Legislation, Updates and the Future
David Schultz
Description
Collection
Title:
Legislation, Updates and the Future
Creator:
David Schultz
Date:
1/5/2001
Text:
I have read very carefully the posts from those within the field and those outside of the field relative to the new language that was recently passed and signed by the President. In an effort to enlighten the participants on this ListServ, I would like to present some facts regarding the provisions for O&P in the recent Medicare legislation.
The recent AOPA legislative effort was not a unilateral decision by AOPA staff. It was studied, discussed, argued and approved by AOPA's Government Relations Committee and Board of Directors. The Board made the final call. A Board made up of members such as yourselves.
Information about the proposal and its evolution has been reported in AOPA publications (The Almanac and AOPA in Advance), openly discussed at the AOPA Policy Forum (participation of which is open to all) and at both the AOPA and AAOP annual meetings. Apparently some of you missed the multi-faceted open disclosure by AOPA and AAOP since there was no comment received by the AOPA Board during or after the disclosure period. I would have thought that with the furor being raised now, one or more of you would have raised a red flag long before the language got to the passing point.
Most of you who are complaining about the qualified provider language have failed to notice that the legislation also included a FULL CPI update for O&P. This means that O&P will be receiving about $20 million more this year than in 2000. Since nobody has brought that up I have to assume the O&P LIST is just a forum to complain. I for one certianly appreciate the update. Especially in light of the fact that the update is much larger than we could have ever expected.
One of the reasons O&P was granted a full CPI update is because of the qualified provider language. By limiting who will be able to bill Medicare for provided O&P services, thereby limiting the fraud and abuse the Office of Inspector General (OIG) found in its investigations of custom orthotics, Medicare saves a bundle of money. Those savings are being passed back to the O&P industry.
As to the misinformation that PTs and OTs are now going to able to provide O&P. PT's and OT's have always been able to bill Medicare for O&P. Congress was not going to take that away from them. The PT and OT lobby is just too strong for us to overcome.
The qualified provider language was the direct result of the OIG investigation into custom orthotics. Frankly, Congress is interested in two things - stopping fraud (i.e. saving money) and making sure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to care. Members of Congress from rural states and districts were particularly concerned about the access to care issue - are there enough O&P providers to handle the growing number of patients.
Now with all of that said, those of you who have worked on state O&P licensure legislation know that it was or is necessary to include the PTs and the OT's and probably a host of others including CPed's, BOC's, NARD's, etc. in order to get a bill passed. This qualified provider issue is so like the state licensure bills. Although the goal was a pure piece of legislation, compromise was the only route to any legislation at all.
The analogy is this - a farmer has a full silo of grain, there are 100 rats eating that grain. His choices are - eliminate most of the rats and have the bulk of his grain to take to market to sell - or - let all the rats eat most, if not all of the grain. The AOPA Board's position was to eliminate most of the rats.
You may not like some or all of this legislation, but you have to admit that it is a major accomplishment for a small provider community.
Lastly, I call your attention to two misconceptions that have constantly cropped up on the O&P List. One, there is no National Office any longer. That was disposed of about a year ago. There is an AOPA Officean AAOP office, an ABC Office and etc. but no National Office.
Secondly, the direction of the government relations activity of AOPA is not determined by the AOPA staff. While the staff does bring important matters to the attention of the Board and Government Relations Committee, it is the AOPA Board that makes the final decison on the direction to be taken. This was the case this time around and will always be the case in the future. The AOPA Board, comprised of your members is charged with the direction taken in all matters pertaining to the management of the association and its government relations iniative. So if you are going to complain about an issue why not complain to the Board and discard the all too often approach of dissing the staff.
David C. Schultz, CPO
AOPA - President Elect <br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href= <URL Redacted>> <URL Redacted></a><br></p>
********************
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.
********************
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.
The recent AOPA legislative effort was not a unilateral decision by AOPA staff. It was studied, discussed, argued and approved by AOPA's Government Relations Committee and Board of Directors. The Board made the final call. A Board made up of members such as yourselves.
Information about the proposal and its evolution has been reported in AOPA publications (The Almanac and AOPA in Advance), openly discussed at the AOPA Policy Forum (participation of which is open to all) and at both the AOPA and AAOP annual meetings. Apparently some of you missed the multi-faceted open disclosure by AOPA and AAOP since there was no comment received by the AOPA Board during or after the disclosure period. I would have thought that with the furor being raised now, one or more of you would have raised a red flag long before the language got to the passing point.
Most of you who are complaining about the qualified provider language have failed to notice that the legislation also included a FULL CPI update for O&P. This means that O&P will be receiving about $20 million more this year than in 2000. Since nobody has brought that up I have to assume the O&P LIST is just a forum to complain. I for one certianly appreciate the update. Especially in light of the fact that the update is much larger than we could have ever expected.
One of the reasons O&P was granted a full CPI update is because of the qualified provider language. By limiting who will be able to bill Medicare for provided O&P services, thereby limiting the fraud and abuse the Office of Inspector General (OIG) found in its investigations of custom orthotics, Medicare saves a bundle of money. Those savings are being passed back to the O&P industry.
As to the misinformation that PTs and OTs are now going to able to provide O&P. PT's and OT's have always been able to bill Medicare for O&P. Congress was not going to take that away from them. The PT and OT lobby is just too strong for us to overcome.
The qualified provider language was the direct result of the OIG investigation into custom orthotics. Frankly, Congress is interested in two things - stopping fraud (i.e. saving money) and making sure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to care. Members of Congress from rural states and districts were particularly concerned about the access to care issue - are there enough O&P providers to handle the growing number of patients.
Now with all of that said, those of you who have worked on state O&P licensure legislation know that it was or is necessary to include the PTs and the OT's and probably a host of others including CPed's, BOC's, NARD's, etc. in order to get a bill passed. This qualified provider issue is so like the state licensure bills. Although the goal was a pure piece of legislation, compromise was the only route to any legislation at all.
The analogy is this - a farmer has a full silo of grain, there are 100 rats eating that grain. His choices are - eliminate most of the rats and have the bulk of his grain to take to market to sell - or - let all the rats eat most, if not all of the grain. The AOPA Board's position was to eliminate most of the rats.
You may not like some or all of this legislation, but you have to admit that it is a major accomplishment for a small provider community.
Lastly, I call your attention to two misconceptions that have constantly cropped up on the O&P List. One, there is no National Office any longer. That was disposed of about a year ago. There is an AOPA Officean AAOP office, an ABC Office and etc. but no National Office.
Secondly, the direction of the government relations activity of AOPA is not determined by the AOPA staff. While the staff does bring important matters to the attention of the Board and Government Relations Committee, it is the AOPA Board that makes the final decison on the direction to be taken. This was the case this time around and will always be the case in the future. The AOPA Board, comprised of your members is charged with the direction taken in all matters pertaining to the management of the association and its government relations iniative. So if you are going to complain about an issue why not complain to the Board and discard the all too often approach of dissing the staff.
David C. Schultz, CPO
AOPA - President Elect <br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href= <URL Redacted>> <URL Redacted></a><br></p>
********************
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.
********************
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.
Citation
David Schultz, “Legislation, Updates and the Future,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 25, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/216112.
