Re: Qualified Provider
Jerry Levitt
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Qualified Provider
Creator:
Jerry Levitt
Date:
12/8/2000
Text:
Mr. Hewey's vigilance is commendable and the questions he and Mr. Gallo raise are perplexing. Reading the proposed bill cited by Mr. Hewey and Gallo I was surprised to see that in some of the bills BOC certifees had been added as qualified practitioners and in others PT's, OT's, and BOC's were included as qualified, even though no reference is made to the underlying education and training that would make these individuals qualified and equal to an ABC certified practitioner. I propose all these bill are flawed. They purport to protect the Medicare beneficiary and the fiscal health of the program but no bill makes an attempt to quantify the minimum education and training required to achieve these goals. Rather, the bill equate membership in a named group as the qualifier. This is inherently unfair and may be unconstitutional. Non-PT/OT's are required to be members of ABC or BOC, both private organizations, to participate in the Medicare program. There is no mention of the PT's having to belong to the APTA, or OT's belonging to AOTA. Practitioners licensed in the state they are practicing also are not required to belong to a private organization. This disparity is to me unequal protection under law, which is prohibited by the US Constitution.
If the goal is to provide minimum standards then those standards should be delineated and applied fairly to all.
A more pressing question is the role of the organizations representing certified practitioners in these definitions of qualified. It is obvious the PT/OT/BOC groups have successfully fought for inclusion in these bill in spite of their lack of credentials, formal education, and training. My writings have demonstrated I am a strong advocate of the ABC credential. I am not a practitioner but have directly benefited from these minimum standards, have an indirect financial interest in the profession, and being retired have time to research and contemplate these issues. I might otherwise be termed a busybody or PIA.
The three organizations supposedly championing the ABC credentials are doing a dismal job. It is understandable that AOPA has no vigor to protect these standards, it is controlled by larger businesses who's ultimate goal is the protection of cheap labor. Those members of AOPA having primarily manufacturing as their source of revenue have no commitment to the profession. Realistically, they will sell product regardless of who delivers it to the end user. It would be a poor business practice herald the ABC credential when they know that by doing so they may alienate the remaining non-ABC providers.
ABC begs off when confronted, claiming they only provide testing and continuing education maintenance. They do have a point, there job is to protect the integrity of the credential not its advocacy.
This leaves AAOP, the Academy. Its membership is restricted to ABC certified practitioner and as best I can determine part of their stated goal is to further the ABC credential. Yet they have no lobby, and as far as I can determine do not compete in the political arena. Can you imagine the AMA or the APTA not fighting for their practitioner members?
It may be time for ABC certified practitioners who believe their credentials are significant, to consider starting another organization to fight for the ABC standard. To remain viable groups must have representation on the Federal and State level. Does this mean abandoning AAOP, maybe or at least forcing the leadership to make a more aggressive position. How about AOPA, probably.
I anticipate this will generate some comment, if it doesn't I will be disappointed but it would not be the first time.
--
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:33:37
Netcom wrote:
>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
>
>
If the goal is to provide minimum standards then those standards should be delineated and applied fairly to all.
A more pressing question is the role of the organizations representing certified practitioners in these definitions of qualified. It is obvious the PT/OT/BOC groups have successfully fought for inclusion in these bill in spite of their lack of credentials, formal education, and training. My writings have demonstrated I am a strong advocate of the ABC credential. I am not a practitioner but have directly benefited from these minimum standards, have an indirect financial interest in the profession, and being retired have time to research and contemplate these issues. I might otherwise be termed a busybody or PIA.
The three organizations supposedly championing the ABC credentials are doing a dismal job. It is understandable that AOPA has no vigor to protect these standards, it is controlled by larger businesses who's ultimate goal is the protection of cheap labor. Those members of AOPA having primarily manufacturing as their source of revenue have no commitment to the profession. Realistically, they will sell product regardless of who delivers it to the end user. It would be a poor business practice herald the ABC credential when they know that by doing so they may alienate the remaining non-ABC providers.
ABC begs off when confronted, claiming they only provide testing and continuing education maintenance. They do have a point, there job is to protect the integrity of the credential not its advocacy.
This leaves AAOP, the Academy. Its membership is restricted to ABC certified practitioner and as best I can determine part of their stated goal is to further the ABC credential. Yet they have no lobby, and as far as I can determine do not compete in the political arena. Can you imagine the AMA or the APTA not fighting for their practitioner members?
It may be time for ABC certified practitioners who believe their credentials are significant, to consider starting another organization to fight for the ABC standard. To remain viable groups must have representation on the Federal and State level. Does this mean abandoning AAOP, maybe or at least forcing the leadership to make a more aggressive position. How about AOPA, probably.
I anticipate this will generate some comment, if it doesn't I will be disappointed but it would not be the first time.
--
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:33:37
Netcom wrote:
>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
>
>
Citation
Jerry Levitt, “Re: Qualified Provider,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 8, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/215549.
