Re: NAAOP Medicare Reform Alert
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: NAAOP Medicare Reform Alert
Date:
11/25/2003
Text:
Thank you for the most recent Medicare Reform update related to DME and O&P
as posted below after my comments.
Its fortunate for O&P profession and patients recieving comprehensise
devices and services that NAAOP who has helped lead the fight to protect
their interests.
Perhaps the mixed bag soultion you identified below could be resolved
more appropiately.
I have often wonder why the Academy and ACA have not been more involved in
these legislative efforts and in particular disseminating the ongoing
negotiations with their membership.
It seems to me that patient advocacy groups and the professional
associations working together would have more of impact on lawmakers when
representing their membership groups rather than those of a trade insustry
association, that may appear to be self serving to manufactures, i.e. AOPA
and NAAOP.
The interests and differences of DME and O&P must be divided, recognized
and disseminated to lawmakers to better protect the profession and patients
from unfair reimbursement and improper coverage. It has been very difficult
to make that distinction when there are DME members that belong the these
same trade industry associations representing comprehensive O&P interests.
My personal opinion that the requirement of mandatory licensure and
regulation of the O&P professionand every O&P provider, in every state
would ensure better identification to help that effort.
I noticed in the below comments that I have underlined, the author failed
to include licensed in the practise of orthotics amd prosthetics.
Only ten of 50 states have meaningfull licensure laws for O&P providers,but
PTS and OTS are regulated in every state.
Are pateints of occupational and physical therapy more deserving of
regulation than O&P professionals?
NAAOP:
Within the competitive bidding framework established under the original
House and Senate bills, standards for quality and accreditation of providers
would apply to all DME. However, the final bill extended this provision to
all O&P as well. This provision appears to trump the protracted
Negotiated Rulemaking dispute in favor of the position that all O&P care
must be provided by health care professionals certified/accredited in the
practice of orthotics and prosthetics. The provision will need to be
analyzed further to understand its full implications, i.e. its impact on the
failed Negotiated Rulemaking process, but it appears to be very favorable to
NAAOP's position on the issue of the definition of a qualified provider.
I am hopeful that NAAOP ,the Academy and AOPA may reconsider supporting
regulation to properly identify the O&P profession as a legitimate health
care providers and deserving of a state license to better separate
themselves from the providers of DME.
Is the O&P field not worthy of a requiring a license to practice as is all
other legitimate health care providers.
My 2cents and pro regulation drum!!.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Tony Barr
-----Original Message-----
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On
Behalf Of NAAOP
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:20 AM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: [OANDP-L] NAAOP Medicare Reform Alert
NAAOP Helps Lead Lobbying Effort to Protect Professional O&P in Medicare
Reform Agreement-End Result a Mixed Bag
Today, November 25, the Senate passed a landmark Medicare reform and
prescription drug bill by a vote of 54-44. The House of Representatives
passed the bill by a vote of 220-215 at 6:30 a.m. on Saturday, November 22,
in an historic three-hour roll call vote. President Bush is expected to
sign the bill into law.
Treatment of professional orthotic and prosthetic care in the Medicare bill
can generally be considered a mixed bag, but there are clearly some
important victories in the bill.
Under the Medicare bill, the entire O&P fee schedule, along with all DME and
supplies, will be frozen at 2003 rates for three years (2004-2006). The
original House and Senate bills only applied a fee freeze (or competitive
bidding) to a small portion of orthotics and no prosthetics. Despite
protests by NAAOP and other interest groups, the provision freezing all O&P
was included in the final bill. Upon learning of the full O&P freeze
provision during the days leading up to the conference agreement, NAAOP
engaged in a last-ditch lobbying effort to exempt O&P from the freeze.
NAAOP met directly with Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), who is Chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee and Vice Chairman of the Medicare Conference
Committee, on Thursday, November 20, just hours before the final conference
report was agreed upon by conferees, to discuss the O&P fee freeze. Despite
assurances from Congressional staff close to the negotiations that the
majority of O&P should be exempted from the freeze, the final legislative
language revealed that, in fact, the freeze would apply to all O&P.
It is important to note that a Senate-passed tax bill in late May would have
frozen the entire O&P fee schedule for 10 years. Thanks in part to the
efforts of NAAOP, this provision was removed from the final tax bill. In
addition, the fee freeze under the Medicare bill continues through 2008 for
certain items of DME, clearly indicating a separation between treatment of
DME and professional O&P care.
The bill enacts nationwide competitive bidding starting in 2007 for all
DME, supplies, and off-the-shelf orthotics. NAAOP was successful in
persuading negotiators to confine the scope of competitive bidding to only
off-the-shelf orthotics, which is a much narrower definition than what was
proposed by the original Senate-passed bill in June. The inclusion of this
definition should be considered a major victory for NAAOP and the O&P
profession since most orthotics and all prosthetics will not be subject to a
nationwide system of Medicare competitive bidding at anytime in the near
future.
