ABC Therapeutics Occupational Therapy Weblog

In February of 2024 I left my prior academic role and wrote about some of the challenges and questions facing occupational therapy (OT) education . What should the next generation of OT programs look like? How do we ensure graduates are prepared for where the profession is headed? What does it mean to build something that contributes meaningfully to both students and the field? Most importantly, how do we rationalize the occupational therapy education market? These weren’t rhetorical questions. Over the past 18 months, I’ve had the opportunity to help shape the answers. Today, I’m proud to share that the Rochester Institute of Technology’s entry-level Doctor of Occupational Therapy (OTD) program is officially live on OTCAS , the centralized application system used by occupational therapy programs nationwide. While some programs have already begun evolving, too much of OT education in the region remains tethered to outdated models. It’s not enough to add more programs. We need to build ...

The World Federation of Occupational Therapists just released a new definition of occupational therapy. It’s short, clean, and stripped of jargon: “Occupational therapy promotes health and wellbeing by supporting participation in meaningful occupations that people want, need, or are expected to do.” Some commenters online have already begun objecting to the phrase “expected to do,” criticizing it as normative, colonial, or culturally prescriptive. What many don’t seem to realize is that the phrase isn’t new. It’s been in the WFOT definition since at least 2010. The 2025 revision didn’t add this language; it chose not to delete it. That’s significant. A Bit of History Occupational therapy once had role theory as an anchor point. That orientation helped the profession identify what people  should be doing, based on their life stage, culture, and social context. In the 1960s through the 1980s, OT was often described as facilitating participation in the roles of self-care, pro...

A few months ago, I submitted a formal petition to AOTA expressing concern about the approval of the revised Code of Ethics through a consent agenda. I questioned whether it was appropriate to pass a foundational document that defines the ethical framework of the profession without open deliberation or engagement with members. I was invited to present my concerns to a Review Committee. The process was respectful. The committee listened attentively and expressed gratitude to me for my engagement. Today, I received word that the consent agenda vote to approve the Code would not be reconsidered and that there was no violation of AOTA bylaws. However, AOTA acknowledged that future governance and member education needed to be strengthened such that the governance team developed targeted educational strategies to support volunteer leaders in their understanding of how to use consent agendas. In sum, they affirmed the procedural decision while offering a commitment to improved the process mo...

  Lately, I’ve been reflecting on a new rhetoric within occupational therapy circles. Specifically, I am seeing messaging that serves as a call for action on social and political issues, and also insists that the occupational therapy  profession must become a vehicle for radical change. One recent example came from a group calling itself Diverse-OT National , which published a statement rejecting neutrality and explicitly accusing professional institutions of “collusion” in state violence. I have no objection to anyone advocating for a cause they believe in. I respect passion, and I understand the appeal of movements. But I believe we need to ask a critical question - i s the profession of occupational therapy the right vehicle for this kind of activism? In my view, it is not. And here’s why. 1. Occupational Therapy Is a Health Profession, Not a Political Movement Occupational therapy is built on the foundation of helping people live lives of meaning and participation. We se...

The House-passed Budget Reconciliation Bill—nicknamed the "One Big Beautiful Bill" by its sponsors—has generated swift opposition from AOTA. The association’s article focuses on the very real concern that shifting Medicaid funding to block grants or per-capita caps could jeopardize occupational therapy (OT) services for vulnerable populations. That is correct analysis. But the AOTA messaging on this issue lacks depth and strategy. A pre-written form letter to Congress isn’t a serious response to a structural overhaul of one of OT’s largest funding streams. It’s time for clinicians and educators to stop outsourcing our critical thinking and advocacy. Here’s a deeper, more balanced look at what’s in this bill—and what OTs   need to be doing. The Real Structural Threat: Medicaid Block Grants Let’s start with the most important thing the bill proposes: a fundamental shift in Medicaid funding . Instead of Medicaid functioning as an open-ended federal match for state spending, ...

I just attended a professional development session on ethics, led by a prominent figure involved in ethics discussions within occupational therapy. The session was structured around a "socially responsive ethical decision-making model" that integrated themes of diversity, identity, power, and historical trauma. It was thoughtfully delivered, and the presenter was receptive and open to engagement. Yet by the end, I was left with a gnawing discomfort about the philosophical architecture beneath the model. It is not that I oppose reflection or the thoughtful inclusion of cultural context. Most clinicians I know already approach their work with thoughtfulness and recognize that each patient brings a unique context worthy of consideration. But what I encountered during this session was not a pluralistic ethics framework. It was a carefully constructed worldview that strongly nudges moral reasoning toward alignment with current sociopolitical trends—while still presenting itself as...