Re: US Politics: O&P "Qualified Practioner" Language - H.R.5661
Reed Coleman
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: US Politics: O&P "Qualified Practioner" Language - H.R.5661
Creator:
Reed Coleman
Date:
1/19/2001
Text:
Did everyone hear this? Well stated John.
Reed
<Email Address Redacted> wrote:
> Dear US List Members:
>
> Although I am not known for brevity in my responses regarding O&P issues, I
> will attempt to be so in this response.
>
> Before commenting on this issue, I would only hope that the recent
> firestorm of discussion on OANP-L regarding the how(s) and why(s) of the
> recently passed O&P Federal Legislation regarding Qualified Practitioners
> by those who have spoken in opposition to it, that this will lead them to
> turn their comments into action and not just after-the-fact opionions! Don't
> let your actions stop here by posting to OANDP-L, because by and large, you
> are only singing to the choir!!!
>
> I trust that those who know my history on the subject of what constitutes a
> qualified provider of comprehensive O&P services, either through my posts
> to OANDP-L, my long-standing history in national O&P politics, or articles
> and text I have written, should have no question where I stand on this
> issue!!
>
> I do not and did not support the Qualified Practitioner language of this
> Legislation. This language is wrong and those that supported it, regardless
> of the reason, know it!! In my opinion, little has been done to curb O&P
> growing expenditures due to fraud and abuse by grossly expanding the
> definition of what is a Qualified Practitioner. This legislation was not
> in the best interest of this profession or the general public that utilizes
> and needs these services.
>
> I always have been and will always be in support of the most appropriately
> recognized minimum education standards for O&P practitioners. Additionally,
> I will always support practitioner credentialing standards which model such
> education standards, as they will best ensure the quality of care to
> individuals in need of comprehensive O&P health care services. Given the
> very nature and scope of O&P practice which includes a wide variety of
> medical and engineering sciences, appropriately recognized university or
> college level education and training is absolutely necessary and in the best
> interest of those in need of comprehensive O&P health care services.
>
> It is for the above reasons, that I fully support the minimum educational
> standards embodied within the Essentials and Guidelines for an Accredited
> Educational Program for the Orthotist and Prosthetist as developed by the
> National Commission on Orthotic-Prosthetic Education (NCOPE). They are the
> only O&P practitioner education standards accredited and accepted by the
> Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP), who
> in turn is an education accreditation organization appropriately accredited
> by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). CAAHEP and its
> predecessor, the AMA Committee on Allied Health Education and Accreditation
> (CAHEA), have long been recognized as one of the most creditable and
> comprehensive allied health education accreditation organizations for
> educational programs offered at the college or university level. Likewise,
> CHEA is recognized as one of the most creditable and comprehensive national
> credentialing organizations concerned with accreditation of higher education
> universities, colleges, schools, and programs.
>
> Fundamentally, it has long been acknowledged and accepted that minimum
> college or university level education and training is essential to providing
> and/or overseeing the provision of a professionally recognized allied health
> care service. More importantly, it has been long acknowledged that this
> principle is in the best interest of assuring the health and safety of the
> general public.
>
> If you concur with above principle, there should be no question that the
> CAAHEP recognized NCOPE Essentials and Guidelines for an Accredited
> Educational Programs for the Orthotist and Prosthetist should be the mark by
> which this profession, as well as its credentialing organizations, qualify
> the providers of comprehensive O&P health care services. This is not a
> self-serving principle, nor is it about protecting one's turf for
> professional or monetary reasons. It is a principle that simply is in the
> best interest of the disabled persons in need of comprehensive O&P health
> care service!
>
> The CAAHEP recognized NCOPE O&P education essentials and guidelines have been
> recognized since 1972 by American Medical Association (AMA), the American
> Academy of Orthotists & Prosthetists (AAOP), the American Orthotic and
> Prosthetic Association (AOPA) and the American Board for Certification in
> Orthotics & Prosthetics (ABC). They, in fact, are the foundation and model
> for O&P practitioner credentialing standards and facility accreditation
> standards of ABC.
>
> The CAAHEP recognized NCOPE O&P education essentials and guidelines were
> proposed in a coalition letter of support that was organized by NAAOP and
> submitted to Congressman Thomas on October 4, 2000, as being appropriate for
> the intent of this legislation. This coalition letter of support brought
> further recognition, support, and creditability to these minimum education
> standards of O&P practitioners. The organizations signing on the document
> were as follows: the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), American Academy of
> Orthotists and Prosthetists (AAOP), American Academy of Physical Medicine and
> Rehabilitation (AAPM&R), American Association of Orthopeadic Surgeons (AAOS),
> American Board for Certification in Orthotics and Prosthetics (ABC), Brain
> Injury Association (BIA), National Association for the Advancement of
> Orthotics and Prosthetics (NAAOP).
>
> Should you be interested in viewing the above-referenced coalition letter and
> developing a deeper understanding of the importance of CAAHEP, NCOPE, and
> CAHE, I have provided the links and URL's below.
