Re: US-POLITICS
Tony Barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: US-POLITICS
Creator:
Tony Barr
Date:
2/3/2000
Text:
Mike,
Thank you for your comments and concerns of my advocacy for upgrading the
profession and the need to improve patient protection. I am unaware of any
untrue statements or mud slinging that I have made in my efforts to
achieve
these goals. Perhaps you can better enlighten me and provide detailed
information.
Expression of opinions on the other hand, may differ from your own.You
should not consider these opinions as smear tactics nor take personal
offense. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide a more
detailed explanation of my statements and why I consider that the Wexler
House Bill 1938 will better accomplish the below :
*1) promote the welfare of the physically challenged by establishing
qualified standards for orthotic and prosthetic practitioners.
*2) to advance the highest levels of competency and ethics in the practice
of orthotics and prosthetics.
I am forwarding you attachments, by seperate e-mail, detailed information
of each legislative proposal and comparisons of each. If other subscribers
would like me to forward them on this information, I would be happy to do
so if you will provide me your e-mail address in your request.
The facts are:
The language of the Harkin Senate Bill 1451 specifically excludes devices
such as Halo's and scoliosis jackets which are prefab and not custom
fabricated.
The Wexler 1938 does not recognize these devices as prefab and believes the
practitioner should be deemed certified and qualified to fabricate and fit
such devices.
The Harkin version also does not specify nor address specific education or
training criteria required as a basis, so it is possible that the
Secretary may certify other health care professionals such as PT/OTs,
athletic trainers,etc.
The Wexler House 1938 version, on the other hand, provides certification
based on CAHEA quidelines,and all indivisuals desiring to be certified must
meet those requirements regardless of any other qualifications.
Wexler's Bill pays only if the device is furnished by a certified indivisual
which helps assures the patient will be treated by a trained professional
whereas the Harkin version allows an entity or supplier to provide and
recieve payment.
Thus,there is less assurance that the patient will be treated by a trained,
qualified practitioner.
One advantage the Harkin bill does have, in my opinion, is it does not
excempt Rural Suppliers from certification whereas the Wexler Bill does.
This exception should not be allowed and is unfair to citizens residing in
the described areas.
Why should rural residents be subject to treatment by unqualified
practitioners??Second class citizens?
Thank you for allowing me an opportunity of presenting my opinion and more
detailed factual information.It may not be for the good of everyone but
noone can argue that the consumer/patient would benefit from proper O&P
coverage that can be generated from the enactment of meaninfull legislation
and regulation of this important health care profession.
Simply put, would you want your son or daughter diagnosis, treated and
fitted with a Halo device or Scoliosis jacket by a untrained practitioner?
Sincerley,
Tony Barr
* Mission Statement of The American Board for Certification in Orthotics and
Prosthetics,Inc.
Micheal Hamontree wrote:
> Tony,
>
> I would appreciate seeing a detailed explanation of the basis on which you
> make the following statement,
>
> ...supporters of the The Harkins Bill,one of the federal O&P initiatives
> in the 106th Congress, are attempting to exclude Halo orthoses and
Scoliosis
> systems from regulation.
.
>
> Argue the facts and the merits of these two pieces of legislation and rise
> above the mudslinging --- for the good of everyone.
>
> Michael Hamontree
>
Thank you for your comments and concerns of my advocacy for upgrading the
profession and the need to improve patient protection. I am unaware of any
untrue statements or mud slinging that I have made in my efforts to
achieve
these goals. Perhaps you can better enlighten me and provide detailed
information.
Expression of opinions on the other hand, may differ from your own.You
should not consider these opinions as smear tactics nor take personal
offense. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide a more
detailed explanation of my statements and why I consider that the Wexler
House Bill 1938 will better accomplish the below :
*1) promote the welfare of the physically challenged by establishing
qualified standards for orthotic and prosthetic practitioners.
*2) to advance the highest levels of competency and ethics in the practice
of orthotics and prosthetics.
I am forwarding you attachments, by seperate e-mail, detailed information
of each legislative proposal and comparisons of each. If other subscribers
would like me to forward them on this information, I would be happy to do
so if you will provide me your e-mail address in your request.
The facts are:
The language of the Harkin Senate Bill 1451 specifically excludes devices
such as Halo's and scoliosis jackets which are prefab and not custom
fabricated.
The Wexler 1938 does not recognize these devices as prefab and believes the
practitioner should be deemed certified and qualified to fabricate and fit
such devices.
The Harkin version also does not specify nor address specific education or
training criteria required as a basis, so it is possible that the
Secretary may certify other health care professionals such as PT/OTs,
athletic trainers,etc.
The Wexler House 1938 version, on the other hand, provides certification
based on CAHEA quidelines,and all indivisuals desiring to be certified must
meet those requirements regardless of any other qualifications.
Wexler's Bill pays only if the device is furnished by a certified indivisual
which helps assures the patient will be treated by a trained professional
whereas the Harkin version allows an entity or supplier to provide and
recieve payment.
Thus,there is less assurance that the patient will be treated by a trained,
qualified practitioner.
One advantage the Harkin bill does have, in my opinion, is it does not
excempt Rural Suppliers from certification whereas the Wexler Bill does.
This exception should not be allowed and is unfair to citizens residing in
the described areas.
Why should rural residents be subject to treatment by unqualified
practitioners??Second class citizens?
Thank you for allowing me an opportunity of presenting my opinion and more
detailed factual information.It may not be for the good of everyone but
noone can argue that the consumer/patient would benefit from proper O&P
coverage that can be generated from the enactment of meaninfull legislation
and regulation of this important health care profession.
Simply put, would you want your son or daughter diagnosis, treated and
fitted with a Halo device or Scoliosis jacket by a untrained practitioner?
Sincerley,
Tony Barr
* Mission Statement of The American Board for Certification in Orthotics and
Prosthetics,Inc.
Micheal Hamontree wrote:
> Tony,
>
> I would appreciate seeing a detailed explanation of the basis on which you
> make the following statement,
>
> ...supporters of the The Harkins Bill,one of the federal O&P initiatives
> in the 106th Congress, are attempting to exclude Halo orthoses and
Scoliosis
> systems from regulation.
.
>
> Argue the facts and the merits of these two pieces of legislation and rise
> above the mudslinging --- for the good of everyone.
>
> Michael Hamontree
>
Citation
Tony Barr, “Re: US-POLITICS,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 6, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/213752.
