Re: US Politics/Harkin vs. Wexler and the Academy's position
Tony Barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: US Politics/Harkin vs. Wexler and the Academy's position
Creator:
Tony Barr
Date:
9/17/1999
Text:
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
>
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
>
Citation
Tony Barr, “Re: US Politics/Harkin vs. Wexler and the Academy's position,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 26, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/213262.
