Re: US politics, O&P Licensure

Re: US politics, O&P Licensure

Gingras, Ron

5/9/2008

I agree with Mr. Gallo this bill doesn't answer the basic questions of
why you would want a licensure bill in the first place. Patient advocacy
should be first and foremost. This bill is being pushed for all the
wrong reasons. First it should protect the public by advocating for
meaningful education and continuing education standards for
practitioners which allows only qualified persons to perform duties that
are commensurate with their training. Not a see one do one type of
mentality, that person could be making the device incorrectly for 20
years thinking he is an expert.
When licensure in Florida was first introduced we had a similar bill
that the leaders of FAOP at that time had put forward. The majority of
practitioners already in practice in Florida were against it but the
leadership refused to reform their original bill. The membership voted
them out of office at the next meeting and wrote a meaningful bill. It
passed one year later. Are your leaders listening to you?

-----Original Message-----
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On
Behalf Of Morris Gallo
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 8:05 PM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: [OANDP-L] US politics, O&P Licensure

For background, I live in Florida and have no dog in this fight. BUT, I

am very interested in how licensure is carried out and its possible
effects on the state's practitioners.
I just finished reading Pennsylvania's proposed O&P license bill,
HB2015. I was appalled by what is trying to pass for license law. The
idea behind licensing of O&P practitioners was to have standards of
education and training established by state law, insuring patients in
the state are treated by practitioners having a minimum level of
competency. This minimum level of competency is demonstrated by
completion of a defined level of education, specialized training,
supervised work experience, and passing a test that measures the
practitioner's understanding of the required materials. None of these
are requirements for license in PA. In effect, just about anybody could

get a PA license, they only have to meet some non-defined third-party
requirements and make sure their application check clears. On top of
this the bill sets no limit to what can be charged for a license or
application, giving the proposed Board free reign over the state's
practitioners checkbooks. As read, this bill amounts to a possibly very

expensive certificate to hang on your wall, without providing the
patients of PA any assurance of competency. Just more of the same
Bull*#@*. Why waste your time and money? If I were a practitioner in
PA I would vehemently oppose the bill.
Morris Gallo, LPO