Re: Setting the Record Straight
Steve Hill
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Setting the Record Straight
Creator:
Steve Hill
Date:
1/7/2004
Text:
Tony Barr said > I believe it is also a accurate statement that, although
AOPA does not take
a position on state and federal O&P regulation, many of their members are
actively lobbying to oppose it at a state and federal level !<
From what I can see, there are only a handful of manufacturers who do this.
In no way does it constitute many of their members. Most don't have the
resources to lobby anyone for anything. Or have I missed something here?
Does Mr. Barr know something I don't? Please elaborate.......
The vast majority of O&P manufacturers are committed to not just the
orthotist/prosthetics who purchase their products, but also to the end user,
the patients who have to use our products. I believe it to be grossly unfair
of Mr. Barr to label manufacturers this way. Yes, we are here to make a
profit, just like everyone else. But the vast majority got into the business
the same way the patients got into it. By being a user themselves and
building a better widget to help patients better their lives.
Sorry for the rant, but I felt that I could no longer stand idly by while a
generous and motivated part of our industry is so wrongly slammed.
In my humble opinion.....
Steve Hill, BOCO
----- Original Message -----
From: tony barr < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [OANDP-L] Setting the Record Straight
> In reply to AOPA Executive Director Wilson's post setting the record
> straight he should again read my comments which he claimed were
misstated
> by a wide mark when they were posted by me on January 1st.
>
> It's no doubt that AOPA remains very committed to a single meeting concept
> as they were to the former but failed consolidation effort of the
industry
> and professional associations into one association.
>
> However, it is inaccurate to state that my previous comments eluded to
AOPA
> being secretive of their membership list.
>
> I stated within my comments:
> It is also relative and discerning that many of the below manufactures
> (indicated in COPA's published letter) members of NOMA are also AOPA
> members.
> It is in fact why NOMA has been so secretive of their membership list.
> I stand by those statements as anyone who participated on the Neg Reg
> committee (including AOPA ) and COPA whom met their formal opposition
during
> their first O&P regulation effort in California, can attest to.
>
> I did not indicate in my comments that AOPA was secretive as to their
list
> of members but that NOMA was and remains secretive to not reveal their
> membership list, most likely to reduce membership fallout and retaliation
> from other AOPA members whom make up the 80% of O&P patient care
facilities.
>
>
> I believe it is also a accurate statement that, although AOPA does not
take
> a position on state and federal O&P regulation, many of their members are
> actively lobbying to oppose it at a state and federal level !
>
> 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.
>
> The fact remains that most of the 10% of the AOPA membership that Mr.
> Wilson stated, are non O&P patient care members, or approximately 160
> members of approximately 1600 members, are suppliers of O&P and DME.
Which
> members have access to more funding for lobbyist activities ?
>
> >From a consumer's and advocate's perspective, I have written my concerns
of
> this conflict, or at the very least the public perception of trade
industry
> representing the professional interests, in a recently published O&P Edge
> magazine article which can be accessed thru:
>
> <URL Redacted>
>
> It is necessary that this division of philosophies ,special interests and
> goals exists between profession and industry.
> However, both organizations require their own identification and must
stand
> on their own merits.
> Suppliers should be represented by one and the delivery of O&P
professional
> care by another.
> The perception by law makers and the general public is that you are all
one
> in the same by drinking from the same well ...Medicare/Medicaid
> reimbursement.
>
> Perhaps consideration of a selecting a consumer member to both the AOPA
and
> the Academy board of directors maybe a method to which patients can
provide
> input and better understand the need of both memberships?
>
> Since Mr. Wilson has stated that a list of all AOPA members is
available
> to the public perhaps he could provide the general public, thru a post to
> the list serve, a list of non O&P patient care facility members?
>
> Tony Barr
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On
> Behalf Of AOPA
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:04 AM
> To: <Email Address Redacted>
> Subject: [OANDP-L] Setting the Record Straight
>
> On Jan 1, there was a posting to the ListServ that unfortunately misstated
> by a wide mark AOPA's position on combining its National Assembly with the
> Academy's Annual Meeting. AOPA's support for combining the two meetings
was
> and remains strong.
>
> As stated in an open letter to the O&P field, that appeared on the Web
sites
> of the Academy and AOPA and was published in the September 2003 issue of
the
> O&P Almanac, AOPA supports the single-meeting concept based upon the keen
> interest of its supplier members and favorable response that its general
> membership has given to the idea of a joint O&P event. AOPA maintains
that
> the members of both organizations would benefit by combining the meetings.
> By eliminating the duplication of expenditures (two preliminary programs,
> two final programs, etc.) and pouring the merged resources into one
> comprehensive O&P education conference and trade show, attendees as well
as
> exhibitors would gain from the resulting synergies. For this reason, AOPA
> remains committed to the single-meeting concept.
>
> Also, despite misconceptions to the contrary, it is important to note that
> 90% of AOPA members are O&P patient care facilities. Less than 8% of the
> membership consists of suppliers. And, there is nothing secretive here--a
> list of all AOPA members is available to the public (and has been for
> years). To view the entire list of current AOPA members, go to
> <URL Redacted> and click the Search Membership
> Directory button while leaving all other fields blank.
>
> I would be happy to answer any other questions regarding either of these
> issues.