>
> It is my understanding an opportunity still exists to influence the specific
> intent of the language of this legislation during the negotiated
> rule-making process, which has not yet begun. I, therefor, encourage all O&
> P practitioners who support the above principle to take make your opinions
> known on this legislation by contacting the leadership within your national O&
> P organizations and your legislators. It is imperative that you express your
> beliefs and concerns on this issue to those in leadership positions of the
> organizations you support through your membership. If you are truly
> concerned about the Qualified Practitioner language within this legislation
> you MUST also take an active role in communicating your opinion to your local
> Congressman and Senators -- if you want your opinion to be heard in
> Washington!
>
> Lastly, and more importantly, I would encourage the consumers of O&P
> healthcare services to also make their opinions known to their Congressman
> and Senators. Likewise, if you are an active member of a state or national
> disability organization, such as the Amputee Coalition of America (ACA),
> Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA), Spina Bifida Association of America
> (SBAA), etc., and you are now concerned about the language of this
> legislation, you need to voice your opinions to the leadership of your
> organization. If you are not a member of such an organization, I would
> encourage you to consider membership in the appropriate organization. Before
> you do that, I would strongly suggest that you determine if the organization
> shares your views on who should be identified as a Qualified Practitioner
> for the O&P health care you need.
>
> Well, so much for my brevity!!… Please take the time to voice your opinion
> and not just here on OANDP-L, while the opportunity still exists!!
>
> John N. Billock, CPO
> Practitioner & Consumer of O&P Health Care Services
>
> Referenced Information Links:
>
> <A HREF= <URL Redacted>>106 Congress H.R. 5661 (O&P Qualifed Practitioner on Page 149)</A>
> <URL Redacted>
> (Note: This Bill is a 327 page document and you must go to Page 149 to read
> the final specific language.)
>
> <A HREF= <URL Redacted>>NCOPE - National Commission on Orthotic and Prosthetic Education</A>
> http://www.ncope.org/
>
> <A HREF= http://www.caahep.org/ >CAAHEP - Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs</A>
> http://www.caahep.org/
>
> <A HREF= http://www.chea.org/ >CHEA - Council for Higher Education Accreditation</A>
> http://www.chea.org/
>
> <A HREF= http://www.oandp.com/resources/organizations/naaop/ >NAAOP - National Association for the Advancement of Orthotics & Prosthetists</A>
> <A HREF= http://www.oandp.com/resources/organizations/naaop/012001.htm >NAAOP Opposes Qualified Practitioner Language in Coalition Letter to
> Congress</A>
> http://www.oandp.com/resources/organizations/naaop/
>
>
Reed
<Email Address Redacted> wrote:
> Dear US List Members:
>
> Although I am not known for brevity in my responses regarding O&P issues, I
> will attempt to be so in this response.
>
> Before commenting on this issue, I would only hope that the recent
> firestorm of discussion on OANP-L regarding the how(s) and why(s) of the
> recently passed O&P Federal Legislation regarding Qualified Practitioners
> by those who have spoken in opposition to it, that this will lead them to
> turn their comments into action and not just after-the-fact opionions! Don't
> let your actions stop here by posting to OANDP-L, because by and large, you
> are only singing to the choir!!!
>
> I trust that those who know my history on the subject of what constitutes a
> qualified provider of comprehensive O&P services, either through my posts
> to OANDP-L, my long-standing history in national O&P politics, or articles
> and text I have written, should have no question where I stand on this
> issue!!
>
> I do not and did not support the Qualified Practitioner language of this
> Legislation. This language is wrong and those that supported it, regardless
> of the reason, know it!! In my opinion, little has been done to curb O&P
> growing expenditures due to fraud and abuse by grossly expanding the
> definition of what is a Qualified Practitioner. This legislation was not
> in the best interest of this profession or the general public that utilizes
> and needs these services.
>
> I always have been and will always be in support of the most appropriately
> recognized minimum education standards for O&P practitioners. Additionally,
> I will always support practitioner credentialing standards which model such
> education standards, as they will best ensure the quality of care to
> individuals in need of comprehensive O&P health care services. Given the
> very nature and scope of O&P practice which includes a wide variety of
> medical and engineering sciences, appropriately recognized university or
> college level education and training is absolutely necessary and in the best
> interest of those in need of comprehensive O&P health care services.
>
> It is for the above reasons, that I fully support the minimum educational
> standards embodied within the Essentials and Guidelines for an Accredited
> Educational Program for the Orthotist and Prosthetist as developed by the
> National Commission on Orthotic-Prosthetic Education (NCOPE). They are the
> only O&P practitioner education standards accredited and accepted by the
> Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP), who
> in turn is an education accreditation organization appropriately accredited
> by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). CAAHEP and its
> predecessor, the AMA Committee on Allied Health Education and Accreditation
> (CAHEA), have long been recognized as one of the most creditable and
> comprehensive allied health education accreditation organizations for
> educational programs offered at the college or university level. Likewise,
> CHEA is recognized as one of the most creditable and comprehensive national
> credentialing organizations concerned with accreditation of higher education
> universities, colleges, schools, and programs.
