Re: CA response to PT legislation
tony barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: CA response to PT legislation
Creator:
tony barr
Date:
1/6/2004
Text:
In response to a recent COPA post regarding the PT legislation now under
consideration in California, I think its importatnt to recognize that it is
not just the PTs and OTs whom have assaulted COPA's prior efforts to obtain
regulation of the O&P profession in California, which if had been
successful, may have help defend if not stopped altogether the current
assault. Nor are the PTs alone in their efforts to get this bill passed.
Many manufactures support PT inclusion of being considered O&P qualified
providers.
It is also relative and discerning that many of the below manufactures
members of NOMA are also AOPA members.
It is in fact why NOMA has been so secretative of their memebership list.
Are the lobbyiest efforts re: qualified manufacturer and qualified
practitioner criteria generated by AOPA supported by the Academy?
Has AOPA made a formal position statement to the California legislation to
assist COPA in opposing the PT legislation at issue in California?
If so, they are again NOT aligned to the position of some of its members.
Tony Barr
The below was posted to COPAs 2000 news events:
COPA News
May-June 2000
Manufacturers Take Aim at Practitioners
California poised to respond
Following the directive set by the National Orthotics Manufacturing
Association, NOMA, several orthotics sales representatives joined in
opposing COPA's first attempt at licensure in California.
Breg Incorporated, EBI and Empi, Incorporated participated in a letter
writing campaign aimed at defeating the bill at the Senate Business and
Professions Committee. Several letters from representatives of numerous
offices throughout California were presented to the committee prior to the
hearing. The letters stressed the need for orthotic sales representatives to
continue to fit patients with devices without a requirement of establishing
competency.
On June 16, NOMA registered as a lobbyist employer by hiring the APEX group,
headed by lobbyist William Krauss. COPA has made inquiries to the APEX
group, NOMA's General Counsel in Washington, D.C., and to signatories of
opposition letters concerning the membership of NOMA. As of printing, no
organization or representative would divulge any information about the
company or companies that financially support the group's activities.
I think it is imperative that we have full disclosure about who is fighting
our legislation, commented COPA's Legislative Chairman, Ed Arnold.
Manufacturers need to know that our business relationships depend on a
certain degree of trust. I want to know if I am doing business with a
company that is supporting an effort to lower the public's perception of the
quality of work that we do, continued Arnold.
I think it is very unwise for manufacturers to threaten their relationships
with the companies who sell the majority of their inventory in order to
preserve a small portion of their direct sales, explained Arnold. This is
a unique industry. Telling the Legislature that anyone off of the street is
qualified to perform the services of a prosthetist/orthotist may appear to
gain a short-term advantage for these companies, but will have untold
long-term consequences that will be destructive to the entire industry,
including the manufacturer.
COPA will continue to work with the Legislature in educating elected
officials about the profession of orthotics and prosthetics. If NOMA wants
to reduce this industry to a level of service and corresponding retail
mark-up that you find at Longs, COPA will be there to fight for consumers
and the integrity of the profession, said Arnold.
COPA has drafted a letter of response to NOMA, EBI, Breg and Empi which was
signed by all of the board members of COPA who represent companies including
SCOPe, Hanger, Advanced Bio-Mechanics, RDA and Shriners.
-----Original Message-----
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On
Behalf Of Ralph W Nobbe
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:28 PM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: [OANDP-L] CA response to PT legislation
This message posted on behalf of Sheri Daley, administrative director of the
California Orthotic and Prosthetic Association.
Attention List Serve members and O&P Colleagues:
As a point of information, I would like to say that the California Orthotics
and Prosthetics Association has been actively working to amend SB 77 since
its introduction. In the spring of 2003, we were informed by the physical
therapists association's lobbyist that the bill would be amended to exclude
the language referring to orthotics and prosthetics.
COPA was very clear about the need to delineate the scopes of practice for
the two professions. Unfortunately, the PT association has decided to remove
the words orthotics and prosthetics from the original clause and leave in
all of the synonyms for orthotics, including supportive and assistive
devices. It also created a new clause giving PTs the ability to provide all
prosthetic care except for fabrication. Obviously, these changes were not in
the spirit of the negotiations and are a clear sign that the association
intends on going forward with a direct assault on the O&P profession.
The situation has become more critical in that I have been told that the
bill's most vocal opposition, the OTs, have gone neutral with the latest
amendments. Clearly the aim of this bill is directed at your profession.
