RECENT LEGISLATION
Karl Lindborg
Description
Collection
Title:
RECENT LEGISLATION
Creator:
Karl Lindborg
Date:
1/4/2001
Text:
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
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
Karl Lindborg, “RECENT LEGISLATION,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed December 28, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/215781.
