Re: The Big 3 have more votes? NOT!!

Re: The Big 3 have more votes? NOT!!

Bobvanhook

<< In an earlier message, I wrote: AOPA currently has a Structure Commission
that is looking into these and other membership issues, such as: Shouldn't
the Big Three pay a larger percentage of the total AOPA dues? Shouldn't they
also have more votes? We're not talking control here - we're talking basic
value and fairness. >>

In a message dated 98-03-02 23:29:43 EST, Paul Rieth, CPO wrote:

I am not an AOPA member as I do not qualify to be one, but I could not pass up
the opportunity to comment on this.

The last thing NovaCare, HOG, or RDA need is more votes. This, contrary to
what you state, is control. Corporate types and their good ole boys have
infiltrated AOPA, ABC, and to a lesser extent AAOP, for many years, and in my
opinion, have led our field on a downhill spiral with the dumbing down of O&P.

Thanks for your candid comments. I can't speak about any of the other O&P
organizations, just AOPA. The three large organizations are AOPA members, and
so are about 650 smaller companies. I believe that all of members have a
legitimate expectation that they will receive value from their membership in
AOPA or any other organization. Nearly all of AOPA's member services are
targeted toward helping smaller businesses remain competitive in a changing
market. The primary (but not only) benefit for larger firms is our Government
Relations program. All O&P firms, regardless of size, benefit when AOPA's GR
program is successful. We are more likely to be successful if we all pull
together. If we split into two organizations (one for large, another for
smaller), our voice in policy issues will be greatly diminished. As it is,
the larger and smaller firms have to find common ground on policy issues as
they come through AOPA. If we split, the common ground and our effectiveness
would be lost.

Having said all of that, AOPA's dilemma is to try to give ALL of its members
value for their membership dues.

Specifically, by not defending ABC standards, doing little or nothing about
the BOC, not persuing licensure, not protecting our L-codes for use only by
ABC practitioners, and worst of all, keeping ABC practitioners in the dark
about it all until it was too late. Then, when asked why, I hear a lot of
lame excuses.

Maybe we haven't communicated well with the field about what our priorities
are, although I think we are doing a better job recently of telling our
members and others what we are doing. Check this out:

Long Term Goals of AOPA's Government Relations Program

1. To increase or maintain Medicare reimbursement levels for O&P services;

2. To keep O&P providers out of Medicare prospective payment, competitive
bidding and managed care arrangements;

3. To complete the separation of O&P from DME and other medical suppliers;

4. To restrict L-code usage to O&P suppliers, or alternatively to acquire
deemed status for ABC-certified practitioners or accredited facilities; and

5. To eliminate lifetime one limb or low dollar limits and other similar
injurious insurance practices.

As you can see, we are, in fact, trying to do a lot of the things you don't
think we are doing. As for doing something about BOC, what would you have
us do? We are pushing ABC credentials and restricting L-codes to ABC
practitioners and facilities at every turn. It is ironic that you seem to
suggest that licensure is the way to go. Licensure is a state issue. The
political process of obtaining licensure nearly always means letting BOC and
others into the licensure deal. AOPA's position on licensure is that if
practitioners in states want to do it, terrific. We'll support it and applaud
it. On the other hand, since we deal mostly at the national level (and
federal licensure is not likely to happen), our position has been to try to
restrict L-code usage to certified practitioners and facilities.

 By keeping the vote power low, it keeps these corporate types in check. This
field is made up of mostly private ownership, and our associations should stay
that way as well. As far as the dues are concerned, I am in no position to
comment, but if I were a member, I would not hesitate to pay a few hundred
bucks more to keep the private businessman in control.

How would you feel if you were a bigger member company paying 20 times the
dues of a smaller independent company, but had only one vote? And remember
that the three larger companies are fierce competitors. There is little
reason to think they would vote as a block. No one is suggesting a change in
the fundamental balance of power in voting -- just leveling the playing field
a bit and adding a little democracy.

Losing the big companies as AOPA members is not as much a money problem as a
perception and influence problem. How much influence would we lose on Capitol
Hill if we only represented about 65 percent of O&P businesses? In addition,
having the larger companies as members gives the smaller firms a forum to give
them feedback, too. I think it's too much to lose, much less to give away.

Thanks again for responding.

Bob Van Hook

Robert T. Van Hook, CAE
Executive Director
American Orthotic and Prosthetic Association
1650 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703/836-7116
Fax: 703/836-0838
Email: <Email Address Redacted>
Webpage: www.theaopa.org