As the bill is now drafted, PTs would be able to prescribe devices and
therapy for those devices with no limit or oversight. Literally, a PT could
prescribe a brace and two years of therapy to learn how to walk in it. It is
apparent the state did not learn its lesson from the graduated compression
hose debacle (rampant fraud and abuse). When I reviewed the PT's letter of
support which purports that this bill is not expanding their scope of
practice or putting patients at risk I was dumbfounded. This is an obvious
extension of the PT scope of practice where there is no expectation of
competence. The argument that a wider availability of providers will somehow
save costs is ludicrous. If you read between the lines, the combination of a
device and therapy is a recipe for payment for gait therapy (as well as
other services currently provided at no cost orthotist prosthetists). The
inclusion of these service costs will result in a direct increase in cost to
private employers, Medi-Cal and workers comp.
The expansion of the PT scope of practice will only serve to legitimize the
substandard provision of O&P care. I have yet to see any document that
demonstrates that PT's are educated and trained in this area to the degree
prosthetists and orthotists are, and no one can produce a test or other
indicator that shows that competence for PTs is measured in this field. The
critical area of wound care and the possibility of disease transmission is
also completely ignored.
COPA has worked with other medical associations, AOPA and numerous
businesses on gathering a base of opposition to the measure. As Mr. Barr
pointed out, the PTs are successful in many states where the O&P profession
lags. Part of this is due to the disparity in numbers between the
professions, but part of this phenomena is other professions taking
advantage of a political void. The void is not with your state association.
COPA has been here and sends its lobbyist, board members and industry
representatives to meetings and hearings. We write letters, give testimony
and work with legislators and their staff. You have a very dedicated core of
concerned practitioners who are trying to carry the load for the profession.
What we lack is grass roots support in California. As the marketing
coordinator for COPA I can report that by hosting a booth at the AOPA
national assembly, revamping our web site to allow for on-line membership
applications, and by sending a brochure to all orthotists and prosthetists
in the state urging them to join COPA and become active in their state's
future, we have netted less than ten responses (two of which were from
India). It is hard to communicate with and rally support from a group that
is scattered, inattentive and limited in its support.
We need your help. Following is a short checklist of what you can do, right
now to improve our chances of success on this issue and several other issues
on the horizon:
consideration in California, I think its importatnt to recognize that it is
not just the PTs and OTs whom have assaulted COPA's prior efforts to obtain
regulation of the O&P profession in California, which if had been
successful, may have help defend if not stopped altogether the current
assault. Nor are the PTs alone in their efforts to get this bill passed.
Many manufactures support PT inclusion of being considered O&P qualified
providers.
It is also relative and discerning that many of the below manufactures
members of NOMA are also AOPA members.
It is in fact why NOMA has been so secretative of their memebership list.
Are the lobbyiest efforts re: qualified manufacturer and qualified
practitioner criteria generated by AOPA supported by the Academy?
Has AOPA made a formal position statement to the California legislation to
assist COPA in opposing the PT legislation at issue in California?
If so, they are again NOT aligned to the position of some of its members.
Tony Barr
The below was posted to COPAs 2000 news events:
COPA News
May-June 2000
Manufacturers Take Aim at Practitioners
California poised to respond
Following the directive set by the National Orthotics Manufacturing
Association, NOMA, several orthotics sales representatives joined in
opposing COPA's first attempt at licensure in California.
Breg Incorporated, EBI and Empi, Incorporated participated in a letter
writing campaign aimed at defeating the bill at the Senate Business and
Professions Committee. Several letters from representatives of numerous
offices throughout California were presented to the committee prior to the
hearing. The letters stressed the need for orthotic sales representatives to
continue to fit patients with devices without a requirement of establishing
competency.
On June 16, NOMA registered as a lobbyist employer by hiring the APEX group,
headed by lobbyist William Krauss. COPA has made inquiries to the APEX
group, NOMA's General Counsel in Washington, D.C., and to signatories of
opposition letters concerning the membership of NOMA. As of printing, no
organization or representative would divulge any information about the
company or companies that financially support the group's activities.
I think it is imperative that we have full disclosure about who is fighting
our legislation, commented COPA's Legislative Chairman, Ed Arnold.
Manufacturers need to know that our business relationships depend on a
certain degree of trust. I want to know if I am doing business with a
company that is supporting an effort to lower the public's perception of the
quality of work that we do, continued Arnold.