Within the competitive bidding framework established under the original
House and Senate bills, standards for quality and accreditation of providers
would apply to all DME. However, the final bill extended this provision to
all O&P as well. This provision appears to trump the protracted
Negotiated Rulemaking dispute in favor of the position that all O&P care
must be provided by health care professionals certified/accredited in the
practice of orthotics and prosthetics. The provision will need to be
analyzed further to understand its full implications, i.e. its impact on the
failed Negotiated Rulemaking process, but it appears to be very favorable to
NAAOP's position on the issue of the definition of a qualified provider.
Under the bill, O&P was spared application of a provision mandating a cut in
reimbursement for the top five utilized DME items in 2005. The cut will be
implemented by reducing fees for these items to the median price reimbursed
by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which would represent a cut
in fees of approximately 20% under current levels. This also represents an
extremely positive outcome for O&P.
NAAOP will continue to review the final bill language and assess the full
impact of the Medicare reform and prescription drug bill. Overall, the bill
marks a fundamental shift toward private insurance as a model for the
provision of Medicare benefits and prescription drugs. It also enacts
myriad reforms to other provider payment systems as well as the CMS
regulatory system.
While the three-year payment freeze for O&P is certainly a negative,
unexpected development in the final Medicare bill, NAAOP was successful in
many other areas by protecting O&P from the overhaul of DME reimbursement
and payment cuts and in what appears to be a very positive resolution of the
Negotiated Rulemaking process.
If you have questions regarding these provisions, please contact Peter
Thomas, NAAOP General Counsel, or Dustin May, Legislative Director, Powers,
Pyles Sutter, and Verville, PC, at 1-800-622-6740.
Visit our web site at www.oandp.com/naaop Come share YOUR view! Government
Relations is what WE do!
******************** To unsubscribe, send a
message to: <Email Address Redacted> with the words UNSUB OANDP-L in the body
of the message.
If you have a problem unsubscribing,or have other questions, send e-mail to
the moderator Paul E. Prusakowski,CPO at <Email Address Redacted>
OANDP-L is a forum for the discussion of topics related to Orthotics and
Prosthetics.
Public commercial postings are forbidden. Responses to inquiries should not
be sent to the entire oandp-l list. Professional credentials or affiliations
should be used in all communications.
********************
To unsubscribe, send a message to: <Email Address Redacted> with
the words UNSUB OANDP-L in the body of the
message.
If you have a problem unsubscribing,or have other
questions, send e-mail to the moderator
Paul E. Prusakowski,CPO at <Email Address Redacted>
OANDP-L is a forum for the discussion of topics
related to Orthotics and Prosthetics.
Public commercial postings are forbidden. Responses to inquiries
should not be sent to the entire oandp-l list. Professional credentials
or affiliations should be used in all communications.
as posted below after my comments.
Its fortunate for O&P profession and patients recieving comprehensise
devices and services that NAAOP who has helped lead the fight to protect
their interests.
Perhaps the mixed bag soultion you identified below could be resolved
more appropiately.
I have often wonder why the Academy and ACA have not been more involved in
these legislative efforts and in particular disseminating the ongoing
negotiations with their membership.
It seems to me that patient advocacy groups and the professional
associations working together would have more of impact on lawmakers when
representing their membership groups rather than those of a trade insustry
association, that may appear to be self serving to manufactures, i.e. AOPA
and NAAOP.
The interests and differences of DME and O&P must be divided, recognized
and disseminated to lawmakers to better protect the profession and patients
from unfair reimbursement and improper coverage. It has been very difficult
to make that distinction when there are DME members that belong the these
same trade industry associations representing comprehensive O&P interests.
My personal opinion that the requirement of mandatory licensure and
regulation of the O&P professionand every O&P provider, in every state
would ensure better identification to help that effort.
I noticed in the below comments that I have underlined, the author failed
to include licensed in the practise of orthotics amd prosthetics.
Only ten of 50 states have meaningfull licensure laws for O&P providers,but
PTS and OTS are regulated in every state.
Are pateints of occupational and physical therapy more deserving of
regulation than O&P professionals?
NAAOP:
Within the competitive bidding framework established under the original
House and Senate bills, standards for quality and accreditation of providers
would apply to all DME. However, the final bill extended this provision to
all O&P as well. This provision appears to trump the protracted
Negotiated Rulemaking dispute in favor of the position that all O&P care
must be provided by health care professionals certified/accredited in the
practice of orthotics and prosthetics. The provision will need to be
analyzed further to understand its full implications, i.e. its impact on the
failed Negotiated Rulemaking process, but it appears to be very favorable to
NAAOP's position on the issue of the definition of a qualified provider.
I am hopeful that NAAOP ,the Academy and AOPA may reconsider supporting
regulation to properly identify the O&P profession as a legitimate health
care providers and deserving of a state license to better separate
themselves from the providers of DME.
Is the O&P field not worthy of a requiring a license to practice as is all
other legitimate health care providers.
