Fw: US Politics/Harkin vs. Wexler and the Academy's position

Fw: US Politics/Harkin vs. Wexler and the Academy's position

Tony Barr

9/17/1999

I have recieved several notices that recepients were unable to recieve
e-mail post to the O&P listserve that contained attachments.I am resending
the e-mail post w/o the attachment.
Sorry for any inconvenience that I have caused in delivering multiple
messages.Tony Barr


----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Barr < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >; < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: US Politics/Harkin vs. Wexler and the Academy's position


> Mr. Schumann,
> We appreciate your response to my questions and request for the Academy's
> formal support of the federal regulation initiative,the Wexler House
> Resolution 1938.
>
> I applaud the accomplishments of the Academy in recent years.
> I believe that all of the directors,steering committee members and
> association members were sincere in their philosophies of the
consolidation
> initiative and conspiracy was not a factor. I have newfound friends among
> your directors and members and believe in their integrity and dedication
to
> this profession.
>
> However, I would require clarification on some of the issues you have
> addressed.
> 1) Why did the Academy leadership support the need to develop and pass
> federal regulation and relay their willingness to work with the Barr
> Foundation(see attached AAOP Letter of Support),Scoliosis Association and
> other consumer advocacy organizations in April 1998 and now,under your
> leadership, it is not a question at all and your organization is not
> willing to take any position on either legislative initiative??
>
> 2) I would certainly think with the outcome of the Office of Inspectors
> General's recent report of extensive medicare fraud and abuse in the O&P
> field, the Academy's support of legislative and regulatory activities
WOULD
> become a priority since it does adversely effect the professionalism and
> credibility of the practitioner, your membership!
>
> 3) If the Academy has not taken any official stance on the two legislative
> proposals, why has AOPA's Executive Director Robert VanHook gone on record
> in posting the solicitation I would urge all of you to get involved in
our
> important work to effect changes in the law that actually have a chance of
> passage (i.e.,the Harkin Bill Language).We are joined in these efforts by
> NAAOP, members of the Academy and ABC-certified practitioners.
> August 26,1999
>
> 4) The mission statement I quoted was taken verbatim from the AAOP Canon
of
> Ethics. If it is now modified policy for the Academy to support less than
> ABC standards for its members, as it was proposed under the recent
> consolidation proposal ,i.e.,American Association For Orthotics and
> Prosthetics By-Law Articles , than perhaps proper notice should of been
> provided to your membership.
>
> In conclusion, if 1999 Will Be Year of Education for the Academy and
> continuing education has and will always continue to be the primary issue
> of the Academy , is it not time for the Academy's leadership and members
to
> support the most stringent educational quidelines on the table NOW!?? By
> AAOP becoming their own advocate for federal legislation that best meets
> their own professional high standards, they are sending a message to
> lawmakers and third party payers that they, as a professional
> organization,not a trade association, are committed to maintaining the
> highest standards of education possible to better protect the consumer
and
> to lay the groundwork for obtaining proper O&P coverages in the future!!
> Education!Education!Education!
>
> I look forward to your comments.Have a nice weekend!
>
> Anthony T. Barr
> President
> The Barr Foundation
> www.oandp.com/barr
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: < <Email Address Redacted> >
> To: Tony Barr < <Email Address Redacted> >; < <Email Address Redacted> >
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 9:01 PM
> Subject: US Politics/Harkin vs. Wexler and the Academy's position
>
>
> > Mr. Barr,
> >
> > I am responding to your E-mail that appreared on the listserve yesterday
> > asking where the Academy is regarding support for the Wexler or Harkins
> > bills. Where the Academy is in all of this is not the bigger question,
> > rather it is not a question at all, at this time.
> >
> > The Academy is not a subset of AOPA. It is a separate organization
> dedicated
> > to serving the professional needs of its members. Like most
professional
> > societies, its primary activities center around those professional
needs,
> > such as meeting the practitioner's need for continous updating of
> > professional knowledge, providing affordable and accessible education
> > offerings, nurturing the professional growth of newcomers to the
> profession,
> > etc.
> >
> > The support of legislative and regulatory activities becomes a priority
> only
> > when the content of those activities adversely effects the
professionalism
> of
> > the practitioner. AOPA, representing the O&P facilities has that at the
> core
> > of their purpose, which is the basic distinction between professional
> > societies and trade associations.
> >
> > The Academy is not confined to any standard position of AOPA or anyone
> else.
> > Your comparison of the Harkin and Wexler bills are yours alone. Perhaps
> > there are some Floridians that you include in your example that did feel
> that
> > the chapter was representing them.
> >
> > The Academy has not taken an official stance on these two legislative
> > proposals. ABC is not a membership association. Unlike the Academy and
> > AOPA, it has no constituents.
> >
> > I have repeatedly thanked my board for taking exactly the stance it did
> > during the consolidation process, even though it may have appeared to
have
> > been passive.
> > I can assure you, and any other reader, my board is not passive.
> > Consolidation was an issue for individual members to make an informed
> > decision about. I believe the steering and communications committees,
> > comprised of officers from all three organizations, did their jobs of
> > formulating the By-laws and various other components of consolidation
and
> > communicating these thoughts to the members sufficiently so that the
three
> > boards did not have to support or oppose them from the sidelines. I may
> well
> > be accused of passivity on the issue of consolidation, please do. I am
> quite
> > comfortable with the method by which I handled the situation and guided
my
> > board.
> >
> > I am not comfortable that you have included our mission statement in
your
> > last paragraph in quotes, the way you have. It is not entirely
accurate.
> > You are making it longer and more inclusive than it is.
> >
> > Yes, our mission is to promote patient advocacy and high standards of
> patient
> > care through education, literature, and research. It does not include
> > political activism or legislative position taking. The Academy is
> dedicated
> > to supporting professional and ethical conduct among all ABC certified
> > practitioners.
> >
> > In conclusion, I would think the Academy board, present and future,
would
> > respond to the direction by the membership when provided; just as it is
> doing
> > now, preparing for an autonomous and independent, as well as
cooperative,
> > relationship with its two sister organizations.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Bill Schumann, CPO; President, American Academy of Orthotists and
> Prosthetists
> >
>