Re: Senate Bill 1451 Sec 20
Robert VanHook
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Senate Bill 1451 Sec 20
Creator:
Robert VanHook
Date:
8/3/1999
Text:
Questions have been raised about S. 1451 that I think deserve airing on the
listserve. The first has to do with what items are restricted by the Bill
and the second with who will be able to provide these services.
Regarding the applicable items, we have been plastering the Hill and HCFA
with our breakdown of custom P&O Lcodes for two years. The breakdown
came from a task force composed of AOPA, Academy and ABC representatives
that completed its work about 2 years ago. The report of the task force
breaks the Lcodes into four categories: custom fabricated and fit; custom
fit high; custom fit low; and off-the-shelf. The rationale for introducing
this legislation was based on our estimates of the savings by using the top
three categories as the applicable items. You are correct to note that
it is dangerous to not have them explicitly identified, but we will have to
trust our ability to work with HCFA in the process of identifying the codes
that are applicable.
Similarly, there is some danger in only specifying ABC practitioners and
accredited facilities in the Bill and leaving the rest open for the
Secretary's decision. In a previous bill, we tried to be more specific and
other provider groups (BOC and PFA, among others) raised enough questions
that the bill was never introduced. I think that BOC and PFA may not
object so strongly to the Harkin language. We feel that our chances with
HCFA are pretty good at limiting access to a pretty small group of people
that have training essentially equivalent to ABC's requirement. Will
that include BOC? It will be up to the Secretary to make the judgement.
Even if the Secretary makes a decision to include BOC, the implementation
of the Bill would have the effect of weeding out most of the other
non-qualified folks.
The truth is that you can't always get what you want in legislation. Our
government operates incrementally. Sometimes you have to be satisfied with
half a loaf. We need to ask ourselves, If this is what is politically
possible, is it better that what we have now? AOPA feels that the answer
to this question is a resounding, YES.
Please feel free to contact me or Martha Rinker ( <Email Address Redacted> ) with
you comments or questions.
Bob
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.opoffice.org
listserve. The first has to do with what items are restricted by the Bill
and the second with who will be able to provide these services.
Regarding the applicable items, we have been plastering the Hill and HCFA
with our breakdown of custom P&O Lcodes for two years. The breakdown
came from a task force composed of AOPA, Academy and ABC representatives
that completed its work about 2 years ago. The report of the task force
breaks the Lcodes into four categories: custom fabricated and fit; custom
fit high; custom fit low; and off-the-shelf. The rationale for introducing
this legislation was based on our estimates of the savings by using the top
three categories as the applicable items. You are correct to note that
it is dangerous to not have them explicitly identified, but we will have to
trust our ability to work with HCFA in the process of identifying the codes
that are applicable.
Similarly, there is some danger in only specifying ABC practitioners and
accredited facilities in the Bill and leaving the rest open for the
Secretary's decision. In a previous bill, we tried to be more specific and
other provider groups (BOC and PFA, among others) raised enough questions
that the bill was never introduced. I think that BOC and PFA may not
object so strongly to the Harkin language. We feel that our chances with
HCFA are pretty good at limiting access to a pretty small group of people
that have training essentially equivalent to ABC's requirement. Will
that include BOC? It will be up to the Secretary to make the judgement.
Even if the Secretary makes a decision to include BOC, the implementation
of the Bill would have the effect of weeding out most of the other
non-qualified folks.
The truth is that you can't always get what you want in legislation. Our
government operates incrementally. Sometimes you have to be satisfied with
half a loaf. We need to ask ourselves, If this is what is politically
possible, is it better that what we have now? AOPA feels that the answer
to this question is a resounding, YES.
Please feel free to contact me or Martha Rinker ( <Email Address Redacted> ) with
you comments or questions.
Bob
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.opoffice.org
Citation
Robert VanHook, “Re: Senate Bill 1451 Sec 20,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 6, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/212648.
