Re: ABC/BOC Merger
tony barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: ABC/BOC Merger
Creator:
tony barr
Date:
3/9/2004
Text:
In response to a Oandp-L post
James McCoy wrote:
Tony,
I've been waiting to read your e-mail regarding this, and I have been
disappointed you haven't stated this fact (FOR GAZILLIONTH TIME) more
strongly. You have correctly quoted Mr. Lamb's comments regarding this
matter, but sometimes people need be hit over the head in order to grasp it
Tony Barr:
I agree. The Medicare Freeze, competitive bidding, reduction and
eliminations of benefits hammers haven't made a difference.
Perhaps this recent ........confrontation will.Wish I would of thought of
it!!:)
The significance of any certification means very little to the public
requiring O&P services, less to physicians and third party payers and far
less as an acceptable venue for oversight and accountability to credentialed
providers.
It appears it is also meaning less and less to many BOC and ABC
practitioners !
JM
It should be clear now to everyone that ABC/BOC/EFG/XYZ are no longer
significant to anyone outside of the O & P profession (industry?); and that
the only significant O & P credentials are L.P., L.O., & L.P.O.
TB
Certification credentials should and could supplement a license as it does
in any other medical or health care service.
There could very well be place for specialized certifications in addition to
a license but not in lieu of a license.
Charles E. Levy MD posted:
I believe that all physicians must be licensed to practice medicine in the
US. Almost all of them are board certified in their specialty once they
complete their residencies. Further, most boards are demanding
recertification after 7-10 years. I would not allow my family members to see
a physician that was not either completing a residency or certified.
All that said, I agree that state licensure is critical to professionalizing
the practice of orthotics and prosthetics. This will serve the immediate
and long-term good for both the practitioners and those they serve.
As Glenn Waldner LPO correctly pointed out.
Only those in very specialized fields are certified, and they became
certified AFTER they were licensed not before. The same is true of
therapists, nurses and everyone else in the medical field.
Why then do we in the field of orthotics and prosthetics deem it so vital to
become certified especially when we do not have specialty fields to be
certified in?
In this country today the O&P practitioner is the only legitimate (and I
still believe that) health care provider that does not require a license to
practice in every state.
Many tire of me beating the regulation drum.
I am personally content at the moment, to hear so many others ,particulary
practitioners and physicians, beating the regulation drum now.Its got a real
pleasant sound!
My personal call for regulation has been loud and clear for some time now,
as was my fathers was in 1979 when he delivered on a promise to the industry
and profession to stop the proposed Medicare cutbacks in 1979 if
unilaterally, both organizations would develop a meaningful state licensure
model for all states.
The resolution passed in both O&P organizations and William Barr, a
influential senator from Illinois, a amputee and close friends with
U.S.Congressman Dan Rostenkowski from Illinois ,chairman of the House Ways
and Means committee in Washington at the time , delivered on his promise to
AOPA and AAOP-Medicare O&P reductions were not mandated.
The Academy and AOPA reneged on their promise to develop and support a model
licensure bill.
It wasn't til 20 years later 1999 when Florida where I reside, became the
first regulated state and I HELPED !
I believe or want to believe that the Academy is more independent these
days. They will have to be to survive.
Anyone whom is not regulated will not only have a hard time identifying
themselves as a legitimate health care professional, but also as Gary Lamb
has recently pointed out, any state without licensure for O&P has no
standing.
I am delighted to witness the growing support of regulation by practitioners
in spite of their motivation and reasons perhaps stirred by the recent
contravery It has resurrected the renewed interest. It will be difficult to
obtain O&P regulation in states that have a small # of O&P practitioners,
whom would be unable to self support a regulation effort since states are
concern over state deficits more than patient protection.CMS is also
concerned that there be enough qualified providers to serve the population
requiring these services.
Some thought should be given to allow licensed PTs to help support it in the
42 states they are presently not allowed to provide O&P. My understanding
is there is only eight states that contain, within the PTs scope of
services, the ability for them to deliver O & P services. However, if PTs
expand their Scope of Service to provide O&P care in the 50 states they are
currently licensed in ....it would become illegal for Orthotists and
prosthetists certified or not to deliver the care they have traditionally
provided.
You can see the dilemma ,everyone wants unqualified providers out the
equation. The problem is defining qualified without regard to turf issues.
Federal law has already recognized ABC and BOC credentialed practitioners as
qualified so lets not go there.
Perhaps there could be a coalition of interested parties that could unite
rather than fight to resolve such issues.
Shriners, ACPOC, VA use a dream team approach in providing effective
treatment patients requiring O&P services.
They are Prosthetists or Orthotists (depending on the particular treatment
required), physical therapists and physicians.
