US Politics: O&P "Qualified Practioner" Language - H.R. 5661
Description
Collection
Title:
US Politics: O&P "Qualified Practioner" Language - H.R. 5661
Text:
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/
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
“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/215825.
