Fw: NOMA
Anthony T. Barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Fw: NOMA
Creator:
Anthony T. Barr
Date:
4/19/2002
Text:
Contrary to Sam's recent post, I believe the O&P listserve subscribers is an
ideal media to share information regarding any subject matter directly
effecting the O&P profession, particularly when some new comer organizations
are secretive in their actions and opposition to upgrading this profession.
Judging from the names indicated below, rumor not fact, Ron is correct in
his assumption contained in his previous e-mail.
Thanks to this listserve we are able to better educate ourselves to
information we would otherwise not have access to.
Tony
.Here some to share that involves NOMA opposition to California regulation
efforts:
> > I am not sure how successful our NOMA negotiations were. Compromise is a
> > better description. NOMA threatened to sandbag our bill if provisions
> weren't
> > made to accommodate them. For some reason, they had the Governor's ear.
> Money
> > talks, I guess!
> > We modified our Licensure bill to allow non licensed individuals to
> provide
> > off the shelf devices under the direct supervision of a licensed
> > physician. We found that we were going to have to do something like this
> > anyway, or the ortho techs, cast techs and, etc., would kill the effort.
> This
> > was a minor victory for us, as we at least eliminated (or made illegal)
> out
> > of physicians care. I see Fla. is having a similar problem. This thing
has
> > become a hell of a lot more work than I ever imagined!
> > I initially spoke with DeRoyal. He hooked me up with someone
> from
> > Aircast who attended the Licensure Board meeting with the regional rep
> from
> > DonJoy. I do not know their atty. I can get you the AirCast guy's name,
> but
> > it will have to be after the 25th, as I am out of the office.
> > As I understand it those three companies are the big hitters of NOMA.
ideal media to share information regarding any subject matter directly
effecting the O&P profession, particularly when some new comer organizations
are secretive in their actions and opposition to upgrading this profession.
Judging from the names indicated below, rumor not fact, Ron is correct in
his assumption contained in his previous e-mail.
Thanks to this listserve we are able to better educate ourselves to
information we would otherwise not have access to.
Tony
.Here some to share that involves NOMA opposition to California regulation
efforts:
> > I am not sure how successful our NOMA negotiations were. Compromise is a
> > better description. NOMA threatened to sandbag our bill if provisions
> weren't
> > made to accommodate them. For some reason, they had the Governor's ear.
> Money
> > talks, I guess!
> > We modified our Licensure bill to allow non licensed individuals to
> provide
> > off the shelf devices under the direct supervision of a licensed
> > physician. We found that we were going to have to do something like this
> > anyway, or the ortho techs, cast techs and, etc., would kill the effort.
> This
> > was a minor victory for us, as we at least eliminated (or made illegal)
> out
> > of physicians care. I see Fla. is having a similar problem. This thing
has
> > become a hell of a lot more work than I ever imagined!
> > I initially spoke with DeRoyal. He hooked me up with someone
> from
> > Aircast who attended the Licensure Board meeting with the regional rep
> from
> > DonJoy. I do not know their atty. I can get you the AirCast guy's name,
> but
> > it will have to be after the 25th, as I am out of the office.
> > As I understand it those three companies are the big hitters of NOMA.
Citation
Anthony T. Barr, “Fw: NOMA,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 27, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/218800.