Lets not forget the physicians .They start the process by writing the
prescription for O& P treatment.
Perhaps its time to work together instead of independently.
Contrary to what you are being told the PTS are not the enemy and the
majority of them don't belong to nor support the national organanization's
demand to be exempted from further education requirements in order provide
comprehensive O&P services in all 50 states.
We have failed to bring resolution to defining qualified.
A big part of the obstacles we faced at the Neg Reg Meetings was turf
related and more recently, the recent ABC/BOC unification breakdown.
One thing they do share is not based on doing what's best for the patient.
What's good for the patient is also good for the profession.
Many O&P professional deserve the recognition of being a legitimate,
licensed health care provider, however some do not.
I believe earning a license and having the accountability of a state board
under the State Board of Health is more appropriate than under the direction
of the Dept.of Agricultural and Consumer Affairs as it is in a unregulated
, and optional certification environment in 42 states.
There is simply no accountability or oversight of certified let alone
uncertified providers.
Perhaps Hoxie and Feder could share with us the last time a ABC or BOC
certification was suspended or revoked because of a patient complaint of
improper services.
Perhaps your very good suggestion for another National Conference on O&P
Licensure is indeed in order and certainly timely.
I cant think of a more appropriate organization than the NEW Academy to rise
to the occasion and organize it!
This is an real opportunity for them.
Ronnie Snell once told me, that the industry could not deliver on their
promise to my father because the timing wasn't right. Well its right now
Ronnie! Perhaps you and my father have worked things out aboard your
sailboat in another better place. May you both rest in peace, but only after
every state has been regulated, CMS defines an appropriate Proposed Rule and
every patient reuiring comprehensive O&P services recieves them from
qualified providers!
My understanding was the Academy board discussed dropping ABC as the entree'
into the Academy some time back as rumors of a merger were discussed. Now
you see the 90 day moratorium cooling off to see how things shape up.
They will now have to change the bylaws if they change entry requirements.
I'm' unsure whether Academy by-law changes can be done without a majority of
the membership voting for it since I am not a member. They haven't opened
their membership to consumers..... yet!
Apparently a majority of membership was not required to modify the ABC
By-Laws. But then again I'm told ABC certifees are not members of the
credentialing board.
As far as the AOPA By-laws and the multi-tiered levels of memberships, I
wouldn't begin to comprehend that nor try to!
If the Academy asked their 2,800 +/- members to support a National
Conference on O&P Licensure today, I think they would find strong support. I
think many BOC practitioners would also support it. Don Feder and Lance
Hoxie would not!
OH what the heck, if they don't have to ask for their credentialed members
approval why should you have to ask for their board's approval?
Unfortunately only Academy society members can make suggestions to the
Academy.
However ,you can now make the suggestion and ask questions on line at
<URL Redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On
Behalf Of JAMES M MCCOY
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:02 PM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: Re: [OANDP-L] ABC/BOC Merger
Tony,
I plan to comment more on this matter after I've had more time to digest
it. The alphabet soup wars resulted have resulted in Armageddon as the USA
(ABC) and Russia/China (BOC) both launched there ICBMs and rendered each
other insignificant. It really doesn't matter anymore. It should be clear
now to everyone that ABC/BOC/EFG/XYZ are no longer significant to anyone
outside of the O & P profession (industry?); and that the only significant O
& P credentials are L.P., L.O., & L.P.O. I've been waiting to read your
e-mail regarding this, and I have been disappointed you haven't stated this
fact (FOR GAZILLIONTH TIME) more strongly. You have correctly quoted Mr.
Lamb's comments regarding this matter, but sometimes people need be hit over
the head in order to grasp it. Case in point. In May 1994, as president of
the Texas Association of Orthotists and Prosthetists, I attended the
National Conference on O&P licensure in Atlanta, GA. At that time Texas was
making its first attempt at licensure for O & P. I was asked to comment on
what was incorrectly thought to be the impending success of O & P licensure
in Texas. I informed the conference attendees that one of the primary
reasons we were pursuing licensure was that we had received a very rude
awakening from a judge who threw us (O & P) out of a lawsuit to prevent
chiropractors from expanding their scope of practice to include O & P. The
judge said we had no legal standing because anyone could legally provide O &
P. I stated very clearly to the conference attendees that without legal
standing (licensure), any other licensed health profession could legally
expand their scope of practice which could then legally prohibit everyone
else including those currently providing O & P. My comments were quickly
dismissed as unrealistic by AOPA's legal counsel (I've forgotten her name).
Well, here we are ten years later and my comments appear to be coming true
as we fight amongst ourselves and the PT's move forward with their
encroachment.
On a lighter topic, I have to admonish you for equating the Mc Coy name with
BOC!!!!!!!!!!!
