U.S. Politics - Legislation
Robert VanHook
Description
Collection
Title:
U.S. Politics - Legislation
Creator:
Robert VanHook
Date:
9/29/1999
Text:
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
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
Robert VanHook, “U.S. Politics - Legislation,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 6, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/213192.
