US POLITICS: ABC’s Support of AOPA Proposed Membership Bylaw Amendment
Description
Collection
Title:
US POLITICS: ABC’s Support of AOPA Proposed Membership Bylaw Amendment
Text:
ABC’s Support of AOPA Proposed Membership Bylaw Amendment
I would hope that all ABC credentialed practitioners and facilities have made
a serious effort to digest and analyze, in their own way, the short and
long-term ramifications of the above subject.
AOPA's Proposed Membership Bylaw Amendment will be voted on at the AOPA
Meeting on next Thursday, October 25, in Phoenix. Had it not been for ABC's
recently stated and last-minute support in the October 16, 2001, faxed AOPA
In Advance, I would have had little cause for alarm as I fully expected the
day would come when AOPA would have to expand it membership as a matter of
survival!!
The immediate and long-term effects of AOPA’s and ABC’s actions to the
profession of orthotics and prosthetics, not the industry will be
dramatic in the months ahead!!
Those truly concerned with the quality and provision of comprehensive O&P
care that should be provided by appropriately trained and qualified
practitioners will have lost significant ground in their efforts to protect O&
P consumers.
The impact of the apparent concessionary trend we have now been brought into
by AOPA and ABC will make for some very interesting days ahead for the future
of all ABC practitioners and facilities, O&P residents and students pursing
the ABC credential, the National Commission on Orthotic and Prosthetic
Education (NCOPE) and its O&P Practitioner Education Standards, the
National Association of Prosthetic-Orthotic Educators (NAPOE) and established
O&P education programs.
I have little reason to believe that anything substantive was done to analyze
the potential outcome of AOPA's proposed amendment and ABC's apparent support
of this action. I would have to ask the leadership of AOPA and ABC to let us
know how and why you came to these conclusion without appropriately seeking
the input of those it would impact the most? Is that really to little to ask?
Given the times our country is in, the patriotic quote United We Stand,
Divided We Fall has particular meaning that will undoubtedly provide
particular meaning to both side of this issue.
If anyone thinks or chooses to say I am against those with credentials other
than ABC's, you're dead wrong!!…. There is an obvious need for all of us,
just look arround you!!!
What I am against is the provision of O&P care, which requires a specific
level of knowledge and expertise, by under-trained, under-educated and
under-qualified practitioners. That is what needs sorted out by a creditable
group of meaningful individuals, who are truly concerned with defining the
levels of O&P care and defining who are the truly Qualified Practitioner
and Qualified Suppliers of those levels of care in the best interest of the
O&P consumer.
The true beginnings of such an effort was to have begun with the Negotiated
Rulemaking Process (NRP) as a result of the BIPA legislation enacted in
December of 2000, which has now been delayed possibly until January of 2002.
Unfortunately, however, this Legislation grossly exaggerates the problem by
significantly expanding the definitions and population of those who are now
identified as “Qualified Practitioners” and “Qualified Suppliers.”
I firmly believe we as a “profession” and “industry” should have gone
through this process before the recent actions of AOPA and ABC, because it
will only cloud the real issues at stake, which are to assure appropriate
care is being provide by appropriately trained and qualified practitioners
for each level of care required.
As I will not be attending the AOPA Meeting, I have personally addressed the
ABC Board with my concerns and questions via e-mail and my thoughts are
reiterated in this post. I am awaiting a response.
I would encourage all ABC practitioners and facility owners attending the
AOPA meeting to stand up ask the “why” and “how” questions of both AOPA and
ABC that should be addressed before casting your vote!
As an AOPA member, I do not support the timing and manner in which AOPA’s
Bylaw Membership Bylaw Amendment has been brought forward and have passed my
Voting Proxy on to a like-minded colleague.
Although little time has been given for substantive discussion of much of
what I have expressed, I hope that the reason for silence on these issues is
not being driven by apathy, because that is our worst enemy in a time such as
this!! The leadership of our professional, credentialing, and trade
associations need to know your thoughts and opinions.
Lastly, I have also addressed this issue and my concerns with the American
Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists (the Academy) and I have been assured
this matter is and will be addressed. I have also been informed that the
Academy was not formally asked to support or publicly comment on the proposed
AOPA Membership Bylaw Amendment.
Thanks for listening and reading, again!!…… John
John N. Billock, CPO/L, FAAOP, Clinical Director
Orthotics & Prosthetics Rehabilitation Engineering Centre
700 Howland-Wilson Road, SE
Warren, Ohio 44484 USA
Phone: 330-856-2553
E-Mail: <Email Address Redacted>
I would hope that all ABC credentialed practitioners and facilities have made
a serious effort to digest and analyze, in their own way, the short and
long-term ramifications of the above subject.
