Re: U.S. Politics: AOPA Position on Legislation
Robert VanHook
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: U.S. Politics: AOPA Position on Legislation
Creator:
Robert VanHook
Date:
3/15/1999
Text:
I think I can speak for the AOPA board when I say that we are fully
supportive of ABC certification and accreditation. However, AOPA operates
in a political environment. Just as it has proven difficult for state
licensure advocates to restrict licensure to ABC practitioners, we find
that Congress is reluctant to give exclusive payment status to ABC folks.
This issue is even more complex since Medicare payments are made to
facilities, not practitioners. This is one of the distinguishing features
of this field. This means that the fortunes of the facilities and
professionals are inextricably tied together. It is not an either or
situation. As I have often said, you have to do well to do good. In other
words, the business has to do well before the professionals in the field
can do the good work they are trained to do.
Also, in a former life I ran the National Rural Health Association.
Scarcity is a fact of life in rural areas. Not every place can have
certified people on staff, that's why ABC set the requirement for having
the care supervised by certified practitioners, and why AOPA supports that
notion.
AOPA is trying to weed out the people that are not remotely qualified to do
custom O&P care -- pharmacist, DME companies, department stores, grocery
stores, etc. Recently, AOPA's legislative counsel suggested a metaphor.
He said if you have 100 rats eating your grain and you can get rid of 99
of them, isn't that a victory? Politics is the art of compromise. If you
aren't willing to compromise, you will not get even a portion of what you
want. AOPA is committed to pushing the ABC credentials and accreditation
standards and NCOPE's (CAAHEP) educational standards as far as we possibly
can.
Bob Van Hook
On Friday, March 12, 1999 9:41 PM, <Email Address Redacted> [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/12/99 5:18:09 PM Central Standard Time,
> <Email Address Redacted> writes:
>
> << AOPA's draft legislation says that a qualified supplier is an
organization
> accredited by ABC (which requires that care be supervised by an ABC
certified
> practitioner) or other programs
> with standards essentially similar to those of ABC. Alternatively, an
> organization may also qualify for payment if it has a practitioner
licensed by
> the State in which the service is delivered or has at least 10 years
> experience in relevant practice.>>
>
> Thanks for the reply, Bob.
>
> I read this to mean NO to my question. That the AOPA statement means that
> qualified proffesonals includes BOC and others that may have been
> grandfathered in by state licensing.
>
> I think to often those of us in the profession mistakenly assume that
when a
> statement says qualified professionals: we think this only means ABC
> certified practitioners. I read this to mean that AOPA 's statement
supports
> anyone with any kind of qualification to provide O&P services and does
not
> exclusively support ABC whereas full Academy membership is exclusive to
ABC
> certification.
>
> Al Pike, CP
>
>
>
>
>
>
supportive of ABC certification and accreditation. However, AOPA operates
in a political environment. Just as it has proven difficult for state
licensure advocates to restrict licensure to ABC practitioners, we find
that Congress is reluctant to give exclusive payment status to ABC folks.
This issue is even more complex since Medicare payments are made to
facilities, not practitioners. This is one of the distinguishing features
of this field. This means that the fortunes of the facilities and
professionals are inextricably tied together. It is not an either or
situation. As I have often said, you have to do well to do good. In other
words, the business has to do well before the professionals in the field
can do the good work they are trained to do.
Also, in a former life I ran the National Rural Health Association.
Scarcity is a fact of life in rural areas. Not every place can have
certified people on staff, that's why ABC set the requirement for having
the care supervised by certified practitioners, and why AOPA supports that
notion.
AOPA is trying to weed out the people that are not remotely qualified to do
custom O&P care -- pharmacist, DME companies, department stores, grocery
stores, etc. Recently, AOPA's legislative counsel suggested a metaphor.
He said if you have 100 rats eating your grain and you can get rid of 99
of them, isn't that a victory? Politics is the art of compromise. If you
aren't willing to compromise, you will not get even a portion of what you
want. AOPA is committed to pushing the ABC credentials and accreditation
standards and NCOPE's (CAAHEP) educational standards as far as we possibly
can.
Bob Van Hook
On Friday, March 12, 1999 9:41 PM, <Email Address Redacted> [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/12/99 5:18:09 PM Central Standard Time,
> <Email Address Redacted> writes:
>
> << AOPA's draft legislation says that a qualified supplier is an
organization
> accredited by ABC (which requires that care be supervised by an ABC
certified
> practitioner) or other programs
> with standards essentially similar to those of ABC. Alternatively, an
> organization may also qualify for payment if it has a practitioner
licensed by
> the State in which the service is delivered or has at least 10 years
> experience in relevant practice.>>
>
> Thanks for the reply, Bob.
>
> I read this to mean NO to my question. That the AOPA statement means that
> qualified proffesonals includes BOC and others that may have been
> grandfathered in by state licensing.
>
> I think to often those of us in the profession mistakenly assume that
when a
> statement says qualified professionals: we think this only means ABC
> certified practitioners. I read this to mean that AOPA 's statement
supports
> anyone with any kind of qualification to provide O&P services and does
not
> exclusively support ABC whereas full Academy membership is exclusive to
ABC
> certification.
>
> Al Pike, CP
>
>
>
>
>
>
Citation
Robert VanHook, “Re: U.S. Politics: AOPA Position on Legislation,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 5, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/211384.
