Re: practitoner standards
Anthony T. Barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: practitoner standards
Creator:
Anthony T. Barr
Date:
4/11/2003
Text:
It is the position like the below that has continued to encourage unqualified providers to practice in field of O&P.
Whom is better determined to decide if the provider is able to perform quality work ?
ABC, BOC, State Board of Health, the federal government ?
Whom governs all other legitimate medical health providers ?
Although 10 states out of 50 have passed mandatory licensure in the past 5 years, the absence of state laws and the lack of support and advocacy of regulation driven by the profession will continue to encourage reductions and elimination in Medicare /Medicaid benefits as evident of what is occurring at the present time.
In the past 4 months, North Carolina, Mass and Montana have eliminated O&P Medicaid coverage for adults.
Where is the united outcry in opposition by the individual O&P providers, the Academy and the patient/consumer groups?
Make no mistake about it, state legislatures are strategically targeting unregulated states to eliminate or greaty reduce benefits and reduce their budget deficits.
On a national front , although the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) and the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) are both honorable professions and contribute greatly to patients and to their perspective fields, both are claiming full qualification to provide all comprehensive O&P services for their licensed members without further educational training or credentialing .
Pursuant to the federal statue, Section 427 of BIPA 2000, a qualified practitioner is defined as:
A physician, a qualified physical or occupational therapist, and a state-licensed orthotist or prosthetist; or in states that do not issue those licenses, a trained individual who is either : (1) certified by either the American Board for Certification in Orthotics and Prosthetics (ABC) or the Board for Orthotist/Prosthetist Certification (BOC), or (2) is credentialed by a program that the US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines, in conjunction with appropriate experts, has sufficient training and educational standards.
Both APTA and AOTA assert that qualified physical therapist and qualified occupational therapist are terms used in the federal legislation and regulations to mean licensed. Thus it is argued that such practitioners, by virtue of their license, are automatically qualified for purposes of Section 427.
I do not believe this assertion, and neither do most of the NegReg committee members( I am one of 22) O&P practitioners, and a great many indivisual physical and occupational therapists.
We also do not believe that it was the intention of Congress to exempt a specific allied healthcare profession from meeting the standards previously established by the HHS Secretary. We believe that Congress, in using the term qualified physical or occupational therapist, clearly intended that a physical or occupational therapist must meet the same standards as those required of other allied healthcare professionals who provide prosthetic and orthotic care.
If you think this is scary, APTA has introduced a legislative amendment in California and Kansas to allow physical therapists to actually prescribe O&P devices! (For more information, visit www.oandp.com/edge)
The Barr Foundation's position is that any allied health professional who seeks qualification for Medicare and /or Medicaid reimbursement under section 427 of BIPA 2000 should be required to demonstrate his/her competency based on education, training, and experience by undertaking and successfully passing an objective and psychometrically sound examination that properly address the provision of prosthetic and certain orthotic services.
Drawing a line in the sand NOW is crucial in order to not set precedent in exempting these two professions from being subject to the law qualifying O&P providers for Medicare reimbursement.
If this is allowed for federally funded Medicare programs, all state laws will likely soon be modified as proposed in California and Kansas. Medicaid and private insurers will soon accept the same lack of qualification guidelines.
If the NegReg Committee fails to reach consensus-which looks fairly certain if APTA and AOTA refuse to accept additional educational requirements in the applied science of O&P and application and delivery of comprehensive O&P services-the decision would be left to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to determine provider qualifications.
The lack of consensus would keep the door open to anyone with a provider number to be reimbursed by Medicare..
More info of the federal statue and purpose of the Negotiate Rule Committee can be found at:
www.cms.hhs.gov/faca/prosthetic/charter.asp
----- Original Message -----
From: Justin Foster < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 3:28 AM
Subject: Re: [OANDP-L] practitoner standards
> I think if the C.P. does quality work, in a state where there are no legal
> barriers, then they should go for it! If we are really true to the patient
> and have their best interest at heart, then the person who does the best job
> should get the work, regardless of their credentials. That is my ethical
> take on the subject, of course in certain states/jurisdictions a C.P. cannot
> legally BILL for orthotic services. Maybe they can provide them for free
> though??? Anyone know???
>
> Justin Foster
> Prosthetic Resident
>
>
>
>
> >From: chris huff < <Email Address Redacted> >
> >To: <Email Address Redacted>
> >Subject: [OANDP-L] practitoner standards
> >Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:46:09 -0400
> >
> >Is it legal/ethical for a CP to fit orthotics (E.G. spinal braces to
> >hospital calls, cast and deliver custom AFO's)? I don't want to start a
> >debate, just curious as I watch my competitor.