James Mc Coy, C.P., L.P., FAAOP
James McCoy wrote:
Tony,
I've been waiting to read your e-mail regarding this, and I have been
disappointed you haven't stated this fact (FOR GAZILLIONTH TIME) more
strongly. You have correctly quoted Mr. Lamb's comments regarding this
matter, but sometimes people need be hit over the head in order to grasp it
Tony Barr:
I agree. The Medicare Freeze, competitive bidding, reduction and
eliminations of benefits hammers haven't made a difference.
Perhaps this recent ........confrontation will.Wish I would of thought of
it!!:)
The significance of any certification means very little to the public
requiring O&P services, less to physicians and third party payers and far
less as an acceptable venue for oversight and accountability to credentialed
providers.
It appears it is also meaning less and less to many BOC and ABC
practitioners !
JM
It should be clear now to everyone that ABC/BOC/EFG/XYZ are no longer
significant to anyone outside of the O & P profession (industry?); and that
the only significant O & P credentials are L.P., L.O., & L.P.O.
TB
Certification credentials should and could supplement a license as it does
in any other medical or health care service.
There could very well be place for specialized certifications in addition to
a license but not in lieu of a license.
Charles E. Levy MD posted:
I believe that all physicians must be licensed to practice medicine in the
US. Almost all of them are board certified in their specialty once they
complete their residencies. Further, most boards are demanding
recertification after 7-10 years. I would not allow my family members to see
a physician that was not either completing a residency or certified.
All that said, I agree that state licensure is critical to professionalizing
the practice of orthotics and prosthetics. This will serve the immediate
and long-term good for both the practitioners and those they serve.
As Glenn Waldner LPO correctly pointed out.
Only those in very specialized fields are certified, and they became
certified AFTER they were licensed not before. The same is true of
therapists, nurses and everyone else in the medical field.
Why then do we in the field of orthotics and prosthetics deem it so vital to
become certified especially when we do not have specialty fields to be
certified in?
In this country today the O&P practitioner is the only legitimate (and I
still believe that) health care provider that does not require a license to
practice in every state.
Many tire of me beating the regulation drum.
I am personally content at the moment, to hear so many others ,particulary
practitioners and physicians, beating the regulation drum now.Its got a real
pleasant sound!
My personal call for regulation has been loud and clear for some time now,
as was my fathers was in 1979 when he delivered on a promise to the industry
and profession to stop the proposed Medicare cutbacks in 1979 if
unilaterally, both organizations would develop a meaningful state licensure
model for all states.
The resolution passed in both O&P organizations and William Barr, a
influential senator from Illinois, a amputee and close friends with
U.S.Congressman Dan Rostenkowski from Illinois ,chairman of the House Ways
and Means committee in Washington at the time , delivered on his promise to
AOPA and AAOP-Medicare O&P reductions were not mandated.
The Academy and AOPA reneged on their promise to develop and support a model
licensure bill.
It wasn't til 20 years later 1999 when Florida where I reside, became the
first regulated state and I HELPED !
I believe or want to believe that the Academy is more independent these
days. They will have to be to survive.
Anyone whom is not regulated will not only have a hard time identifying
themselves as a legitimate health care professional, but also as Gary Lamb
has recently pointed out, any state without licensure for O&P has no
standing.
I am delighted to witness the growing support of regulation by practitioners
in spite of their motivation and reasons perhaps stirred by the recent
contravery It has resurrected the renewed interest. It will be difficult to
obtain O&P regulation in states that have a small # of O&P practitioners,
whom would be unable to self support a regulation effort since states are
concern over state deficits more than patient protection.CMS is also
concerned that there be enough qualified providers to serve the population
requiring these services.
Some thought should be given to allow licensed PTs to help support it in the
42 states they are presently not allowed to provide O&P. My understanding
is there is only eight states that contain, within the PTs scope of
services, the ability for them to deliver O & P services. However, if PTs
expand their Scope of Service to provide O&P care in the 50 states they are
currently licensed in ....it would become illegal for Orthotists and
prosthetists certified or not to deliver the care they have traditionally
provided.
You can see the dilemma ,everyone wants unqualified providers out the
equation. The problem is defining qualified without regard to turf issues.
Federal law has already recognized ABC and BOC credentialed practitioners as
qualified so lets not go there.
Perhaps there could be a coalition of interested parties that could unite
rather than fight to resolve such issues.
Shriners, ACPOC, VA use a dream team approach in providing effective
treatment patients requiring O&P services.
They are Prosthetists or Orthotists (depending on the particular treatment
required), physical therapists and physicians.
Lets not forget the physicians .They start the process by writing the
prescription for O& P treatment.
Perhaps its time to work together instead of independently.