AOPA's Proposed Membership Bylaw Amendment will be voted on at the AOPA
Meeting on next Thursday, October 25, in Phoenix. Had it not been for ABC's
recently stated and last-minute support in the October 16, 2001, faxed AOPA
In Advance, I would have had little cause for alarm as I fully expected the
day would come when AOPA would have to expand it membership as a matter of
survival!!
The immediate and long-term effects of AOPA’s and ABC’s actions to the
profession of orthotics and prosthetics, not the industry will be
dramatic in the months ahead!!
Those truly concerned with the quality and provision of comprehensive O&P
care that should be provided by appropriately trained and qualified
practitioners will have lost significant ground in their efforts to protect O&
P consumers.
The impact of the apparent concessionary trend we have now been brought into
by AOPA and ABC will make for some very interesting days ahead for the future
of all ABC practitioners and facilities, O&P residents and students pursing
the ABC credential, the National Commission on Orthotic and Prosthetic
Education (NCOPE) and its O&P Practitioner Education Standards, the
National Association of Prosthetic-Orthotic Educators (NAPOE) and established
O&P education programs.
I have little reason to believe that anything substantive was done to analyze
the potential outcome of AOPA's proposed amendment and ABC's apparent support
of this action. I would have to ask the leadership of AOPA and ABC to let us
know how and why you came to these conclusion without appropriately seeking
the input of those it would impact the most? Is that really to little to ask?
Given the times our country is in, the patriotic quote United We Stand,
Divided We Fall has particular meaning that will undoubtedly provide
particular meaning to both side of this issue.
If anyone thinks or chooses to say I am against those with credentials other
than ABC's, you're dead wrong!!…. There is an obvious need for all of us,
just look arround you!!!
What I am against is the provision of O&P care, which requires a specific
level of knowledge and expertise, by under-trained, under-educated and
under-qualified practitioners. That is what needs sorted out by a creditable
group of meaningful individuals, who are truly concerned with defining the
levels of O&P care and defining who are the truly Qualified Practitioner
and Qualified Suppliers of those levels of care in the best interest of the
O&P consumer.
The true beginnings of such an effort was to have begun with the Negotiated
Rulemaking Process (NRP) as a result of the BIPA legislation enacted in
December of 2000, which has now been delayed possibly until January of 2002.
Unfortunately, however, this Legislation grossly exaggerates the problem by
significantly expanding the definitions and population of those who are now
identified as “Qualified Practitioners” and “Qualified Suppliers.”
I firmly believe we as a “profession” and “industry” should have gone
through this process before the recent actions of AOPA and ABC, because it
will only cloud the real issues at stake, which are to assure appropriate
care is being provide by appropriately trained and qualified practitioners
for each level of care required.
As I will not be attending the AOPA Meeting, I have personally addressed the
ABC Board with my concerns and questions via e-mail and my thoughts are
reiterated in this post. I am awaiting a response.
I would encourage all ABC practitioners and facility owners attending the
AOPA meeting to stand up ask the “why” and “how” questions of both AOPA and
ABC that should be addressed before casting your vote!
As an AOPA member, I do not support the timing and manner in which AOPA’s
Bylaw Membership Bylaw Amendment has been brought forward and have passed my
Voting Proxy on to a like-minded colleague.
Although little time has been given for substantive discussion of much of
what I have expressed, I hope that the reason for silence on these issues is
not being driven by apathy, because that is our worst enemy in a time such as
this!! The leadership of our professional, credentialing, and trade
associations need to know your thoughts and opinions.
Lastly, I have also addressed this issue and my concerns with the American
Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists (the Academy) and I have been assured
this matter is and will be addressed. I have also been informed that the
Academy was not formally asked to support or publicly comment on the proposed
AOPA Membership Bylaw Amendment.
Thanks for listening and reading, again!!…… John
John N. Billock, CPO/L, FAAOP, Clinical Director
Orthotics & Prosthetics Rehabilitation Engineering Centre
700 Howland-Wilson Road, SE
Warren, Ohio 44484 USA
Phone: 330-856-2553
E-Mail: <Email Address Redacted>
Citation
“US POLITICS: ABC’s Support of AOPA Proposed Membership Bylaw Amendment,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 2, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/217641.
