Re: RECENT LEGISLATION
kevin hawkins
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: RECENT LEGISLATION
Creator:
kevin hawkins
Date:
1/4/2001
Text:
Karl
You are very accurate in your analogy of the whole legislative process, and
what happens or happened! What most of us are being short sighted, and far
too critical of, is the PT & OT language in the recent bill! At no time in
the past has there been such language or consideration for O&P services been
thought of in the halls of congress, or in the senate. We now have our first
LAW that begins to carve our profession out into prominence. It's our first
step! This law has been 3 years of very hard work and allot of money, there
are quite a few people that poured allot of themselves into this bill
(Martha Rinker & Tim Haake), they need people like us to say thank-you. It
takes more money than most of us can fathom, that's were our PAC fund comes
into play, thank the fund by sitting down today and sending $25 or $50 to
help replenish it. Karl is more right than any of us will ever know when he
talks about money on the hill, its the same old company line up there Money
talks and bull---- walks! There are huge groups out there working against
us, and they all have more money than we do, we are the Sampson. O&P will
always have an uphill struggle, but that's ok! I think most of us relish the
role of underdog! There was absolutely no way that the PT's and OT's were
going to be kept out of the language, fitting braces has been part of their
scope of practice for a long time, whether we agree or disagree is a mute
point, this bill had a zero chance of passing without them. As an example,
take some time to check out every state that has passed licensure, they all
have language that includes the PT's & OT's. It's the NOMA's of the world we
need to work against, that's where the real threat of unqualified people is
coming from.
I am seeing some great ideas and points of view being exchanged on the
listserv, its these people that need to take some time and help your state
move forward with licensure, or call one of the national offices and
volunteer some time to sit on a committee. We've taken a big step with our p
rofession, but what's our next step going to be! It's our AOPA, it's our
AAOP, everyone needs to help.
Kevin Hawkins
----- Original Message -----
From: Karl Lindborg < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:55 AM
Subject: [OANDP-L] RECENT LEGISLATION
> Dear List,
>
> It seems to me that the results of the recent legislation allowing OT
> and PT professionals OandP privileges is more about how much money their
> respective PAC's were able to afford to have their voice heard, than
> AOPA's inability to push through their proposed legislation.. As was
> stated earlier, NOMA was very active in engineering language that did
> not restrict OTS and custom fitted items to Certified Prosthetists and
> Orthotists.That was shrewd on their part..for their imminent survival.
>
> PT and OT are our allies and their membership I'm sure dwarfs AOPA,
> AAOP, ABC and BOC membership. The issue politically, actually seems to
> be who has the most money to spend to further advance and protect their
> space in the Allied Health Arena. PTs and OTs have certainly seen a
> change in the way they practice with the PPS plan initiated by Medicare.
> How many PTs and OTs do you know who have left the profession due to
> PPS?
>
> Money spent by AOPA and all involved on our behalf, I am speculating,
> came not from our yearly memberships but from our PAC moneys. If this is
> accurate then those deep pockets that contribute to our PAC
> Moneys,(who are they?...certainly not OrthoAmerica.....maybe Otto Bock?)
> as well as the minor contributions by well meaning supporters, was not
> enough to compete with the larger PAC groups. I seriously doubt that
> AOPA and our entourage have any single or united voice that can compete
> with the power of money and voice our larger Allied Health Providers
> have.
>
> The problem seems to boil down to money. I visualize our profession's
> efforts on the hill similar to the story of Sampson and Goliath. Our
> profession would like to have the results that Sampson had when he
> defeated Goliath. Unfortunately that did not happen. I'm not suggesting
> that if you can't beat em, join em...but what some of the responses to
> the results of legislation seem to indicate is that we sold ourselves
> short. I am suggesting that selling outis relative to how much money
> you have to spend.
>
> Would it have been better to not settle for what eventually was agreed
> upon? I would like to know what the options would have been if this had
> actually occurred. I am surmising that the decision to proceed with the
> resulting legislation was the better choice for our Sampson Like
> stature to support.
>
> Our fellow Allied Health Providers involved in this are not going away.
> They are well educated, capable professionals who are bigger in numbers
> and money.They may very well yield to what expertise we O&P
> professionals already have. We may not have PAC money big enough to
> compete with the Goliath's (How might we change this?) but we do have a
> wealth of knowledge and wisdom that has evolved over the years. Will
> this always be unique to us? Time will tell. I think that what is going
> on is inevitable due to.... the process of natural selection....if you
> will.
