Qualified Provider
Netcom
Description
Collection
Title:
Qualified Provider
Creator:
Netcom
Date:
12/8/2000
Text:
This is a clarification of my earlier post concerning qualified providers of P&O services. Martha Rinker (AOPA's Director of Government Relations) was very helpful in pointing me to the latest version of the proposed legislation. Evidently, the original bills were folded into some other larger legislation which has been passed through the House. The link is:
<URL Redacted> . In particular, read pages 65-66.
It may seem that this is a revisitation of the same old whatever but this matter stands as a very good example of processes that occur out of the public eye that have profound consequences on us all. I have no reservations about any qualified practitioner providing a well-needed service. My point is that any and all practitioners need to posess the same basic skillsets unique to the practice of prosthetics and orthotics. To require that one group of professionals meet these standards while exempting another group from those same requirements is troubling, to say the least. If P&O professionals were to ask for the ability to get reimbursed for prosthetic/orthotic gait training or prosthetic checkouts could they expect any support from other professional groups?
An upcoming article in the January 2001 Almanac touches on the four P's of the legislative process: Policy, Politics, Procedure and Patience. I would add a fifth P: Principle.
Bernard Hewey
<URL Redacted> . In particular, read pages 65-66.
It may seem that this is a revisitation of the same old whatever but this matter stands as a very good example of processes that occur out of the public eye that have profound consequences on us all. I have no reservations about any qualified practitioner providing a well-needed service. My point is that any and all practitioners need to posess the same basic skillsets unique to the practice of prosthetics and orthotics. To require that one group of professionals meet these standards while exempting another group from those same requirements is troubling, to say the least. If P&O professionals were to ask for the ability to get reimbursed for prosthetic/orthotic gait training or prosthetic checkouts could they expect any support from other professional groups?
An upcoming article in the January 2001 Almanac touches on the four P's of the legislative process: Policy, Politics, Procedure and Patience. I would add a fifth P: Principle.
Bernard Hewey
Citation
Netcom, “Qualified Provider,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 8, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/215548.