I think it is very unwise for manufacturers to threaten their relationships
with the companies who sell the majority of their inventory in order to
preserve a small portion of their direct sales, explained Arnold. This is
a unique industry. Telling the Legislature that anyone off of the street is
qualified to perform the services of a prosthetist/orthotist may appear to
gain a short-term advantage for these companies, but will have untold
long-term consequences that will be destructive to the entire industry,
including the manufacturer.
COPA will continue to work with the Legislature in educating elected
officials about the profession of orthotics and prosthetics. If NOMA wants
to reduce this industry to a level of service and corresponding retail
mark-up that you find at Longs, COPA will be there to fight for consumers
and the integrity of the profession, said Arnold.
COPA has drafted a letter of response to NOMA, EBI, Breg and Empi which was
signed by all of the board members of COPA who represent companies including
SCOPe, Hanger, Advanced Bio-Mechanics, RDA and Shriners.
-----Original Message-----
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On
Behalf Of Ralph W Nobbe
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:28 PM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: [OANDP-L] CA response to PT legislation
This message posted on behalf of Sheri Daley, administrative director of the
California Orthotic and Prosthetic Association.
Attention List Serve members and O&P Colleagues:
As a point of information, I would like to say that the California Orthotics
and Prosthetics Association has been actively working to amend SB 77 since
its introduction. In the spring of 2003, we were informed by the physical
therapists association's lobbyist that the bill would be amended to exclude
the language referring to orthotics and prosthetics.
COPA was very clear about the need to delineate the scopes of practice for
the two professions. Unfortunately, the PT association has decided to remove
the words orthotics and prosthetics from the original clause and leave in
all of the synonyms for orthotics, including supportive and assistive
devices. It also created a new clause giving PTs the ability to provide all
prosthetic care except for fabrication. Obviously, these changes were not in
the spirit of the negotiations and are a clear sign that the association
intends on going forward with a direct assault on the O&P profession.
The situation has become more critical in that I have been told that the
bill's most vocal opposition, the OTs, have gone neutral with the latest
amendments. Clearly the aim of this bill is directed at your profession.
As the bill is now drafted, PTs would be able to prescribe devices and
therapy for those devices with no limit or oversight. Literally, a PT could
prescribe a brace and two years of therapy to learn how to walk in it. It is
apparent the state did not learn its lesson from the graduated compression
hose debacle (rampant fraud and abuse). When I reviewed the PT's letter of
support which purports that this bill is not expanding their scope of
practice or putting patients at risk I was dumbfounded. This is an obvious
extension of the PT scope of practice where there is no expectation of
competence. The argument that a wider availability of providers will somehow
save costs is ludicrous. If you read between the lines, the combination of a
device and therapy is a recipe for payment for gait therapy (as well as
other services currently provided at no cost orthotist prosthetists). The
inclusion of these service costs will result in a direct increase in cost to
private employers, Medi-Cal and workers comp.
The expansion of the PT scope of practice will only serve to legitimize the
substandard provision of O&P care. I have yet to see any document that
demonstrates that PT's are educated and trained in this area to the degree
prosthetists and orthotists are, and no one can produce a test or other
indicator that shows that competence for PTs is measured in this field. The
critical area of wound care and the possibility of disease transmission is
also completely ignored.
COPA has worked with other medical associations, AOPA and numerous
businesses on gathering a base of opposition to the measure. As Mr. Barr
pointed out, the PTs are successful in many states where the O&P profession
lags. Part of this is due to the disparity in numbers between the
professions, but part of this phenomena is other professions taking
advantage of a political void. The void is not with your state association.
COPA has been here and sends its lobbyist, board members and industry
representatives to meetings and hearings. We write letters, give testimony
and work with legislators and their staff. You have a very dedicated core of
concerned practitioners who are trying to carry the load for the profession.
What we lack is grass roots support in California. As the marketing
coordinator for COPA I can report that by hosting a booth at the AOPA
national assembly, revamping our web site to allow for on-line membership
applications, and by sending a brochure to all orthotists and prosthetists
in the state urging them to join COPA and become active in their state's
future, we have netted less than ten responses (two of which were from
India). It is hard to communicate with and rally support from a group that
is scattered, inattentive and limited in its support.
We need your help. Following is a short checklist of what you can do, right
now to improve our chances of success on this issue and several other issues
on the horizon:
Citation
tony barr, “Re: CA response to PT legislation,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 22, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/222268.
