Re: US politics O & P Licensure
Eileen Levis
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: US politics O & P Licensure
Creator:
Eileen Levis
Date:
5/19/2008
Text:
Mr. Gallo:
It would appear that many of your concerns are actually issues that are addressed once a licensure Board is established. HB2015 will provide licensing for orthotists, prosthetists, pedorthists, and fitters, all working within the scope of their expertise, training and education, and experiece.Educational as well as continuing education requirements are all part of this bill. We are establishing this sub board UNDER the Podiatrists WITHOUT the Podiatrists having to open their scope of practice. Ideally the board will be representative of Orthotists, Prosthetists, Pedorthists, Patient Advocates and Physicians. Unfortunately the shortcomings of the Florida licensure bill has left many with an unfavorable view of this type of legislation. In drafting this bill we looked at MANY states and did not model after any one state. It is our hope to enact a viable bill with a strong board. Our intent is to give the people of this state a measurable level of quality in the orthotic, prosthetic, and pedorthic care they receive; something they currently DO NOT have.
---- Morris Gallo < <Email Address Redacted> > wrote:
>
> Ms. Levis' response to my criticisms of HOB2015 did nothing to alleviate
> my concerns nor explain the problems I find in the bill.
>
> To be effective a license law should establish a scope of practice for
> the licensee, clearly define the minimum education, training, and
> testing standards required for license, provide a Board that has the
> capability and understanding to address specific problems, both in
> regards to the profession and the patient, provide for discipline of
> licensees, and provide a method for dissatisfied patients to file a
> grievance. HB2015 fails miserably.
>
> HB2015 does not establish any education or training standards, rather it
> vaguely refers to two organizations (NOCA and NCCA) whose only role is
> to certify member organizations are conducting their certification exams
> properly. Each member credentialing body sets its own education and
> training requirements, not NOCA nor NCCA. The bill doesn't even
> identify which certifying organization is approved, so one is left to
> guess which of the more then 250 NOCA member organizations is implied by
> the bill. We can safely presume that at a minimum ABC and BOC are
> likely candidates, but there are others organizations who also deal with
> both prosthetics and orthotics so one can't be sure. If ABC and BOC are
> the hinted at organizations then there are in fact no education or
> training requirements for prosthetist or orthotist licensure in PA. ABC
> has a well defined education and training requirement for certification,
> but BOC's only requirement is the candidate show two years working in an
> O&P related field and two years of undefined experience fitting
> patients.. Since the lowest common denominator is BOC's lack of
> requirements, then HB2015, by common sense deduction, has no education
> or training requirements. In effect if the bill passes it will codify
> the dysfunctional system now in place.
>
> The bill provides no O&P representation on the Board of Podiatry. The
> practice of O&P is significantly different from Podiatry. How will
> podiatrists and medical physicians understand and deal with O&P
> specific problems. This difference is well illustrated by the
> physicians who have been on the Florida O&P Board, they have to be
> taught how the O&P profession operates, how our standards of education,
> or lack thereof, differ from a medical profession, etc. It take most
> physicians on our board at least a year to have a working knowledge of
> O&P. Who will be on the PA Podiatry Board to insure O&P practitioners
> are well represented?
>
> The two above cited deficiencies, lack of education and training
> requirements and representation on the Board, are but only two
> philosophical problems with HB2015. In addition I believe there are
> numerous contradictory passages, improper uses of grammatical terms, and
> numerous unforeseen and unintended results if the bill is passed as it
> is today.
> I urge each practitioner in PA to carefully read the bill and ask an
> attorney to go over and explain the consequences of each passage.
> Caveat emptor
> Morris Gallo, LPO
>
>
It would appear that many of your concerns are actually issues that are addressed once a licensure Board is established. HB2015 will provide licensing for orthotists, prosthetists, pedorthists, and fitters, all working within the scope of their expertise, training and education, and experiece.Educational as well as continuing education requirements are all part of this bill. We are establishing this sub board UNDER the Podiatrists WITHOUT the Podiatrists having to open their scope of practice. Ideally the board will be representative of Orthotists, Prosthetists, Pedorthists, Patient Advocates and Physicians. Unfortunately the shortcomings of the Florida licensure bill has left many with an unfavorable view of this type of legislation. In drafting this bill we looked at MANY states and did not model after any one state. It is our hope to enact a viable bill with a strong board. Our intent is to give the people of this state a measurable level of quality in the orthotic, prosthetic, and pedorthic care they receive; something they currently DO NOT have.
---- Morris Gallo < <Email Address Redacted> > wrote:
>
> Ms. Levis' response to my criticisms of HOB2015 did nothing to alleviate
> my concerns nor explain the problems I find in the bill.
>
> To be effective a license law should establish a scope of practice for
> the licensee, clearly define the minimum education, training, and
> testing standards required for license, provide a Board that has the
> capability and understanding to address specific problems, both in
> regards to the profession and the patient, provide for discipline of
> licensees, and provide a method for dissatisfied patients to file a
> grievance. HB2015 fails miserably.
>
> HB2015 does not establish any education or training standards, rather it
> vaguely refers to two organizations (NOCA and NCCA) whose only role is
> to certify member organizations are conducting their certification exams
> properly. Each member credentialing body sets its own education and
> training requirements, not NOCA nor NCCA. The bill doesn't even
> identify which certifying organization is approved, so one is left to
> guess which of the more then 250 NOCA member organizations is implied by
> the bill. We can safely presume that at a minimum ABC and BOC are
> likely candidates, but there are others organizations who also deal with
> both prosthetics and orthotics so one can't be sure. If ABC and BOC are
> the hinted at organizations then there are in fact no education or
> training requirements for prosthetist or orthotist licensure in PA. ABC
> has a well defined education and training requirement for certification,
> but BOC's only requirement is the candidate show two years working in an
> O&P related field and two years of undefined experience fitting
> patients.. Since the lowest common denominator is BOC's lack of
> requirements, then HB2015, by common sense deduction, has no education
> or training requirements. In effect if the bill passes it will codify
> the dysfunctional system now in place.
>
> The bill provides no O&P representation on the Board of Podiatry. The
> practice of O&P is significantly different from Podiatry. How will
> podiatrists and medical physicians understand and deal with O&P
> specific problems. This difference is well illustrated by the
> physicians who have been on the Florida O&P Board, they have to be
> taught how the O&P profession operates, how our standards of education,
> or lack thereof, differ from a medical profession, etc. It take most
> physicians on our board at least a year to have a working knowledge of
> O&P. Who will be on the PA Podiatry Board to insure O&P practitioners
> are well represented?
>
> The two above cited deficiencies, lack of education and training
> requirements and representation on the Board, are but only two
> philosophical problems with HB2015. In addition I believe there are
> numerous contradictory passages, improper uses of grammatical terms, and
> numerous unforeseen and unintended results if the bill is passed as it
> is today.
> I urge each practitioner in PA to carefully read the bill and ask an
> attorney to go over and explain the consequences of each passage.
> Caveat emptor
> Morris Gallo, LPO
>
>
Citation
Eileen Levis, “Re: US politics O & P Licensure,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 1, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/229352.
