Advocacy/SGL Workshop Forum
Tony Barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Advocacy/SGL Workshop Forum
Creator:
Tony Barr
Date:
12/18/2001
Text:
Wayne,
Thanks for the historical perspective of ACA's past advocacy efforts.
I have asked ACA to provide a formal schedule for the Advocacy Workshop meeting(s).
I have also formally suggested, as a ACA Support Group Leader, to Becky Bruce, the ACA Outreach Information Specialist,that Advocacy be a excellent topic for the ACA Support Group Leaders Workshop in Anaheim as well as a formally schedule Advocacy Workshop Committee Meeting(s).
Recent review of ACA's web site reflects that they have formed another advocacy committee, a PAC and a Grassroots committee, since dissolving the prior standing advocacy committee in September.
We are already looking at a real challenge via ACA mixing three committee bottle necks to stall the support process and obtain approval from their Executive Committee.
I look forward to their reply re: the question, who are on the committees ?
I have respectfully suggested, but I'm open to other suggestions, that the ACA Advocacy Workshop committee start fresh and be made up of 5 new committee members, consisting up of 3 members from ACA Regional Representatives,board members or individual members ,two professional members,one from AAOP and one from NAAOP.
They are each to be elected by their own organization to participate in the workshop.No member can be on the committee that represent manufactures or large chains of O&P facilities.The playing field should be level with no alternative motives to not encourage,address and support amputee advocacy issues
Product salesman would also be ineligible.Goals can be set in advance way before July to discuss in an open forum.
Position statements of a limited number of advocacy issues are to be voted on by the committee after all discussion and presented to the ACA Executive Committee for adopting by corporate resolution.
One timely issue already on the table is in regard ACA to support established qualifications for O& P provider qualifications for them to be eligible for Medicare reimbursement. It has been for review by their executive committee since September.
This issue is crucial since reimbursement coverage and guidelines will depend on the educational qualifications of providers of comprehensive O&P services. If the guidelines are not well defined a legitimate argument can be made latter by lawmakers that anyone can provide these services, since the profession is generally unregulated ,so why raise limits and frequencies of reimbursement?
To date we have received no response from ACA either way except for us to be patient and that their PAC would approve, reject or amend. I will send the two paragraph position statement to the Listserve, Amputee-L and OANDP-L for the subscribers/advocacy supporters review and comments.I am hopeful this is one issue we can mutually agree to prior to July 2002!
I look forward to constructive dialog among the supporters and ACA and the coordination of a meaningful workshop.
I have expressed to the leadership that the immediate goal is for ACA to provide a Position Statement regarding the above referenced advocacy issue and establish a meaningful workshop in July and not one that would be regarded as a token educational or town hall meeting.
Hopefully they will agree, particularly to the O&P Qualification of Provider Position Statement since the Negotiated Rules Committee could begin prior to July. If they do not, we should determine other alternatives.
Thank everyone for their support and participation.Please continue to join our impressive list of supporters if you have not already done so.The list of supporters grows each day.
Your voices will be heard.
Tony Barr
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Renardson < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: Amputee Information Network < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 10:04 AM
Subject: Advocacy
> Several years back AMP-L hosted a virtual track for those interested in
> athletics. With the number of people suggesting ACA host a forum for true
> 'advocacy' (whose meaning is certainly open to different interpretation) issues,
> I propose AMP-L be used to discuss goals and methods of achieving them.
> With some six or more months of discussion (January to July 2002) available,
> participants should be able to offer concrete suggestions and define and
> recommend real solutions prior to storming the Bastille:) With an open
> discussion of ideas, possibly better ideas will triumph over not-so-good ideas,
> and people can have a rough notion of exactly what they are doing when
> advocating to ACA. In the event ACA is not interested in hosting such an
> event next July, it strikes me that plans can be developed to accomplish things
> in spite of them. If ACA is interested, I have no doubt someone will let us
> know.
>
> With that in mind, those interested should place 'Advocacy' in the subject line
> of their post so those not interested in the discussion may delete the traffic. I
> will ask that posters stay on topic and challenge ideas with which you differ
> with better ideas, not ad hominum or abuse.
