Re: U.S. Politics - Legislation
Donna Rowe
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: U.S. Politics - Legislation
Creator:
Donna Rowe
Date:
9/30/1999
Text:
please remove from mailng list
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert VanHook < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: <Email Address Redacted> < <Email Address Redacted> >
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 8:57 AM
Subject: U.S. Politics - Legislation
>Dear Listservers //This message is fairly long, so you may wish to print it
>out.//,
>
>I want to congratulate Mr. Bailey on his initiative in writing to his
>Senator. This is one of the ways that everyday citizens can have an impact
>in the legislative process.
>
>Having said that I would like to offer a little counsel. Congress is
>moving very quickly right now. They are trying to get something
>(anything?) done. Appropriations are a key part of this activity since
>that is what keeps the government's doors open. They have just voted to
>extend the deadline for Appropriations for 3 weeks. This means that the
>next few weeks are going to be very busy.
>
>When Congress gets in this frantic activity mode, they screen legislative
>proposals based on a very few, rough questions. One of the first questions
>is, Is there controversy around this proposal. If there is even a hint
>of controversy, it gets dropped from consideration.
>
>Letters to Congress, while well intentioned, may have unintended
>consequences. For example, contesting a fine point in a Senate proposal by
>contrasting it with a House proposal serves only to push the controversy
>button. On the other hand, writing to a Senator and suggesting that a
>provision (such as CAAHEP standards) be included in a Senate proposal could
>be positive.
>
>The specific controversy being generated on this listserv between the
>Harkin and Wexler language may have the effect of killing both if we
>continue to communicate the controversy, rather than the substance to
>Congress. I urge you all to focus on what you want, rather than how one is
>better than the other.
>
>Today, anyone can get a supplier number and bill for any L code. We all
>know this is wrong. The Harkin language is crafted similar to the language
>affecting hospitals. Hospitals are given a choice of either being
>accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care
>Organizations (JACHO) or meeting standards established in Medicare's Con
>ditions of Participation. The law doesn't say that the hospital's medical
>chief of staff must have attended a school accredited by the American
>Association of Medical Colleges. Similarly, the Harkin bill grants ABC
>certified practitioners and accredited facilities deemed status, and
>directs the Secretary of DHHS to set conditions of participation that are
>essentially similar to ABC's.
>
>This seems like a pretty good deal for the O&P profession to me. Now there
>are no standards for people to provide and bill for O&P services -- when
>this bill passes there will be standards that will weed out many but not
>all, of the people fraudulently billing for O&P services and encroaching on
>your practice. It is the judgement of AOPA's Board, Government Relations
>Committee and staff that the Harkin approach is a good one and has more
>chance of passage than any other option available.
>
>It is also important to remember that the Federal government is not in the
>practitioner licensing business. It is unlikely that Congress will pass a
>bill with too many specifics in it because it will look like they are
>licensing the O&P field. I would encourage you to remember that after the
>Harkin language passes, we will have an opportunity to help craft the
>report language that accompanies such bills. We may (I repeat, MAY) be
>able to get a reference to educational standards included in report
>language, where it would have no chance to be included in the legislation.
>
>I believe we can get this provision passed this year and that it will be a
>huge victory for the O&P field. You can help by contacting your Senator to
>ask for his support. If you don't agree, I beg you keep the controversy
>within the field and not communicate it to the Hill.
>
>Thank you for your support and encouragement on this important issue.
>
>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
>
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert VanHook < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: <Email Address Redacted> < <Email Address Redacted> >
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 8:57 AM
Subject: U.S. Politics - Legislation
>Dear Listservers //This message is fairly long, so you may wish to print it
>out.//,
>
>I want to congratulate Mr. Bailey on his initiative in writing to his
>Senator. This is one of the ways that everyday citizens can have an impact
>in the legislative process.
>
>Having said that I would like to offer a little counsel. Congress is
>moving very quickly right now. They are trying to get something
>(anything?) done. Appropriations are a key part of this activity since
>that is what keeps the government's doors open. They have just voted to
>extend the deadline for Appropriations for 3 weeks. This means that the
>next few weeks are going to be very busy.
>
>When Congress gets in this frantic activity mode, they screen legislative
>proposals based on a very few, rough questions. One of the first questions
>is, Is there controversy around this proposal. If there is even a hint
>of controversy, it gets dropped from consideration.
>
>Letters to Congress, while well intentioned, may have unintended
>consequences. For example, contesting a fine point in a Senate proposal by
>contrasting it with a House proposal serves only to push the controversy
>button. On the other hand, writing to a Senator and suggesting that a
>provision (such as CAAHEP standards) be included in a Senate proposal could
>be positive.
>
>The specific controversy being generated on this listserv between the
>Harkin and Wexler language may have the effect of killing both if we
>continue to communicate the controversy, rather than the substance to
>Congress. I urge you all to focus on what you want, rather than how one is
>better than the other.
>
>Today, anyone can get a supplier number and bill for any L code. We all
>know this is wrong. The Harkin language is crafted similar to the language
>affecting hospitals. Hospitals are given a choice of either being
>accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care
>Organizations (JACHO) or meeting standards established in Medicare's Con
>ditions of Participation. The law doesn't say that the hospital's medical
>chief of staff must have attended a school accredited by the American
>Association of Medical Colleges. Similarly, the Harkin bill grants ABC
>certified practitioners and accredited facilities deemed status, and
>directs the Secretary of DHHS to set conditions of participation that are
>essentially similar to ABC's.
>
>This seems like a pretty good deal for the O&P profession to me. Now there
>are no standards for people to provide and bill for O&P services -- when
>this bill passes there will be standards that will weed out many but not
>all, of the people fraudulently billing for O&P services and encroaching on
>your practice. It is the judgement of AOPA's Board, Government Relations
>Committee and staff that the Harkin approach is a good one and has more
>chance of passage than any other option available.
>
>It is also important to remember that the Federal government is not in the
>practitioner licensing business. It is unlikely that Congress will pass a
>bill with too many specifics in it because it will look like they are
>licensing the O&P field. I would encourage you to remember that after the
>Harkin language passes, we will have an opportunity to help craft the
>report language that accompanies such bills. We may (I repeat, MAY) be
>able to get a reference to educational standards included in report
>language, where it would have no chance to be included in the legislation.
>
>I believe we can get this provision passed this year and that it will be a
>huge victory for the O&P field. You can help by contacting your Senator to
>ask for his support. If you don't agree, I beg you keep the controversy
>within the field and not communicate it to the Hill.
>
>Thank you for your support and encouragement on this important issue.
>
>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
Donna Rowe, “Re: U.S. Politics - Legislation,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 6, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/213189.
