Regarding ABC bylaws
Description
Collection
Title:
Regarding ABC bylaws
Text:
Following is copy of an interesting and perhaps important letter that I came
across recently. If there are any framers of this new proposal out there
who have put as much thought into this matter as the gentleman who wrote what
follows, there should be numerous responses (rebuttals; what have you) coming
and made available and published to all interested parties via the internet.
Until I hear satisfactory answers to his stated questions, point by point, I
too will vote against consolidation for the very reasons that Mr. Gallo
states. The recent Hanger purchase of NovaCare O&P, makes Mr. Gallo's
questions are the more pertinent.
Wil Haines, CPO
************
Following is copy of letter written to Mr. Hoxie from Mr. Gallo............
Dear Mr. Hoxie:
The following are what I see as deficiencies in the proposed Draft
of Bylaws recently sent to members. First it assumes the consolidation
will occur! It is my understanding the members must still vote. In the
unfortunate event that consolidation does occur I feel the following are
problems with the proposed Bylaws.
Page 1
Line 28 custom-designed, inserting this term means the only
reason to be certified is if you make custom devices. This removes most
spinal, knee, and halo devices. This is foolish, especially if we are
asking HCFA to recognize ABC credentials as the only approved. This
limits our scope to a very small field, while it tell the world you
don't need special training to do the rest of the orthotics' field. The
phrase to an orthotic patient, is redundant and unnecessary, you would
not fit an orthosis to a prosthetic patient, nor would you fit on
someone not a patient.
33 Same comments as above
37 Limits us to specially designed, whatever that means.
The definitions of prosthetist and orthotist do not mention our training
to evaluate the patient, formulate a treatment plan, or do any of the
other professional aspects of O&P. It seems we are relegated to the
technical, regressing back to leg and brace makers. The emphasis should
be on projecting an educated practitioner whose scope of practice is all
encompassing.
Page 2
Line 2 The mission of the AAOP should be to represent its
members NOT the profession. Also, somehow the interests and
protection of the public is not mentioned. An oversight?
9 should mention the need to protect the public by
advocating minimum standards of ABC credentials.
15 Credentialing is only valid and not antitrust if it
sets MINIMUM standards. Its function is not to advance competency, it
is to assure it. Credentials evidence to the public and to others in
the profession the meeting of a minimum standard required to safeguard
the public. Advancement of competency is done by CAAHEP/NCOPE
increasing the standards and requirements.
Page 3
Line 12 ABC-Registered Associates is not defined, also, the
Associate should not have equal status as the practitioner, especially
in voting. A separate class should be started for associates and/or
technicians.
Page 4
Line 8 ... for Affiliate..., This seems discriminatory. Why
are only affiliate membership name's published? Either everyone's name
should be published or no ones.
16 If companies must enroll all eligible offices,
does this not provide a negative force for companies to join? The
number of offices enrolled should be decided by the company, or will
they make the office ineligible just to sidestep.
35 Voting should be limited to practitioners. Allowing
companies and suppliers to vote puts the membership at odds. Companies
are looking for ways to lower labor costs, like using less skilled and
educated practitioners, while the practitioner has the pride of
profession and the safety of the patient in mind when asking for better
standards. These are diametrically opposed. This is why I am against
consolidation, we are either an industry trade association or a
practitioner standards association. We can't be both.
49 selected, shouldn't this be elected?
Page 5
Line 1 This formula stacks the Board with Company members.
First of all, the formula of 5 and 5 is not fair. According to the
latest ABC registry there are 3400 practitioners but only 1160
facilities. If you add in the few suppliers which service our industry
you may have 1200. This is still a ratio of nearly 3:1. Where is equal
representation? To make this situation even worse, there is nothing to
prevent the five Individual seats from being given to company men.
Having a large block of votes the large companies can dominate the Board
with impunity. There should be safeguards insuring practitioners are
represented by individuals not company men. Why are NovaCare and
Hanger assured of each having a seat? Just because they are on the
verge of being monopolistic doesn't mean they should be guaranteed a
seat. If neither of the behemoths chooses to remain a member, after all
they are of sufficient size to advocate their own interest on the local
and federal level, will their seats be given back to the peons. The
draft only addresses if one chooses not to join.
Page 10
Line 22 I am presuming Board means the association Board, not
ABC's board. If the ABC is autonomous why does the Association have ANY
reserved seats? The way the bylaws are written four seats are given to
the Board to appoint or elect, making no reference as whether these
are certified practitioners. To add to the insult, they don't have to
be elected, the Board can appoint.
