Fw: US-POLITICS - AAOP's postition, Harkin bill vs Wexler bill

Fw: US-POLITICS - AAOP's postition, Harkin bill vs Wexler bill

Tony Barr

9/22/1999

Thanks Ron for your below message to the AAOP leadership and more
importantly the members!
Perhaps others will take the initiative to request information regarding the
legislative proposals!
Tony Barr

----- Original Message -----
From: Gingras, Ron -Dir O/P < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 3:12 PM
Subject: RE: US-POLITICS - AAOP's postition, Harkin bill vs Wexler bill


> Wade Is right , we as AAOP members and ABC certificate holders have no
> representation from our national office. While the AAOP refuses to take
> professional responsiblily regarding any political advocacy for our
patients
> or its members , AOPA has become the self proclaimed messenger to congress
> about what should be done in our industry.Their interests are not about
> patient care first but rather about cornering the medicare marketplace for
> anyone with a certification regardless of their specific educational
> backgrounds. This is obviious by their refusal to support the Wexler Bill
.
> Whether it be CAHEA or CAAHEP as pointed out by Bob Van Hook we need to
let
> congress know the educational differences between certifications leading
to
> competency. If AOPA won't do this then it is the obligation of the AAOP to
> do so.Lets all encouraage our leadership get involved and I personally am
> encouraging Bill Shumann to send copies of these two bills to our
membership
> so that we can all make an intelligent informed decision about what we
> should support.
> The AAOP had no problem when it came to the political decision to support
> consolidation spending thousands upon thousands of our dues dollars on
> consolidation propaganda yet when it comes to this issue we hear from the
> leadership that AAOP dosn't get involved in political issues regarding
> advocacy.It is Time for the AAOP to get involved be accountable and
support
> their mission statement.
> Ron GIngras LCPO
> ----------

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: < <Email Address Redacted> >
> To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 8:59 AM
> Subject: US-POLITICS - AAOP's postition, Harkin bill vs Wexler bill
>
>
> > I just read Mr. Shumann's post stating that Academy has no position on
> these
> > bills...
> >
> > my question is : WHY NOT?
> >
> > Isn't the Academy supposed to support and endorse the highest level of
> > clinical care, educational standards for practitioners of P & O? There
is
> a
> > very clear difference between these two bills, one (Wexlers) supports
> CAAHEP
> > standards, the other (Harkins) does not.... Doesn't the Academy see this
> as
> > an opportunity to voice our opinion as a PROFESSION ?? isn't this
> exactly
> > the reason why the Academy and AOPA should not be in bed together ???
> >
> > Please clarify this question Mr Schumann: Is there not a group within
the
> > Academy called the Professional Issues Council ?? Has this issue,
which
> > will clearly impact our profession, been discussed by the council ??
> >
> > These two bills have the potential of having significant impact on the
way
> P
> > & O is provided in this country. Yet our national professional arm has
a
> > hands off position??? I don't get it.....
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, I think I read that AOPA has already come out in
> favor
> > of Harkins bill.... While that bill does mention ABC, it does not
> recognize
> > the CAAHEP educational standard, and there IS a difference...Bills do
> change
> > as they pass through the system, and it is very easy to add a few
letters
> to
> > the alphabet soup, Articulating educational standards will eliminate the
> > possibility of such a problem. I recall that when the consolidation vote
> was
> > in high gear, there was a little change in Delaware law that had a big
> impact
> > on the scenario. What will happen when at the 11 O'clock hour, three
more
> > letters are added to the bill? We won't have the opportunity to back
> > peddle... Myself and several colleagues have been down this road in
> Florida,
> > and it's no different in Washington.
> >
> > I can understand the reason why the business arm of our industry want
> lesser
> > trained people providing services. This will no doubt reduce labor
costs,
> but
> > it will potentially destroy the profession as we know it, This is
> clearly
> > the reason why the Academy should work independently of AOPA... The
> Academy
> > should be taking a stand on the other side of this issue...
> >
> > If this profession truly wants to be a profession, we will need to begin
> to
> > flex our muscle and stand up for what is right for the profession.. We
> don't
> > need to develop legislation, it was handed to us on a silver platter,
and
> now
> > we are to noble to indulge ??
> >
> > Isn't it time that the Academy stops being AOPA's patsy?
> >
> > Wade Bader, LCPO
> > Tampa, FL
> >
> >