>
Thanks for the historical perspective of ACA's past advocacy efforts.
I have asked ACA to provide a formal schedule for the Advocacy Workshop meeting(s).
I have also formally suggested, as a ACA Support Group Leader, to Becky Bruce, the ACA Outreach Information Specialist,that Advocacy be a excellent topic for the ACA Support Group Leaders Workshop in Anaheim as well as a formally schedule Advocacy Workshop Committee Meeting(s).
Recent review of ACA's web site reflects that they have formed another advocacy committee, a PAC and a Grassroots committee, since dissolving the prior standing advocacy committee in September.
We are already looking at a real challenge via ACA mixing three committee bottle necks to stall the support process and obtain approval from their Executive Committee.
I look forward to their reply re: the question, who are on the committees ?
I have respectfully suggested, but I'm open to other suggestions, that the ACA Advocacy Workshop committee start fresh and be made up of 5 new committee members, consisting up of 3 members from ACA Regional Representatives,board members or individual members ,two professional members,one from AAOP and one from NAAOP.
They are each to be elected by their own organization to participate in the workshop.No member can be on the committee that represent manufactures or large chains of O&P facilities.The playing field should be level with no alternative motives to not encourage,address and support amputee advocacy issues
Product salesman would also be ineligible.Goals can be set in advance way before July to discuss in an open forum.
Position statements of a limited number of advocacy issues are to be voted on by the committee after all discussion and presented to the ACA Executive Committee for adopting by corporate resolution.
One timely issue already on the table is in regard ACA to support established qualifications for O& P provider qualifications for them to be eligible for Medicare reimbursement. It has been for review by their executive committee since September.
This issue is crucial since reimbursement coverage and guidelines will depend on the educational qualifications of providers of comprehensive O&P services. If the guidelines are not well defined a legitimate argument can be made latter by lawmakers that anyone can provide these services, since the profession is generally unregulated ,so why raise limits and frequencies of reimbursement?
To date we have received no response from ACA either way except for us to be patient and that their PAC would approve, reject or amend. I will send the two paragraph position statement to the Listserve, Amputee-L and OANDP-L for the subscribers/advocacy supporters review and comments.I am hopeful this is one issue we can mutually agree to prior to July 2002!
I look forward to constructive dialog among the supporters and ACA and the coordination of a meaningful workshop.
I have expressed to the leadership that the immediate goal is for ACA to provide a Position Statement regarding the above referenced advocacy issue and establish a meaningful workshop in July and not one that would be regarded as a token educational or town hall meeting.
Hopefully they will agree, particularly to the O&P Qualification of Provider Position Statement since the Negotiated Rules Committee could begin prior to July. If they do not, we should determine other alternatives.
Thank everyone for their support and participation.Please continue to join our impressive list of supporters if you have not already done so.The list of supporters grows each day.
Your voices will be heard.
Tony Barr
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Renardson < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: Amputee Information Network < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 10:04 AM
Subject: Advocacy
> Several years back AMP-L hosted a virtual track for those interested in
> athletics. With the number of people suggesting ACA host a forum for true
> 'advocacy' (whose meaning is certainly open to different interpretation) issues,
> I propose AMP-L be used to discuss goals and methods of achieving them.
> With some six or more months of discussion (January to July 2002) available,
> participants should be able to offer concrete suggestions and define and
> recommend real solutions prior to storming the Bastille:) With an open
> discussion of ideas, possibly better ideas will triumph over not-so-good ideas,
> and people can have a rough notion of exactly what they are doing when
> advocating to ACA. In the event ACA is not interested in hosting such an
> event next July, it strikes me that plans can be developed to accomplish things
> in spite of them. If ACA is interested, I have no doubt someone will let us
> know.
>
> With that in mind, those interested should place 'Advocacy' in the subject line
> of their post so those not interested in the discussion may delete the traffic. I
> will ask that posters stay on topic and challenge ideas with which you differ
> with better ideas, not ad hominum or abuse.
>
Citation
Tony Barr, “Advocacy/SGL Workshop Forum,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 2, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/217665.
