Re: Linkia and Parity
M. Britt Spears CPO
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Linkia and Parity
Creator:
M. Britt Spears CPO
Date:
9/1/2006
Text:
Your explaination of parity is incorrect. Parity is to make the insurance companys pay for O&P normal coverage amounts as they would have to pay other providers for their services instead of the $1000. per year or $2500. lifetime limits.
The any willing provider law would make O&P accessable to everyone.
M. Britt Spears CPO
Dino M. Scanio < <Email Address Redacted> > wrote:
I was wondering when someone was going to realize that Linkia is not such a stellar concept; unfortunately it was a patient who had the realization of how exclusionary Linkia is. Patients will suffer by limiting who can provide O & P care. Daniel Gottry clearly explained from a patient point of view how his prosthetic care was compromised by Linkia and Cigna. Let’s now think about Linkia as it relates to the issue of parity.
Before I begin, let me simplistically rationalize what parity is. Parity is the idea that all insurance companies MUST provide O & P care. So is this in the best interest of the O & P profession? NO, because it would force insurance companies into one of two options. Option one would be to open a new division within their company to handle the O & P coverage. This would be very expensive for insurance companies and would defeat the purpose of “cost effective money management.” The second choice, and smarter one for the company, would be to contract with a third party payer such as Linkia to handle their new business of O & P coverage. Is parity such a good idea for the patient when it will exclude the majority of providers and limit the quality of care? I can only hope that the private O & P business owner realizes that they will not have the opportunity to get a piece of that pie because Hanger and Linkia will be consuming the whole pie, without equally sharing the t!
aste of profit.
To be the devil’s advocate, parity is very beneficial for those patients whose insurance plans allow no O & P coverage. This will give them an opportunity to receive O & P care. But if Linkia is involved, Hanger will be obtaining the business and no one else.
As an orthotist, I believe parity is not in the best interest of the O & P profession as a whole! I am hoping as practitioners, we can continue to educate ourselves on these issues so that before parity legislation passes, we can either support or fight against it. It now makes sense why Hanger is willing to support parity in each state.
Dino M. Scanio, C.O.
The any willing provider law would make O&P accessable to everyone.
M. Britt Spears CPO
Dino M. Scanio < <Email Address Redacted> > wrote:
I was wondering when someone was going to realize that Linkia is not such a stellar concept; unfortunately it was a patient who had the realization of how exclusionary Linkia is. Patients will suffer by limiting who can provide O & P care. Daniel Gottry clearly explained from a patient point of view how his prosthetic care was compromised by Linkia and Cigna. Let’s now think about Linkia as it relates to the issue of parity.
Before I begin, let me simplistically rationalize what parity is. Parity is the idea that all insurance companies MUST provide O & P care. So is this in the best interest of the O & P profession? NO, because it would force insurance companies into one of two options. Option one would be to open a new division within their company to handle the O & P coverage. This would be very expensive for insurance companies and would defeat the purpose of “cost effective money management.” The second choice, and smarter one for the company, would be to contract with a third party payer such as Linkia to handle their new business of O & P coverage. Is parity such a good idea for the patient when it will exclude the majority of providers and limit the quality of care? I can only hope that the private O & P business owner realizes that they will not have the opportunity to get a piece of that pie because Hanger and Linkia will be consuming the whole pie, without equally sharing the t!
aste of profit.
To be the devil’s advocate, parity is very beneficial for those patients whose insurance plans allow no O & P coverage. This will give them an opportunity to receive O & P care. But if Linkia is involved, Hanger will be obtaining the business and no one else.
As an orthotist, I believe parity is not in the best interest of the O & P profession as a whole! I am hoping as practitioners, we can continue to educate ourselves on these issues so that before parity legislation passes, we can either support or fight against it. It now makes sense why Hanger is willing to support parity in each state.
Dino M. Scanio, C.O.
Citation
M. Britt Spears CPO, “Re: Linkia and Parity,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 2, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/227275.