25 The term active member means both practitioners and
companies, again there is no mention of the members being certified.
31 This sentence is absurd. No provision is made for
removal of a Board member if the public and Active Members do not
constitute a majority.
34 This sentence affirms that it is possible for all ABC
board commissioners to be non certified. Wouldn't it be ironic if all
the commissioners wind up being BOC or less! ABC's board should consist
of certified practitioners and public members only, no company men.
Page 11
Line 20 Can the Association Board override the budget? Where do
ABC's moneys come from now that they are not independent. It seems the
Association has the power of the purse over ABC. ABC should have
independent income, not funneled through the Association.
Page 12
Line 1 Why doesn't ABC have the authority to deny Association
demands to appropriate accrued surpluses, like that given to NCOPE, (see
page 15, line16).
11 ABC can set the fees, but nowhere is it stated that
the fees collected are for the exclusive use of ABC and not to be
commingled with the Association.
Page 13
Line 27 If these members are only nominated what is to ensure
NCOPE will appoint. Should be replaced with appointed/elected. A
cadre as defined in the dictionary is a permanent nucleus. Nothing
like this exists in ABC. Cadre should be replace by ABC board.
This sentence is very poorly written. I believe the noun
practitioners is missing from after ...certified/registered. The
words orthotics and prosthetics should be singular. It appears
someone has taken a very Machiavellian method to strip ABC of any real
influence in NCOPE.
40 This sentence is meaningless. If the Association
gains defacto control of ABC, it can control NCOPE by virtue of six
votes. This is further exacerbated by the possibility of the NAPOE
members being under control of companies.
43 There is no reason all non-public members, except for
educators from NAPOE, should not be ABC certified practitioners. There
should be no registered associates or representatives in this
board. The future of O&P should be determined by certified
practitioners, not administrators or accountants.
It should be obvious that I am against this consolidation. It
appears most of the power will be allocated to those in control of large
companies and the corporate behemoths. The executives in charge of
these entities are accountable to their stockholders and principles, and
will act to increase their bottom line, not for the betterment of the
O&P profession. The wording of this draft, the the efforts I have seen
in lobbying Congress and the states, and the obvious snow job PR
campaign being put on by the Association only strengthens my belief that
consolidation is not in the interest of any practitioner or the public.
across recently. If there are any framers of this new proposal out there
who have put as much thought into this matter as the gentleman who wrote what
follows, there should be numerous responses (rebuttals; what have you) coming
and made available and published to all interested parties via the internet.
Until I hear satisfactory answers to his stated questions, point by point, I
too will vote against consolidation for the very reasons that Mr. Gallo
states. The recent Hanger purchase of NovaCare O&P, makes Mr. Gallo's
questions are the more pertinent.
Wil Haines, CPO
************
Following is copy of letter written to Mr. Hoxie from Mr. Gallo............
Dear Mr. Hoxie:
The following are what I see as deficiencies in the proposed Draft
of Bylaws recently sent to members. First it assumes the consolidation
will occur! It is my understanding the members must still vote. In the
unfortunate event that consolidation does occur I feel the following are
problems with the proposed Bylaws.
Page 1
Line 28 custom-designed, inserting this term means the only
reason to be certified is if you make custom devices. This removes most
spinal, knee, and halo devices. This is foolish, especially if we are
asking HCFA to recognize ABC credentials as the only approved. This
limits our scope to a very small field, while it tell the world you
don't need special training to do the rest of the orthotics' field. The
phrase to an orthotic patient, is redundant and unnecessary, you would
not fit an orthosis to a prosthetic patient, nor would you fit on
someone not a patient.
33 Same comments as above
37 Limits us to specially designed, whatever that means.
The definitions of prosthetist and orthotist do not mention our training
to evaluate the patient, formulate a treatment plan, or do any of the
other professional aspects of O&P. It seems we are relegated to the
technical, regressing back to leg and brace makers. The emphasis should
be on projecting an educated practitioner whose scope of practice is all
encompassing.
Page 2
Line 2 The mission of the AAOP should be to represent its
members NOT the profession. Also, somehow the interests and
protection of the public is not mentioned. An oversight?
9 should mention the need to protect the public by
advocating minimum standards of ABC credentials.
15 Credentialing is only valid and not antitrust if it
sets MINIMUM standards. Its function is not to advance competency, it
is to assure it. Credentials evidence to the public and to others in
the profession the meeting of a minimum standard required to safeguard
the public. Advancement of competency is done by CAAHEP/NCOPE
increasing the standards and requirements.
