Re: US-POLITICS
Tony Barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: US-POLITICS
Creator:
Tony Barr
Date:
2/7/2000
Text:
Hopefully you have recieved the info you requested on both bills that I have
recently sent to you by e-mail attachment.
The word custom apparently does not include prefabricated treatment
devices,i.e.,halo and scoliosis systems. Perhaps AOPA who supports this
exclusion and the Harkin Bill can state their position. I would think that
everyone could agree that although the basic model type maybe prefabricated,
the correct and precise fittings and crucial adjustments would certainly
require the knowledge of a professional with qualifications mandated by
regulation ?! Perhaps NAAOP may also have some input on what appear to be
major differences.The Academy membership has been split on their support for
each bill and has delegated the negotiations of national O&P regulation for
practitioners and facilities to the trade association, AOPA!!
Anyone else whom would like the language and comparisons let me know and I
will fax forward or send via e-mail attachment.
Tony Barr
----- Original Message -----
From: < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: US-POLITICS
> This halo/scoliosis issue causes me much concern. You stated that the
Harkin
> bill excludes these items, Hammontree says it doesn't. Neither of you has
> quoted the exact boilerplate language to support your position. Would
either
> of you please reference the portion of the bill that supports argument.
>
recently sent to you by e-mail attachment.
The word custom apparently does not include prefabricated treatment
devices,i.e.,halo and scoliosis systems. Perhaps AOPA who supports this
exclusion and the Harkin Bill can state their position. I would think that
everyone could agree that although the basic model type maybe prefabricated,
the correct and precise fittings and crucial adjustments would certainly
require the knowledge of a professional with qualifications mandated by
regulation ?! Perhaps NAAOP may also have some input on what appear to be
major differences.The Academy membership has been split on their support for
each bill and has delegated the negotiations of national O&P regulation for
practitioners and facilities to the trade association, AOPA!!
Anyone else whom would like the language and comparisons let me know and I
will fax forward or send via e-mail attachment.
Tony Barr
----- Original Message -----
From: < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: US-POLITICS
> This halo/scoliosis issue causes me much concern. You stated that the
Harkin
> bill excludes these items, Hammontree says it doesn't. Neither of you has
> quoted the exact boilerplate language to support your position. Would
either
> of you please reference the portion of the bill that supports argument.
>
Citation
Tony Barr, “Re: US-POLITICS,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 26, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/213750.