>
> Times they are a changin'
> Karl Lindborg CPO
>
>
You are very accurate in your analogy of the whole legislative process, and
what happens or happened! What most of us are being short sighted, and far
too critical of, is the PT & OT language in the recent bill! At no time in
the past has there been such language or consideration for O&P services been
thought of in the halls of congress, or in the senate. We now have our first
LAW that begins to carve our profession out into prominence. It's our first
step! This law has been 3 years of very hard work and allot of money, there
are quite a few people that poured allot of themselves into this bill
(Martha Rinker & Tim Haake), they need people like us to say thank-you. It
takes more money than most of us can fathom, that's were our PAC fund comes
into play, thank the fund by sitting down today and sending $25 or $50 to
help replenish it. Karl is more right than any of us will ever know when he
talks about money on the hill, its the same old company line up there Money
talks and bull---- walks! There are huge groups out there working against
us, and they all have more money than we do, we are the Sampson. O&P will
always have an uphill struggle, but that's ok! I think most of us relish the
role of underdog! There was absolutely no way that the PT's and OT's were
going to be kept out of the language, fitting braces has been part of their
scope of practice for a long time, whether we agree or disagree is a mute
point, this bill had a zero chance of passing without them. As an example,
take some time to check out every state that has passed licensure, they all
have language that includes the PT's & OT's. It's the NOMA's of the world we
need to work against, that's where the real threat of unqualified people is
coming from.
I am seeing some great ideas and points of view being exchanged on the
listserv, its these people that need to take some time and help your state
move forward with licensure, or call one of the national offices and
volunteer some time to sit on a committee. We've taken a big step with our p
rofession, but what's our next step going to be! It's our AOPA, it's our
AAOP, everyone needs to help.
Kevin Hawkins
----- Original Message -----
From: Karl Lindborg < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:55 AM
Subject: [OANDP-L] RECENT LEGISLATION
> Dear List,
>
> It seems to me that the results of the recent legislation allowing OT
> and PT professionals OandP privileges is more about how much money their
> respective PAC's were able to afford to have their voice heard, than
> AOPA's inability to push through their proposed legislation.. As was
> stated earlier, NOMA was very active in engineering language that did
> not restrict OTS and custom fitted items to Certified Prosthetists and
> Orthotists.That was shrewd on their part..for their imminent survival.
>
> PT and OT are our allies and their membership I'm sure dwarfs AOPA,
> AAOP, ABC and BOC membership. The issue politically, actually seems to
> be who has the most money to spend to further advance and protect their
> space in the Allied Health Arena. PTs and OTs have certainly seen a
> change in the way they practice with the PPS plan initiated by Medicare.
> How many PTs and OTs do you know who have left the profession due to
> PPS?
>
> Money spent by AOPA and all involved on our behalf, I am speculating,
> came not from our yearly memberships but from our PAC moneys. If this is
> accurate then those deep pockets that contribute to our PAC
> Moneys,(who are they?...certainly not OrthoAmerica.....maybe Otto Bock?)
> as well as the minor contributions by well meaning supporters, was not
> enough to compete with the larger PAC groups. I seriously doubt that
> AOPA and our entourage have any single or united voice that can compete
> with the power of money and voice our larger Allied Health Providers
> have.
>
> The problem seems to boil down to money. I visualize our profession's
> efforts on the hill similar to the story of Sampson and Goliath. Our
> profession would like to have the results that Sampson had when he
> defeated Goliath. Unfortunately that did not happen. I'm not suggesting
> that if you can't beat em, join em...but what some of the responses to
> the results of legislation seem to indicate is that we sold ourselves
> short. I am suggesting that selling outis relative to how much money
> you have to spend.
>
> Would it have been better to not settle for what eventually was agreed
> upon? I would like to know what the options would have been if this had
> actually occurred. I am surmising that the decision to proceed with the
> resulting legislation was the better choice for our Sampson Like
> stature to support.
>
> Our fellow Allied Health Providers involved in this are not going away.
> They are well educated, capable professionals who are bigger in numbers
> and money.They may very well yield to what expertise we O&P
> professionals already have. We may not have PAC money big enough to
> compete with the Goliath's (How might we change this?) but we do have a
> wealth of knowledge and wisdom that has evolved over the years. Will
> this always be unique to us? Time will tell. I think that what is going
> on is inevitable due to.... the process of natural selection....if you
> will.
>
> Times they are a changin'
> Karl Lindborg CPO
>
>
Citation
kevin hawkins, “Re: RECENT LEGISLATION,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 1, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/215779.