>
> Tyler Wilson
> AOPA Executive Director
> 571/431-0876 ext. 202.
>
>
AOPA does not take
a position on state and federal O&P regulation, many of their members are
actively lobbying to oppose it at a state and federal level !<
From what I can see, there are only a handful of manufacturers who do this.
In no way does it constitute many of their members. Most don't have the
resources to lobby anyone for anything. Or have I missed something here?
Does Mr. Barr know something I don't? Please elaborate.......
The vast majority of O&P manufacturers are committed to not just the
orthotist/prosthetics who purchase their products, but also to the end user,
the patients who have to use our products. I believe it to be grossly unfair
of Mr. Barr to label manufacturers this way. Yes, we are here to make a
profit, just like everyone else. But the vast majority got into the business
the same way the patients got into it. By being a user themselves and
building a better widget to help patients better their lives.
Sorry for the rant, but I felt that I could no longer stand idly by while a
generous and motivated part of our industry is so wrongly slammed.
In my humble opinion.....
Steve Hill, BOCO
----- Original Message -----
From: tony barr < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [OANDP-L] Setting the Record Straight
> In reply to AOPA Executive Director Wilson's post setting the record
> straight he should again read my comments which he claimed were
misstated
> by a wide mark when they were posted by me on January 1st.
>
> It's no doubt that AOPA remains very committed to a single meeting concept
> as they were to the former but failed consolidation effort of the
industry
> and professional associations into one association.
>
> However, it is inaccurate to state that my previous comments eluded to
AOPA
> being secretive of their membership list.
>
> I stated within my comments:
> It is also relative and discerning that many of the below manufactures
> (indicated in COPA's published letter) members of NOMA are also AOPA
> members.
> It is in fact why NOMA has been so secretive of their membership list.
> I stand by those statements as anyone who participated on the Neg Reg
> committee (including AOPA ) and COPA whom met their formal opposition
during
> their first O&P regulation effort in California, can attest to.
>
> I did not indicate in my comments that AOPA was secretive as to their
list
> of members but that NOMA was and remains secretive to not reveal their
> membership list, most likely to reduce membership fallout and retaliation
> from other AOPA members whom make up the 80% of O&P patient care
facilities.
>
>
> I believe it is also a accurate statement that, although AOPA does not
take
> a position on state and federal O&P regulation, many of their members are
> actively lobbying to oppose it at a state and federal level !
>
> 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.
>
> The fact remains that most of the 10% of the AOPA membership that Mr.
> Wilson stated, are non O&P patient care members, or approximately 160
> members of approximately 1600 members, are suppliers of O&P and DME.
Which
> members have access to more funding for lobbyist activities ?
>
> >From a consumer's and advocate's perspective, I have written my concerns
of
> this conflict, or at the very least the public perception of trade
industry
> representing the professional interests, in a recently published O&P Edge
> magazine article which can be accessed thru:
>
> <URL Redacted>
>
> It is necessary that this division of philosophies ,special interests and
> goals exists between profession and industry.
> However, both organizations require their own identification and must
stand
> on their own merits.
> Suppliers should be represented by one and the delivery of O&P
professional
> care by another.
> The perception by law makers and the general public is that you are all
one
> in the same by drinking from the same well ...Medicare/Medicaid
> reimbursement.
>
> Perhaps consideration of a selecting a consumer member to both the AOPA
and
> the Academy board of directors maybe a method to which patients can
provide
> input and better understand the need of both memberships?
>
> Since Mr. Wilson has stated that a list of all AOPA members is
available
> to the public perhaps he could provide the general public, thru a post to
> the list serve, a list of non O&P patient care facility members?
>
> Tony Barr
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On
> Behalf Of AOPA
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:04 AM
> To: <Email Address Redacted>
> Subject: [OANDP-L] Setting the Record Straight
>
> On Jan 1, there was a posting to the ListServ that unfortunately misstated
> by a wide mark AOPA's position on combining its National Assembly with the
> Academy's Annual Meeting. AOPA's support for combining the two meetings
was
> and remains strong.
>
> As stated in an open letter to the O&P field, that appeared on the Web
sites
> of the Academy and AOPA and was published in the September 2003 issue of
the
> O&P Almanac, AOPA supports the single-meeting concept based upon the keen
> interest of its supplier members and favorable response that its general
> membership has given to the idea of a joint O&P event. AOPA maintains
that
> the members of both organizations would benefit by combining the meetings.
> By eliminating the duplication of expenditures (two preliminary programs,
> two final programs, etc.) and pouring the merged resources into one
> comprehensive O&P education conference and trade show, attendees as well
as
> exhibitors would gain from the resulting synergies. For this reason, AOPA
> remains committed to the single-meeting concept.
>
> Also, despite misconceptions to the contrary, it is important to note that
> 90% of AOPA members are O&P patient care facilities. Less than 8% of the
> membership consists of suppliers. And, there is nothing secretive here--a
> list of all AOPA members is available to the public (and has been for
> years). To view the entire list of current AOPA members, go to
> <URL Redacted> and click the Search Membership
> Directory button while leaving all other fields blank.
>
> I would be happy to answer any other questions regarding either of these
> issues.
>
> Tyler Wilson
> AOPA Executive Director
> 571/431-0876 ext. 202.
>
>
Citation
Steve Hill, “Re: Setting the Record Straight,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 1, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/222391.