My 2cents and pro regulation drum!!.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Tony Barr
-----Original Message-----
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On
Behalf Of NAAOP
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:20 AM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: [OANDP-L] NAAOP Medicare Reform Alert
NAAOP Helps Lead Lobbying Effort to Protect Professional O&P in Medicare
Reform Agreement-End Result a Mixed Bag
Today, November 25, the Senate passed a landmark Medicare reform and
prescription drug bill by a vote of 54-44. The House of Representatives
passed the bill by a vote of 220-215 at 6:30 a.m. on Saturday, November 22,
in an historic three-hour roll call vote. President Bush is expected to
sign the bill into law.
Treatment of professional orthotic and prosthetic care in the Medicare bill
can generally be considered a mixed bag, but there are clearly some
important victories in the bill.
Under the Medicare bill, the entire O&P fee schedule, along with all DME and
supplies, will be frozen at 2003 rates for three years (2004-2006). The
original House and Senate bills only applied a fee freeze (or competitive
bidding) to a small portion of orthotics and no prosthetics. Despite
protests by NAAOP and other interest groups, the provision freezing all O&P
was included in the final bill. Upon learning of the full O&P freeze
provision during the days leading up to the conference agreement, NAAOP
engaged in a last-ditch lobbying effort to exempt O&P from the freeze.
NAAOP met directly with Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), who is Chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee and Vice Chairman of the Medicare Conference
Committee, on Thursday, November 20, just hours before the final conference
report was agreed upon by conferees, to discuss the O&P fee freeze. Despite
assurances from Congressional staff close to the negotiations that the
majority of O&P should be exempted from the freeze, the final legislative
language revealed that, in fact, the freeze would apply to all O&P.
It is important to note that a Senate-passed tax bill in late May would have
frozen the entire O&P fee schedule for 10 years. Thanks in part to the
efforts of NAAOP, this provision was removed from the final tax bill. In
addition, the fee freeze under the Medicare bill continues through 2008 for
certain items of DME, clearly indicating a separation between treatment of
DME and professional O&P care.
The bill enacts nationwide competitive bidding starting in 2007 for all
DME, supplies, and off-the-shelf orthotics. NAAOP was successful in
persuading negotiators to confine the scope of competitive bidding to only
off-the-shelf orthotics, which is a much narrower definition than what was
proposed by the original Senate-passed bill in June. The inclusion of this
definition should be considered a major victory for NAAOP and the O&P
profession since most orthotics and all prosthetics will not be subject to a
nationwide system of Medicare competitive bidding at anytime in the near
future.
Within the competitive bidding framework established under the original
House and Senate bills, standards for quality and accreditation of providers
would apply to all DME. However, the final bill extended this provision to
all O&P as well. This provision appears to trump the protracted
Negotiated Rulemaking dispute in favor of the position that all O&P care
must be provided by health care professionals certified/accredited in the
practice of orthotics and prosthetics. The provision will need to be
analyzed further to understand its full implications, i.e. its impact on the
failed Negotiated Rulemaking process, but it appears to be very favorable to
NAAOP's position on the issue of the definition of a qualified provider.
Under the bill, O&P was spared application of a provision mandating a cut in
reimbursement for the top five utilized DME items in 2005. The cut will be
implemented by reducing fees for these items to the median price reimbursed
by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which would represent a cut
in fees of approximately 20% under current levels. This also represents an
extremely positive outcome for O&P.
NAAOP will continue to review the final bill language and assess the full
impact of the Medicare reform and prescription drug bill. Overall, the bill
marks a fundamental shift toward private insurance as a model for the
provision of Medicare benefits and prescription drugs. It also enacts
myriad reforms to other provider payment systems as well as the CMS
regulatory system.
While the three-year payment freeze for O&P is certainly a negative,
unexpected development in the final Medicare bill, NAAOP was successful in
many other areas by protecting O&P from the overhaul of DME reimbursement
and payment cuts and in what appears to be a very positive resolution of the
Negotiated Rulemaking process.
If you have questions regarding these provisions, please contact Peter
Thomas, NAAOP General Counsel, or Dustin May, Legislative Director, Powers,
Pyles Sutter, and Verville, PC, at 1-800-622-6740.
Visit our web site at www.oandp.com/naaop Come share YOUR view! Government
Relations is what WE do!
******************** To unsubscribe, send a
message to: <Email Address Redacted> with the words UNSUB OANDP-L in the body
of the message.
If you have a problem unsubscribing,or have other questions, send e-mail to
the moderator Paul E. Prusakowski,CPO at <Email Address Redacted>
OANDP-L is a forum for the discussion of topics related to Orthotics and
Prosthetics.
Public commercial postings are forbidden. Responses to inquiries should not
be sent to the entire oandp-l list. Professional credentials or affiliations
should be used in all communications.
********************
To unsubscribe, send a message to: <Email Address Redacted> with
the words UNSUB OANDP-L in the body of the
message.
If you have a problem unsubscribing,or have other
questions, send e-mail to the moderator
Paul E. Prusakowski,CPO at <Email Address Redacted>
OANDP-L is a forum for the discussion of topics
related to Orthotics and Prosthetics.
Public commercial postings are forbidden. Responses to inquiries
should not be sent to the entire oandp-l list. Professional credentials
or affiliations should be used in all communications.
Citation
“Re: NAAOP Medicare Reform Alert,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 6, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/222064.
