bypassing orthotists
Richard Chasen
Description
Collection
Title:
bypassing orthotists
Creator:
Richard Chasen
Date:
2/13/2006
Text:
I think there are two important issues that have been highlighted thus far,
discussions of licensure aside.
The first is that wholsalers such as the one mentioned exist to supply
products to
qualified practitioners and by bypassing their primary market and selling
direct to the public they are, in essence biting the hand that feeds them,
to say nothing of potentially compromising patient care in terms of the
prescription unless the examination has already been carried out elsewhere.
More specifically, as was pointed out a few days ago (sorry, forgot to sign
my name and had to re-post), many of us are private
practitioners with just as many bills to pay as our patients and, since we
are sought out for our advice and treatment as much as for our products, we
are entitled to charge over and above our own costs for professional
services. After all, this is what we do for a living and any patient who
expects service for free is welcome to enter the public system with no hard
feelings.
Having said that, however, it is difficult and at times arrogant for us or
any other profession to claim total ownership of a mode of treatment. Whilst
we are still primary experts in, say knee orthoses, this can be seen easily
in such areas as foot orthotic care. In Australia where I work, foot
orthoses are provided by orthotists, podiatrists and, after shamefully
inadequate weekend courses by companies I refuse to name, physiotherapists,
chiropractors, osteopaths, naturopaths and in some cases shop assistants.
This is worrying from the point of view of decent patient care, to say
nothing of the financial implications, but as we have no control over other
professions despite a lack of similar qualifications and training, I agree
with whoever suggested that the best recourse is to properly educate the
referring medical practitioners.
As to the company discussed previously.. well, I can't particularly think of
anything that they do better or cheaper than anyone else, at least not on
this side of the world, so accept it and decide if you want to continue your
professional relationship with them. Regrettably, far worse damage is caused
by those who not only on-sell wholsesale items to patients without
professional examination but who run brief courses for those in different
professions, which they may be extremely good at, but who are told by these
same companies that there really isn't that much to know.
Honestly, I'm staggered by the amount of brochures finding their way onto my
desk after each conference, most of them in your neck of the woods rather
than mine. It's not as if there's only one supplier we can use. Think about
it.
Richard Chasen, B.P.&O.
Foot & Ankle Orthotist, Melbourne
(for those of you who are wondering, the classification CPO doesn't exist in
Australia)
discussions of licensure aside.
The first is that wholsalers such as the one mentioned exist to supply
products to
qualified practitioners and by bypassing their primary market and selling
direct to the public they are, in essence biting the hand that feeds them,
to say nothing of potentially compromising patient care in terms of the
prescription unless the examination has already been carried out elsewhere.
More specifically, as was pointed out a few days ago (sorry, forgot to sign
my name and had to re-post), many of us are private
practitioners with just as many bills to pay as our patients and, since we
are sought out for our advice and treatment as much as for our products, we
are entitled to charge over and above our own costs for professional
services. After all, this is what we do for a living and any patient who
expects service for free is welcome to enter the public system with no hard
feelings.
Having said that, however, it is difficult and at times arrogant for us or
any other profession to claim total ownership of a mode of treatment. Whilst
we are still primary experts in, say knee orthoses, this can be seen easily
in such areas as foot orthotic care. In Australia where I work, foot
orthoses are provided by orthotists, podiatrists and, after shamefully
inadequate weekend courses by companies I refuse to name, physiotherapists,
chiropractors, osteopaths, naturopaths and in some cases shop assistants.
This is worrying from the point of view of decent patient care, to say
nothing of the financial implications, but as we have no control over other
professions despite a lack of similar qualifications and training, I agree
with whoever suggested that the best recourse is to properly educate the
referring medical practitioners.
As to the company discussed previously.. well, I can't particularly think of
anything that they do better or cheaper than anyone else, at least not on
this side of the world, so accept it and decide if you want to continue your
professional relationship with them. Regrettably, far worse damage is caused
by those who not only on-sell wholsesale items to patients without
professional examination but who run brief courses for those in different
professions, which they may be extremely good at, but who are told by these
same companies that there really isn't that much to know.
Honestly, I'm staggered by the amount of brochures finding their way onto my
desk after each conference, most of them in your neck of the woods rather
than mine. It's not as if there's only one supplier we can use. Think about
it.
Richard Chasen, B.P.&O.
Foot & Ankle Orthotist, Melbourne
(for those of you who are wondering, the classification CPO doesn't exist in
Australia)
Citation
Richard Chasen, “bypassing orthotists,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 4, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/226135.