Page 3
Line 12 ABC-Registered Associates is not defined, also, the
Associate should not have equal status as the practitioner, especially
in voting. A separate class should be started for associates and/or
technicians.
Page 4
Line 8 ... for Affiliate..., This seems discriminatory. Why
are only affiliate membership name's published? Either everyone's name
should be published or no ones.
16 If companies must enroll all eligible offices,
does this not provide a negative force for companies to join? The
number of offices enrolled should be decided by the company, or will
they make the office ineligible just to sidestep.
35 Voting should be limited to practitioners. Allowing
companies and suppliers to vote puts the membership at odds. Companies
are looking for ways to lower labor costs, like using less skilled and
educated practitioners, while the practitioner has the pride of
profession and the safety of the patient in mind when asking for better
standards. These are diametrically opposed. This is why I am against
consolidation, we are either an industry trade association or a
practitioner standards association. We can't be both.
49 selected, shouldn't this be elected?
Page 5
Line 1 This formula stacks the Board with Company members.
First of all, the formula of 5 and 5 is not fair. According to the
latest ABC registry there are 3400 practitioners but only 1160
facilities. If you add in the few suppliers which service our industry
you may have 1200. This is still a ratio of nearly 3:1. Where is equal
representation? To make this situation even worse, there is nothing to
prevent the five Individual seats from being given to company men.
Having a large block of votes the large companies can dominate the Board
with impunity. There should be safeguards insuring practitioners are
represented by individuals not company men. Why are NovaCare and
Hanger assured of each having a seat? Just because they are on the
verge of being monopolistic doesn't mean they should be guaranteed a
seat. If neither of the behemoths chooses to remain a member, after all
they are of sufficient size to advocate their own interest on the local
and federal level, will their seats be given back to the peons. The
draft only addresses if one chooses not to join.
Page 10
Line 22 I am presuming Board means the association Board, not
ABC's board. If the ABC is autonomous why does the Association have ANY
reserved seats? The way the bylaws are written four seats are given to
the Board to appoint or elect, making no reference as whether these
are certified practitioners. To add to the insult, they don't have to
be elected, the Board can appoint.
25 The term active member means both practitioners and
companies, again there is no mention of the members being certified.
31 This sentence is absurd. No provision is made for
removal of a Board member if the public and Active Members do not
constitute a majority.
34 This sentence affirms that it is possible for all ABC
board commissioners to be non certified. Wouldn't it be ironic if all
the commissioners wind up being BOC or less! ABC's board should consist
of certified practitioners and public members only, no company men.
Page 11
Line 20 Can the Association Board override the budget? Where do
ABC's moneys come from now that they are not independent. It seems the
Association has the power of the purse over ABC. ABC should have
independent income, not funneled through the Association.
Page 12
Line 1 Why doesn't ABC have the authority to deny Association
demands to appropriate accrued surpluses, like that given to NCOPE, (see
page 15, line16).
11 ABC can set the fees, but nowhere is it stated that
the fees collected are for the exclusive use of ABC and not to be
commingled with the Association.
Page 13
Line 27 If these members are only nominated what is to ensure
NCOPE will appoint. Should be replaced with appointed/elected. A
cadre as defined in the dictionary is a permanent nucleus. Nothing
like this exists in ABC. Cadre should be replace by ABC board.
This sentence is very poorly written. I believe the noun
practitioners is missing from after ...certified/registered. The
words orthotics and prosthetics should be singular. It appears
someone has taken a very Machiavellian method to strip ABC of any real
influence in NCOPE.
40 This sentence is meaningless. If the Association
gains defacto control of ABC, it can control NCOPE by virtue of six
votes. This is further exacerbated by the possibility of the NAPOE
members being under control of companies.
43 There is no reason all non-public members, except for
educators from NAPOE, should not be ABC certified practitioners. There
should be no registered associates or representatives in this
board. The future of O&P should be determined by certified
practitioners, not administrators or accountants.
It should be obvious that I am against this consolidation. It
appears most of the power will be allocated to those in control of large
companies and the corporate behemoths. The executives in charge of
these entities are accountable to their stockholders and principles, and
will act to increase their bottom line, not for the betterment of the
O&P profession. The wording of this draft, the the efforts I have seen
in lobbying Congress and the states, and the obvious snow job PR
campaign being put on by the Association only strengthens my belief that
consolidation is not in the interest of any practitioner or the public.
Citation
“Regarding ABC bylaws,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 1, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/211655.