> >
> >
> >
> >
Whom is better determined to decide if the provider is able to perform quality work ?
ABC, BOC, State Board of Health, the federal government ?
Whom governs all other legitimate medical health providers ?
Although 10 states out of 50 have passed mandatory licensure in the past 5 years, the absence of state laws and the lack of support and advocacy of regulation driven by the profession will continue to encourage reductions and elimination in Medicare /Medicaid benefits as evident of what is occurring at the present time.
In the past 4 months, North Carolina, Mass and Montana have eliminated O&P Medicaid coverage for adults.
Where is the united outcry in opposition by the individual O&P providers, the Academy and the patient/consumer groups?
Make no mistake about it, state legislatures are strategically targeting unregulated states to eliminate or greaty reduce benefits and reduce their budget deficits.
On a national front , although the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) and the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) are both honorable professions and contribute greatly to patients and to their perspective fields, both are claiming full qualification to provide all comprehensive O&P services for their licensed members without further educational training or credentialing .
Pursuant to the federal statue, Section 427 of BIPA 2000, a qualified practitioner is defined as:
A physician, a qualified physical or occupational therapist, and a state-licensed orthotist or prosthetist; or in states that do not issue those licenses, a trained individual who is either : (1) certified by either the American Board for Certification in Orthotics and Prosthetics (ABC) or the Board for Orthotist/Prosthetist Certification (BOC), or (2) is credentialed by a program that the US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines, in conjunction with appropriate experts, has sufficient training and educational standards.
Both APTA and AOTA assert that qualified physical therapist and qualified occupational therapist are terms used in the federal legislation and regulations to mean licensed. Thus it is argued that such practitioners, by virtue of their license, are automatically qualified for purposes of Section 427.
I do not believe this assertion, and neither do most of the NegReg committee members( I am one of 22) O&P practitioners, and a great many indivisual physical and occupational therapists.
We also do not believe that it was the intention of Congress to exempt a specific allied healthcare profession from meeting the standards previously established by the HHS Secretary. We believe that Congress, in using the term qualified physical or occupational therapist, clearly intended that a physical or occupational therapist must meet the same standards as those required of other allied healthcare professionals who provide prosthetic and orthotic care.
If you think this is scary, APTA has introduced a legislative amendment in California and Kansas to allow physical therapists to actually prescribe O&P devices! (For more information, visit www.oandp.com/edge)
The Barr Foundation's position is that any allied health professional who seeks qualification for Medicare and /or Medicaid reimbursement under section 427 of BIPA 2000 should be required to demonstrate his/her competency based on education, training, and experience by undertaking and successfully passing an objective and psychometrically sound examination that properly address the provision of prosthetic and certain orthotic services.
Drawing a line in the sand NOW is crucial in order to not set precedent in exempting these two professions from being subject to the law qualifying O&P providers for Medicare reimbursement.
If this is allowed for federally funded Medicare programs, all state laws will likely soon be modified as proposed in California and Kansas. Medicaid and private insurers will soon accept the same lack of qualification guidelines.
If the NegReg Committee fails to reach consensus-which looks fairly certain if APTA and AOTA refuse to accept additional educational requirements in the applied science of O&P and application and delivery of comprehensive O&P services-the decision would be left to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to determine provider qualifications.
The lack of consensus would keep the door open to anyone with a provider number to be reimbursed by Medicare..
More info of the federal statue and purpose of the Negotiate Rule Committee can be found at:
www.cms.hhs.gov/faca/prosthetic/charter.asp
----- Original Message -----
From: Justin Foster < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 3:28 AM
Subject: Re: [OANDP-L] practitoner standards
> I think if the C.P. does quality work, in a state where there are no legal
> barriers, then they should go for it! If we are really true to the patient
> and have their best interest at heart, then the person who does the best job
> should get the work, regardless of their credentials. That is my ethical
> take on the subject, of course in certain states/jurisdictions a C.P. cannot
> legally BILL for orthotic services. Maybe they can provide them for free
> though??? Anyone know???
>
> Justin Foster
> Prosthetic Resident
>
>
>
>
> >From: chris huff < <Email Address Redacted> >
> >To: <Email Address Redacted>
> >Subject: [OANDP-L] practitoner standards
> >Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:46:09 -0400
> >
> >Is it legal/ethical for a CP to fit orthotics (E.G. spinal braces to
> >hospital calls, cast and deliver custom AFO's)? I don't want to start a
> >debate, just curious as I watch my competitor.
> >
> >
> >
> >
Citation
Anthony T. Barr, “Re: practitoner standards,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 26, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/221044.
