Re: Fw: AOPA, NOMA, and Stock & Bills/US POLITICS
Jeffry G. Kingsley
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Fw: AOPA, NOMA, and Stock & Bills/US POLITICS
Creator:
Jeffry G. Kingsley
Date:
4/23/2002
Text:
AOPA Membership
Categories
(Eligibility, Types & Dues)
Membership Eligibility
Eligibility for membership in the Association is limited to:
· firms, corporations, institutions or other organizations
principally engaged in providing orthotic and/or prosthetic care to patients;
· firms, corporations, institutions or other organizations whose
principal endeavor in the orthotic prosthetic field is the performance of
research or providing formal education; and
· firms whose business is the manufacture and/or sale of materials,
components, tools, or equipment used in fabricating orthoses and/or
prostheses or providing services related to O&P patient care facilities.
Types of Membership
· Company Membership
Any eligible firm principally engaged in providing orthotic and/or
prosthetic care to patients shall be eligible as a Company Member if such
eligible firm employs a practitioner certified by and in good standing with
the American Board for Certification in Orthotics and Prosthetics, Inc.
(ABC), the Board for Orthotist/Prosthetist Certification (BOC), or the
Board for Certification in Pedorthics (BCP), or employs a practitioner
licensed by the state in which the facility operates.
· Educational and Research Membership
Any program engaged in performing research and/or providing formal
education in orthotics and/or prosthetics may apply for membership.
· Supplier Membership
Any eligible firm principally engaged in the manufacture or sale of
materials, components, tools or equipment used in fabricating orthoses or
prostheses, or in providing O&P services can qualify for supplier membership.
· Affiliate Membership
Any branch or subsidiary of the above mentioned membership categories.
At 04:04 PM 4/23/02 -0400, Anthony T. Barr wrote:
>While I await for a reply from Mr.Wilson to determine the Barr
>Foundation's eligibility for AOPA membership, as a educational
>institutional organization (perhaps it is in the mail! ), and although I
>am neither, a member of the Academy nor AOPA (no consumers members
>allowed), I would like to use this forum and ask a few question of the
>Academy members re: Mr.Wilson's refusal to publicly address the questions
>presented on these specific issues.
>
>If it was the Academy's board's decision by resolution to delegate all
>legislative negotiations to AOPA on behalf of the Academy membership ,
>shouldn't AAOP members have the right to receive answers, to the Stock and
>Bills issues as well as the reasons for their support of legislation
>initiatives that excempts NOMA members ,PTs OTs and others to educational
>qualification, +from the leadership of AAOP and AOPA ?
>
>AAOP support thru AOPA and AOPA's support of opening the quaification door
>wider via legislative negotiation of BOC, NOMA, PT,OT etc., are
>educational based and isnt that suppossed to be the Academy's main focus !
>
>In the eyes of the legislators ,certainly any support that AOPA provided
>to legislation efforts and intiatives was on behalf of their own industry
>association and was also for the professional membership association, the
>Academy,(having delegated this authority to AOPA) including educational
>criteria and stock and bills issues ( having the delegated authority for
>AOPA to act on their behalf).
>That being the case, there would be no reason for lawmakers to dispute
>what was jointly supported by both industry and profession!
>
>Is not AOPA accountable and responsible for reporting the reasons for
>providing that support to the Academy membership?
>
>Just one more a question from a mere consumer of these services!
>
>Pursuant to Ron Gingras LPO suggestion and invitation (which I certainly
>encourage) to form a private discussion group to discuss these issues, and
>since AOPA will not publically participate to non members, can we break
>tradition and have consumer groups participate in the discussions as well?
>
>Our organization and several other consumer groups that supported the
>Florida regulation effort would be very intersted in knowing whom will and
>who will be permited to provide these comprehensive health care services
>to them!
>It may also provide some valuable insight and quite possibly, better align
>the interests of the profession and the consumer toward pursing reform.
>
>Thank you,
>TonyBarr
>
>
Categories
(Eligibility, Types & Dues)
Membership Eligibility
Eligibility for membership in the Association is limited to:
· firms, corporations, institutions or other organizations
principally engaged in providing orthotic and/or prosthetic care to patients;
· firms, corporations, institutions or other organizations whose
principal endeavor in the orthotic prosthetic field is the performance of
research or providing formal education; and
· firms whose business is the manufacture and/or sale of materials,
components, tools, or equipment used in fabricating orthoses and/or
prostheses or providing services related to O&P patient care facilities.
Types of Membership
· Company Membership
Any eligible firm principally engaged in providing orthotic and/or
prosthetic care to patients shall be eligible as a Company Member if such
eligible firm employs a practitioner certified by and in good standing with
the American Board for Certification in Orthotics and Prosthetics, Inc.
(ABC), the Board for Orthotist/Prosthetist Certification (BOC), or the
Board for Certification in Pedorthics (BCP), or employs a practitioner
licensed by the state in which the facility operates.
· Educational and Research Membership
Any program engaged in performing research and/or providing formal
education in orthotics and/or prosthetics may apply for membership.
· Supplier Membership
Any eligible firm principally engaged in the manufacture or sale of
materials, components, tools or equipment used in fabricating orthoses or
prostheses, or in providing O&P services can qualify for supplier membership.
· Affiliate Membership
Any branch or subsidiary of the above mentioned membership categories.
At 04:04 PM 4/23/02 -0400, Anthony T. Barr wrote:
>While I await for a reply from Mr.Wilson to determine the Barr
>Foundation's eligibility for AOPA membership, as a educational
>institutional organization (perhaps it is in the mail! ), and although I
>am neither, a member of the Academy nor AOPA (no consumers members
>allowed), I would like to use this forum and ask a few question of the
>Academy members re: Mr.Wilson's refusal to publicly address the questions
>presented on these specific issues.
>
>If it was the Academy's board's decision by resolution to delegate all
>legislative negotiations to AOPA on behalf of the Academy membership ,
>shouldn't AAOP members have the right to receive answers, to the Stock and
>Bills issues as well as the reasons for their support of legislation
>initiatives that excempts NOMA members ,PTs OTs and others to educational
>qualification, +from the leadership of AAOP and AOPA ?
>
>AAOP support thru AOPA and AOPA's support of opening the quaification door
>wider via legislative negotiation of BOC, NOMA, PT,OT etc., are
>educational based and isnt that suppossed to be the Academy's main focus !
>
>In the eyes of the legislators ,certainly any support that AOPA provided
>to legislation efforts and intiatives was on behalf of their own industry
>association and was also for the professional membership association, the
>Academy,(having delegated this authority to AOPA) including educational
>criteria and stock and bills issues ( having the delegated authority for
>AOPA to act on their behalf).
>That being the case, there would be no reason for lawmakers to dispute
>what was jointly supported by both industry and profession!
>
>Is not AOPA accountable and responsible for reporting the reasons for
>providing that support to the Academy membership?
>
>Just one more a question from a mere consumer of these services!
>
>Pursuant to Ron Gingras LPO suggestion and invitation (which I certainly
>encourage) to form a private discussion group to discuss these issues, and
>since AOPA will not publically participate to non members, can we break
>tradition and have consumer groups participate in the discussions as well?
>
>Our organization and several other consumer groups that supported the
>Florida regulation effort would be very intersted in knowing whom will and
>who will be permited to provide these comprehensive health care services
>to them!
>It may also provide some valuable insight and quite possibly, better align
>the interests of the profession and the consumer toward pursing reform.
>
>Thank you,
>TonyBarr
>
>
Citation
Jeffry G. Kingsley, “Re: Fw: AOPA, NOMA, and Stock & Bills/US POLITICS,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 8, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/218797.
