Clarification on STATE licensure and my opinions

Clarification on STATE licensure and my opinions

JAMES M MCCOY

3/11/2004

The recent events have caused a great deal of emotional turmoil and
confusion. I have read all the e-mail and have spoken with some of you
regarding these events. Apparently some have been confused about my idea
for a national conference on O & P licensure. I will attempt to clarify
my idea. I am NOT suggesting a national or federal license for O & P. I
am suggesting a conference that would be attended by representatives from
each state to learn and share information regarding STATE licensure.
Those states that don't have licensure could learn how to effectively
succeed in joining the states that have already accomplished this. The
representatives from states with licensure could give advice on how to
accomplish it, fund it, write it,enforce it, etc...

The national licensure conference I attended in May 1995 was held to seek
consensus on whether or not state licensure should be pursued. Below is a
copy of the Consensus Opinion:

Conference attendees agreed:

O&P should endorse state licensure of the orthotics and prosthetics
profession as a viable and potentially desirable goal, depending on the
unique needs of individual states, consumers and practitioners.

When state licensure is considered, it will require 'grand fathering' of
other providers of O&P services.

About three-fourths of conference attendees agreed:

ABC should develop methods of recognizing O&P providers within their
scopes of competency.


IN ADDITION, attendees recommended that the national organizations pursue
the following activities:

        1. Aggressively pursue the current accreditation program.
        2. Develop a model bill with accompanying how-to materials
                     and workshops to assist practitioners.
        3. Define the scope of practice for those practicing O&P.
        4. Market the ABC credentials strongly.
        5. Design and implement a strategic planning process.



As you can see this was only a beginning. I feel it should be painfully
clear to everyone that state licensure of O & P is the most appropriate
method to end this acrimony by settling this issue for good, and that
the Academy should take the lead by organizing a second conference on how
to accomplish state licensure in the states that don't already have it.

I speak for myself alone. I do not wish to suggest or imply that I speak
for the Academy or any other person or organization. These are my
opinions.

I would also like to address the topic of my opinion of the BOC. It is
probably well known to members of the list serve but in all honesty it is
of no significance to this matter. I feel it is time for us all to move
forward in a positive direction of unity.

Another matter I would like to address are the valid concerns of the
practitioners, students, and residents who feel and/or have written to
this list serve regarding their feelings of betrayal and frustration
regarding the time, energy, COSTS, aggravation, sacrifices, etc... they
have made to obtain ABC practitioner certification only to see it handed
to the BOC credentialed practitioners for $75.00. I know what a bitter
pill you are trying to swallow. I had to swallow the same bitter pill in
1997 as Texas grand fathered numerous individuals when the licensure bill
became law. I still gag on it from time to time as I see what happens to
individuals who were provided O & P services by newly licensed
practitioners that were not considered practitioners prior to state
licensure. However, the state can do something about this. One individual
who was a technician where I was previously employed and subsequently
obtained licensure as an O & P assistant lost his license due to
inappropriate contact with a patient. Knowing the state does enforce
the law and that all newly licensed practitioners must meet the CAHEPP
educational requirements and pass the licensure exam has made it easier
to swallow that bitter pill.

If I were in a state that did not have licensure, I too would be venting
as you have. But after venting, I would have to accept the reality that I
could not change what had happened and that I was no different than I was
before this event occurred. The reason I went through all the time,
energy, COSTS, aggravation, sacrifices, etc... was because I wanted to be
the best practitioner I could be. I believe then and still believe that
the path I choose was and still is the best path. In fact, I am currently
working to meet the current ABC requirements to extend my title from
C.P., L.P., FAAOP to C.P.O., L.P.O.,FAAOP. I have no problem with the
current ABC pathway because I believe it is the best path. I could have
easily added the credential L.O. after my name in 1997, but I refused to
be a hypocrite who takes the path that is easier/cheaper. I don't agree
with those who say it is too hard, expensive, etc... to follow the ABC
pathway. If it was easy, cheaper, etc..., a lot of individuals would
choose that path. You may not realize it now, but ABC's decision has not
made you any less educated, competent, or professional. Nor has it
diminished your ability to help those you provide O & P services too. You
will always know you did what was best for yourself and those who rely
upon your expertise. The bottom line is you are no less educated,
competent, or professional today then you were last week. I commend you
and respect your dedication to providing the best patient care you can.
YOU DID THE RIGHT THING!!!!!!!!

James Mc Coy, C.P., L.P., FAAOP