Fw: [OANDP-L] Capitol Spin

Fw: [OANDP-L] Capitol Spin

Tony Barr

1/29/2001

Thank You Gary Lamb, LCO for your straight forward position statement and
historical perspective concerning the recent proposed federal legislation.

As a creditable AAOP member and chairman of the Professional Issues Council
you did
shed some light on how the once restrictive legislative language described
in the Almanac January 2001 publication got open to OT and PT Medicare scope
of services for some orthotic devices..........Seems however,qualified
providers
NOW do include OTs and PTs WITHOUT regard to CAAHEP educational standards!

If I am not mistaken,the main controversy lies in how this long (1992)
established standard of Medicare providers could be opened to exceptions in
the final run.? We eliminate one unqualified group of providers to include
potentially a
larger number?

The AMA, ABC and the Academy have long been on record in its support of
mandating CAAHEP educational standards.

Was the change made to accommodate AOPA negotiation efforts and better
assure passage for the bill with the support of the national OT and PT
associations?

Thank you again for stating your response.

We have heard from PIC member Ron Gingras.
How about the other PIC and committee members, Mike Allen, Frank Bostock and
Gary Berke posting a response to the listserve to perhaps further foster
goodwill and enhance the professional stature of the Academy membership
amongst other medical and allied health professionals...?.
Tony

----- Original Message -----
From: Bernard Hewey < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:04 AM
Subject: [OANDP-L] Capitol Spin


Gary Lamb presented an honest and informative posting regarding AAOP's
stated position on the qualified' provider language. It's too bad that the
AOPA staff , board and/or whoever took the liberty to negotiate on the
behalf of O&P professionals with real bona fides didn't appreciate this
position back in April, 2000. The AOPA apologist, Martha Rinker, attempted
to spin this policy mess in her 4P's article (Almanac, January 2001). What
I would like to understand is how ...As a result, the proposal was changed
to reflect the OT and PT Medicare scope of practice for SOME ORTHOTIC
DEVICES... turned into...`(i) IN GENERAL- No payment shall be made under
this subsection for an item of CUSTOM FABRICATED ORTHOTICS described in
clause (ii) or for an item of PROSTHETICS unless such item is--
`(I) furnished by a qualified practitioner...

  THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE!!! Here's the math - some orthotics does not equal
everything. Is anyone seeing this?
ARGHHHH!!!

Thanks,

Bernard Hewey

                          ********************
To unsubscribe, send a message to: <Email Address Redacted> with
the words UNSUB OANDP-L in the body of the
message.

If you have a problem unsubscribing,or have other
questions, send e-mail to the moderator
Paul E. Prusakowski,CPO at <Email Address Redacted>

OANDP-L is a forum for the discussion of topics
related to Orthotics and Prosthetics.

Public commercial postings are forbidden. Responses to inquiries
should not be sent to the entire oandp-l list.