>
> Fundamentally, it has long been acknowledged and accepted that minimum
> college or university level education and training is essential to providing
> and/or overseeing the provision of a professionally recognized allied health
> care service. More importantly, it has been long acknowledged that this
> principle is in the best interest of assuring the health and safety of the
> general public.
>
> If you concur with above principle, there should be no question that the
> CAAHEP recognized NCOPE Essentials and Guidelines for an Accredited
> Educational Programs for the Orthotist and Prosthetist should be the mark by
> which this profession, as well as its credentialing organizations, qualify
> the providers of comprehensive O&P health care services. This is not a
> self-serving principle, nor is it about protecting one's turf for
> professional or monetary reasons. It is a principle that simply is in the
> best interest of the disabled persons in need of comprehensive O&P health
> care service!
>
> The CAAHEP recognized NCOPE O&P education essentials and guidelines have been
> recognized since 1972 by American Medical Association (AMA), the American
> Academy of Orthotists & Prosthetists (AAOP), the American Orthotic and
> Prosthetic Association (AOPA) and the American Board for Certification in
> Orthotics & Prosthetics (ABC). They, in fact, are the foundation and model
> for O&P practitioner credentialing standards and facility accreditation
> standards of ABC.
>
> The CAAHEP recognized NCOPE O&P education essentials and guidelines were
> proposed in a coalition letter of support that was organized by NAAOP and
> submitted to Congressman Thomas on October 4, 2000, as being appropriate for
> the intent of this legislation. This coalition letter of support brought
> further recognition, support, and creditability to these minimum education
> standards of O&P practitioners. The organizations signing on the document
> were as follows: the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), American Academy of
> Orthotists and Prosthetists (AAOP), American Academy of Physical Medicine and
> Rehabilitation (AAPM&R), American Association of Orthopeadic Surgeons (AAOS),
> American Board for Certification in Orthotics and Prosthetics (ABC), Brain
> Injury Association (BIA), National Association for the Advancement of
> Orthotics and Prosthetics (NAAOP).
>
> Should you be interested in viewing the above-referenced coalition letter and
> developing a deeper understanding of the importance of CAAHEP, NCOPE, and
> CAHE, I have provided the links and URL's below.
>
> It is my understanding an opportunity still exists to influence the specific
> intent of the language of this legislation during the negotiated
> rule-making process, which has not yet begun. I, therefor, encourage all O&
> P practitioners who support the above principle to take make your opinions
> known on this legislation by contacting the leadership within your national O&
> P organizations and your legislators. It is imperative that you express your
> beliefs and concerns on this issue to those in leadership positions of the
> organizations you support through your membership. If you are truly
> concerned about the Qualified Practitioner language within this legislation
> you MUST also take an active role in communicating your opinion to your local
> Congressman and Senators -- if you want your opinion to be heard in
> Washington!
>
> Lastly, and more importantly, I would encourage the consumers of O&P
> healthcare services to also make their opinions known to their Congressman
> and Senators. Likewise, if you are an active member of a state or national
> disability organization, such as the Amputee Coalition of America (ACA),
> Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA), Spina Bifida Association of America
> (SBAA), etc., and you are now concerned about the language of this
> legislation, you need to voice your opinions to the leadership of your
> organization. If you are not a member of such an organization, I would
> encourage you to consider membership in the appropriate organization. Before
> you do that, I would strongly suggest that you determine if the organization
> shares your views on who should be identified as a Qualified Practitioner
> for the O&P health care you need.
>
> Well, so much for my brevity!!… Please take the time to voice your opinion
> and not just here on OANDP-L, while the opportunity still exists!!
>
> John N. Billock, CPO
> Practitioner & Consumer of O&P Health Care Services
>
> Referenced Information Links:
>
> <A HREF= <URL Redacted>>106 Congress H.R. 5661 (O&P Qualifed Practitioner on Page 149)</A>
> <URL Redacted>
> (Note: This Bill is a 327 page document and you must go to Page 149 to read
> the final specific language.)
>
> <A HREF= <URL Redacted>>NCOPE - National Commission on Orthotic and Prosthetic Education</A>
> http://www.ncope.org/
>
> <A HREF= http://www.caahep.org/ >CAAHEP - Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs</A>
> http://www.caahep.org/
>
> <A HREF= http://www.chea.org/ >CHEA - Council for Higher Education Accreditation</A>
> http://www.chea.org/
>
> <A HREF= http://www.oandp.com/resources/organizations/naaop/ >NAAOP - National Association for the Advancement of Orthotics & Prosthetists</A>
> <A HREF= http://www.oandp.com/resources/organizations/naaop/012001.htm >NAAOP Opposes Qualified Practitioner Language in Coalition Letter to
> Congress</A>
> http://www.oandp.com/resources/organizations/naaop/
>
>
Citation
Reed Coleman, “Re: US Politics: O&P "Qualified Practioner" Language - H.R.5661,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 6, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/215823.