Contrary to what you are being told the PTS are not the enemy and the
majority of them don't belong to nor support the national organanization's
demand to be exempted from further education requirements in order provide
comprehensive O&P services in all 50 states.
We have failed to bring resolution to defining qualified.
A big part of the obstacles we faced at the Neg Reg Meetings was turf
related and more recently, the recent ABC/BOC unification breakdown.
One thing they do share is not based on doing what's best for the patient.
What's good for the patient is also good for the profession.
Many O&P professional deserve the recognition of being a legitimate,
licensed health care provider, however some do not.
I believe earning a license and having the accountability of a state board
under the State Board of Health is more appropriate than under the direction
of the Dept.of Agricultural and Consumer Affairs as it is in a unregulated
, and optional certification environment in 42 states.
There is simply no accountability or oversight of certified let alone
uncertified providers.
Perhaps Hoxie and Feder could share with us the last time a ABC or BOC
certification was suspended or revoked because of a patient complaint of
improper services.
Perhaps your very good suggestion for another National Conference on O&P
Licensure is indeed in order and certainly timely.
I cant think of a more appropriate organization than the NEW Academy to rise
to the occasion and organize it!
This is an real opportunity for them.
Ronnie Snell once told me, that the industry could not deliver on their
promise to my father because the timing wasn't right. Well its right now
Ronnie! Perhaps you and my father have worked things out aboard your
sailboat in another better place. May you both rest in peace, but only after
every state has been regulated, CMS defines an appropriate Proposed Rule and
every patient reuiring comprehensive O&P services recieves them from
qualified providers!
My understanding was the Academy board discussed dropping ABC as the entree'
into the Academy some time back as rumors of a merger were discussed. Now
you see the 90 day moratorium cooling off to see how things shape up.
They will now have to change the bylaws if they change entry requirements.
I'm' unsure whether Academy by-law changes can be done without a majority of
the membership voting for it since I am not a member. They haven't opened
their membership to consumers..... yet!
Apparently a majority of membership was not required to modify the ABC
By-Laws. But then again I'm told ABC certifees are not members of the
credentialing board.
As far as the AOPA By-laws and the multi-tiered levels of memberships, I
wouldn't begin to comprehend that nor try to!
If the Academy asked their 2,800 +/- members to support a National
Conference on O&P Licensure today, I think they would find strong support. I
think many BOC practitioners would also support it. Don Feder and Lance
Hoxie would not!
OH what the heck, if they don't have to ask for their credentialed members
approval why should you have to ask for their board's approval?
Unfortunately only Academy society members can make suggestions to the
Academy.
However ,you can now make the suggestion and ask questions on line at
<URL Redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On
Behalf Of JAMES M MCCOY
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:02 PM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: Re: [OANDP-L] ABC/BOC Merger
Tony,
I plan to comment more on this matter after I've had more time to digest
it. The alphabet soup wars resulted have resulted in Armageddon as the USA
(ABC) and Russia/China (BOC) both launched there ICBMs and rendered each
other insignificant. It really doesn't matter anymore. It should be clear
now to everyone that ABC/BOC/EFG/XYZ are no longer significant to anyone
outside of the O & P profession (industry?); and that the only significant O
& P credentials are L.P., L.O., & L.P.O. I've been waiting to read your
e-mail regarding this, and I have been disappointed you haven't stated this
fact (FOR GAZILLIONTH TIME) more strongly. You have correctly quoted Mr.
Lamb's comments regarding this matter, but sometimes people need be hit over
the head in order to grasp it. Case in point. In May 1994, as president of
the Texas Association of Orthotists and Prosthetists, I attended the
National Conference on O&P licensure in Atlanta, GA. At that time Texas was
making its first attempt at licensure for O & P. I was asked to comment on
what was incorrectly thought to be the impending success of O & P licensure
in Texas. I informed the conference attendees that one of the primary
reasons we were pursuing licensure was that we had received a very rude
awakening from a judge who threw us (O & P) out of a lawsuit to prevent
chiropractors from expanding their scope of practice to include O & P. The
judge said we had no legal standing because anyone could legally provide O &
P. I stated very clearly to the conference attendees that without legal
standing (licensure), any other licensed health profession could legally
expand their scope of practice which could then legally prohibit everyone
else including those currently providing O & P. My comments were quickly
dismissed as unrealistic by AOPA's legal counsel (I've forgotten her name).
Well, here we are ten years later and my comments appear to be coming true
as we fight amongst ourselves and the PT's move forward with their
encroachment.
On a lighter topic, I have to admonish you for equating the Mc Coy name with
BOC!!!!!!!!!!!
James Mc Coy, C.P., L.P., FAAOP
Citation
tony barr, “Re: ABC/BOC Merger,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 27, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/222580.
