PeriodicalId":46545,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine","volume":"80 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RESPONSE to the Relationship of the Amount of Physical Therapy to Time Lost from Work and Costs in the Workers' Compenstion System.\",\"authors\":\"Nina Leung, X. Tao, E. Bernacki\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JOM.0000000000001758\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"W e appreciate the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by Leung et al. We are delighted that our research has garnered interest and intellectual discussion among the research community. Several concerns were raised by Leung et al regarding the provider types associated with current procedural terminology codes as listed in Appendix A of the previously published article. Our manuscript does not focus on specific provider types and instead focuses on the outcomes related to billable, physical methods for the treatment of injury. Similar methodologies in assessing ‘‘physical therapy’’ on healthcare utilization and cost has been applied in previous studies. We agree that effective physical therapy services may differ between providers and our article was careful to avoid generalizing to specific practitioners and as such, does not assess variations in care by provider types. Another issue discussed in the comment related to the categorization of physical therapy visits among claimants without services (zero visits) and those with one to three visits. Significant differences were not observed for claim characteristics and\",\"PeriodicalId\":46545,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001758\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001758","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们很高兴有机会对Leung等人提出的问题作出回应。我们很高兴我们的研究引起了研究界的兴趣和学术讨论。Leung等人对先前发表的文章附录A中列出的与当前程序术语规范相关的提供者类型提出了几个问题。我们的手稿不关注具体的提供者类型,而是关注与可计费的、治疗损伤的物理方法相关的结果。在评估"物理疗法"对医疗保健的利用和成本方面,以前的研究也采用了类似的方法。我们同意,有效的物理治疗服务可能因提供者而异,我们的文章谨慎地避免将其推广到特定的从业人员,因此,没有评估提供者类型的护理差异。评论中讨论的另一个问题涉及没有服务的索赔人(零次就诊)和有一至三次就诊的索赔人的物理治疗就诊分类。在权利要求特征和
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
RESPONSE to the Relationship of the Amount of Physical Therapy to Time Lost from Work and Costs in the Workers' Compenstion System.
W e appreciate the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by Leung et al. We are delighted that our research has garnered interest and intellectual discussion among the research community. Several concerns were raised by Leung et al regarding the provider types associated with current procedural terminology codes as listed in Appendix A of the previously published article. Our manuscript does not focus on specific provider types and instead focuses on the outcomes related to billable, physical methods for the treatment of injury. Similar methodologies in assessing ‘‘physical therapy’’ on healthcare utilization and cost has been applied in previous studies. We agree that effective physical therapy services may differ between providers and our article was careful to avoid generalizing to specific practitioners and as such, does not assess variations in care by provider types. Another issue discussed in the comment related to the categorization of physical therapy visits among claimants without services (zero visits) and those with one to three visits. Significant differences were not observed for claim characteristics and
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Use of Metabolomic Tool in Assessing Environmental Exposure Fine and Ultrafine Particle Pollution Before and After a Smoking ban in the Catering Industry in Vienna Investigating the level of Safety Considerations in Radiology Centers (North of Iran): Cross –Sectional Study New Highlights. The Last Note.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1