Fw: regulation O&P qualifications
Tony Barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Fw: regulation O&P qualifications
Creator:
Tony Barr
Text:
----------
Date: Monday, July 12, 1999 10:29:11
From: tbar
To: Randy Mc Farland,CPO
Subject: Re: regulation O&P qualifications
Hi Randy , good question! I've taken the liberty of sharing our thoughts with subscribers of the O&P Listserve.
Your supply and demand argument was presented by NARD and BOC certifees on the 1997 Florida Senate floor discussions.
Lawmakers concluded that allowing less stringent educational standards for O&P practitioners in the market place simply because of the present and future demand of numbers of patients requiring O&P services ,was not a valid argument to not regulate any health care profession.
Grandfathering provisions were made for every practitioner whom had practiced 5 or more years.Continuing education courses will eventually bring everyone to the same level of education standards.Many of those O&P practitioners whom initially felt uncomfortable with mandatory licensure,now are glad that the type of certification one holds is no longer relevant in regulated states.
They also have seen the benefits of Florida's successful regulation effort when Medicaid expanded O&P coverage to adults six weeks after the law was passed!! Federally there will also be such grandfathering provisions and exceptions made to those states that are rural in demographics and may not have enough practitioners in certain area to serve the population.
The benefits of regulation protect the consumer and encourage governmental third party payers to expand O&P coverage.
The pluses out weigh the minuses of any possible fear of Big Brother watching over your profession.
Big Brother is actually a board made up of O&P practitioners,medical professionals and consumers.They ave done a fair and incompromising job in Flrida and I'm sure will in Texas and the state Washington.I perdict both states Medicaid departments
will follow Florida in expanding O&P coverage to adults.
In my opinion,the manufacturers have controlled the $1 billion market for over a century.The proposed consolidation effort of mixing professional and manufacturers interests into a new consolidated AAOP , will not help the regulation effort or the possibility of increased O&P coverage.
AOPA initiation of ABC in 1948 and subsquently the birth of the Academy,AAOP, in 1957 and now the proposed consolidation strategy of 1999 with a new AAOP are attempts to discourage any further FTC investigations of possible violations of monoply laws and to present a united front on issues that THEY feel comfortable with supporting.
O&P state and federal regulation is not one of them!!
Is it not time that the profession, not the industry dictate and support regulation efforts that would be good for the consumer and the profession??
You guys are on the front lines with patients everyday .You know full well the short comings,the width of the cracks of the system, yet your survival requires you to compete with suppliers and unqualified providers of discounted components!!
Lawmakers,insurers and HICFA would be more receptive to listening from YOU of what constitutes high levels of prosthetic and orthotic services and the reimbursement requirements in order to provide such high level of services..Yet the Academy somehow delegated that responsibility to the manufacturer's interests , AOPA last year!
AS professionals,the O&P practitioner should be provided the license status of a professional health care provider not of a vendor of discounted consumer goods as is the function of over 50% of the AOPA facility members and the main culperts of O&P medicare fraud and abuse,the DME suppliers and dealers.
Hope I answered the question! The answers are not always clear but they can become more focused if we keep in mind , whats good for the consumer!!??Tony
----------
Hi Tony-
As you probably know, there is talk of state licensure in P&O, and some
states have it now, like NJ. I wonder if the government hesitates to
restrict the number of practitioners they are authorized to pay as that would
cut the supply of practitioners. (Although eliminating the low quality
practitioners is good for the clients, it would decrease the low ball
bidders and tend to increase the average fees the government has to pay)
Randy McFarland, CPO
Date: Monday, July 12, 1999 10:29:11
From: tbar
To: Randy Mc Farland,CPO
Subject: Re: regulation O&P qualifications
Hi Randy , good question! I've taken the liberty of sharing our thoughts with subscribers of the O&P Listserve.
Your supply and demand argument was presented by NARD and BOC certifees on the 1997 Florida Senate floor discussions.
Lawmakers concluded that allowing less stringent educational standards for O&P practitioners in the market place simply because of the present and future demand of numbers of patients requiring O&P services ,was not a valid argument to not regulate any health care profession.
Grandfathering provisions were made for every practitioner whom had practiced 5 or more years.Continuing education courses will eventually bring everyone to the same level of education standards.Many of those O&P practitioners whom initially felt uncomfortable with mandatory licensure,now are glad that the type of certification one holds is no longer relevant in regulated states.
They also have seen the benefits of Florida's successful regulation effort when Medicaid expanded O&P coverage to adults six weeks after the law was passed!! Federally there will also be such grandfathering provisions and exceptions made to those states that are rural in demographics and may not have enough practitioners in certain area to serve the population.
The benefits of regulation protect the consumer and encourage governmental third party payers to expand O&P coverage.
The pluses out weigh the minuses of any possible fear of Big Brother watching over your profession.
Big Brother is actually a board made up of O&P practitioners,medical professionals and consumers.They ave done a fair and incompromising job in Flrida and I'm sure will in Texas and the state Washington.I perdict both states Medicaid departments
will follow Florida in expanding O&P coverage to adults.
In my opinion,the manufacturers have controlled the $1 billion market for over a century.The proposed consolidation effort of mixing professional and manufacturers interests into a new consolidated AAOP , will not help the regulation effort or the possibility of increased O&P coverage.
AOPA initiation of ABC in 1948 and subsquently the birth of the Academy,AAOP, in 1957 and now the proposed consolidation strategy of 1999 with a new AAOP are attempts to discourage any further FTC investigations of possible violations of monoply laws and to present a united front on issues that THEY feel comfortable with supporting.
O&P state and federal regulation is not one of them!!
Is it not time that the profession, not the industry dictate and support regulation efforts that would be good for the consumer and the profession??
You guys are on the front lines with patients everyday .You know full well the short comings,the width of the cracks of the system, yet your survival requires you to compete with suppliers and unqualified providers of discounted components!!
Lawmakers,insurers and HICFA would be more receptive to listening from YOU of what constitutes high levels of prosthetic and orthotic services and the reimbursement requirements in order to provide such high level of services..Yet the Academy somehow delegated that responsibility to the manufacturer's interests , AOPA last year!
AS professionals,the O&P practitioner should be provided the license status of a professional health care provider not of a vendor of discounted consumer goods as is the function of over 50% of the AOPA facility members and the main culperts of O&P medicare fraud and abuse,the DME suppliers and dealers.
Hope I answered the question! The answers are not always clear but they can become more focused if we keep in mind , whats good for the consumer!!??Tony
----------
Hi Tony-
As you probably know, there is talk of state licensure in P&O, and some
states have it now, like NJ. I wonder if the government hesitates to
restrict the number of practitioners they are authorized to pay as that would
cut the supply of practitioners. (Although eliminating the low quality
practitioners is good for the clients, it would decrease the low ball
bidders and tend to increase the average fees the government has to pay)
Randy McFarland, CPO
Citation
Tony Barr, “Fw: regulation O&P qualifications,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 17, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/212059.
