Cross credentiialing / Priviledging / Board Eligible
Tony Barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Cross credentiialing / Priviledging / Board Eligible
Creator:
Tony Barr
Date:
11/21/2005
Text:
A O& P provider, I recently chatted with, is working on the Region D DMERC
board.
They are dealing with issues of privileging which is another variation of
the cross credentialing or practicing health care medicine outside you
scope of education..
Do any of the O&P List subscribers see anything in the ABC Cannons of
Ethical Conduct that address' this privileging issue?
I have not.
I do recall that PTs and OTs groups, at the defunct CMS NEG Rules Committee
Meeting ,openly stated if they were given a case that required comprehensive
O or P treatment, and that treatment was outside of their permitted Scope of
Services, and they had no knowledge of the treatment, they would
voluntarily privilege the case by referral to some one who did.
The related representation of being Board eligible status and Cross
Credentialing Issues should be of concern to every certified O&P providers.
First, there is no ABC status Board Eligible. ABC is aware that some
people refer to themselves that way, but they have no recognition for that
status. Those people are considered NOT CERTIFIED.
ABC addresses the second issue of cross credentialing in a couple of ways
and the answer to your concern differs depending on whether the practitioner
is working in a licensure state or not.
A) if a licensure state: the Canons say (C1.2) that an ABC credential
holder must abide by the law. If the state has a licensure law and the
person is practicing outside their scope, they are violating the law. That
would be a violation of the Canons. Rule R3.1 also speaks to this issue and
may be applied.
B) In all cases, Canon C7.1 says that a person certified in one discipline
may not imply that they are certified in the other discipline.
ABC has taken the position that it can not restrict the free trade of a
certified practitioner. If a person can legally practice Orthotics and or
Prosthetics without any qualifications in their jurisdiction, ABC will not
interfere with the right of a ABC certified prosthetist to perform orthotic
work, so long as that person does not imply that he/she is certified by ABC
as an orthotist.The reverse holds true as well.
In layman's terms, ABC condones (does not restrict) cross credentialing by
their certifees in unregulated states as long as they don't represent
themselves to the patient, as duly certified in that particular health care
science.
Unless I am wrong, this is a major part of the problem and shortcoming of
the profession not be regulated why it gives mixed signals to third
payers/CMS and others regarding qualified care.
ABC, is in reality, is not projecting to their members, that Caps NOT
perform orthotic treatment to patients and CO to NOT deliver prosthetic
treatment to anyone in any state that is not regulated in the name
of................ free trade !!
This is absurd and further enforces the hold AOPA has on ABC to have any and
all buyers of their wares not restricted.
How can NCOPE and ABC plea the importance of education and training when
they look the other way when it occurs by a untrained provider?
Another good reason to support state licensure :)
Does anyone have a handle on this privileging label or leniency of ABC/BOC
to allow cross credentialing in unregulated states that they are willing to
share openly on this forum ?
Tony Barr
********************
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.
board.
They are dealing with issues of privileging which is another variation of
the cross credentialing or practicing health care medicine outside you
scope of education..
Do any of the O&P List subscribers see anything in the ABC Cannons of
Ethical Conduct that address' this privileging issue?
I have not.
I do recall that PTs and OTs groups, at the defunct CMS NEG Rules Committee
Meeting ,openly stated if they were given a case that required comprehensive
O or P treatment, and that treatment was outside of their permitted Scope of
Services, and they had no knowledge of the treatment, they would
voluntarily privilege the case by referral to some one who did.
The related representation of being Board eligible status and Cross
Credentialing Issues should be of concern to every certified O&P providers.
First, there is no ABC status Board Eligible. ABC is aware that some
people refer to themselves that way, but they have no recognition for that
status. Those people are considered NOT CERTIFIED.
ABC addresses the second issue of cross credentialing in a couple of ways
and the answer to your concern differs depending on whether the practitioner
is working in a licensure state or not.
A) if a licensure state: the Canons say (C1.2) that an ABC credential
holder must abide by the law. If the state has a licensure law and the
person is practicing outside their scope, they are violating the law. That
would be a violation of the Canons. Rule R3.1 also speaks to this issue and
may be applied.
B) In all cases, Canon C7.1 says that a person certified in one discipline
may not imply that they are certified in the other discipline.
ABC has taken the position that it can not restrict the free trade of a
certified practitioner. If a person can legally practice Orthotics and or
Prosthetics without any qualifications in their jurisdiction, ABC will not
interfere with the right of a ABC certified prosthetist to perform orthotic
work, so long as that person does not imply that he/she is certified by ABC
as an orthotist.The reverse holds true as well.
In layman's terms, ABC condones (does not restrict) cross credentialing by
their certifees in unregulated states as long as they don't represent
themselves to the patient, as duly certified in that particular health care
science.
Unless I am wrong, this is a major part of the problem and shortcoming of
the profession not be regulated why it gives mixed signals to third
payers/CMS and others regarding qualified care.
ABC, is in reality, is not projecting to their members, that Caps NOT
perform orthotic treatment to patients and CO to NOT deliver prosthetic
treatment to anyone in any state that is not regulated in the name
of................ free trade !!
This is absurd and further enforces the hold AOPA has on ABC to have any and
all buyers of their wares not restricted.
How can NCOPE and ABC plea the importance of education and training when
they look the other way when it occurs by a untrained provider?
Another good reason to support state licensure :)
Does anyone have a handle on this privileging label or leniency of ABC/BOC
to allow cross credentialing in unregulated states that they are willing to
share openly on this forum ?
Tony Barr
********************
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
Tony Barr, “Cross credentiialing / Priviledging / Board Eligible,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 5, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/225693.
