Hi Tony
You are correct in mentioning the state by state assault that NOMA has waged in states seeking O and P licensure and states with existing licensure. In Florida during the last legislative session , NOMA was trying to introduce legislation that would allow manufacturors representatives to practice Orthotics or Prosthetics without any formal edcuational requirements or without fulfilling any of the state requirements for licensure including registering or paying a fee.
NOMA claimed that the training their representatives recieve is more than adequate for them to fit the devices they sell , primarily in Dr’s offices.
In Other words if they sell it they can fit it without a license! Imagine, if you sell imediate post op prosthetics supplies you can fit one, if you sell halo’s you can fit one, high tech componentry……….ect ect. If they rep 20 companies they can fit any of the devices they sell.Some manufacturors make hundreds of devices.
The manufacturors say they are uniquely qualified due to their expertise in manufacturing these devices to train their staff to fit the devices without any formal edcuational requirement. A representative with a 6th grade education could qualify since there are no requirements on who represents manufacturors.This proposed law was dangerous to consumers for more than the obvious reasons. Florida licensure also screens out persons with criminal records such as pedifiles or felons. This is important since the population we serve are at a very vunerable stage in their lives.
Consumers recieve many such benefits from licensure yet NOMA insists that their people not be regulated , screened or that they pay licensure fees.
Fee’s that go to the protection of consumers in Florida! Who is NOMA interested in serving?
The primary target for these manufacturors seem to be stock and bill operations in Dr’s Offices in Florida although the proposed legislation would not have limited them to Dr’s offices. NOMA has been successful in getting an endorsement from the Florida Medical Association. How Shameful for them, but the reasons are obvious.I believe there are several conflict of interest and potentially embarrassing issues for Physicians when embracing such policy changes and these issues will eventually be brought into day light by consumer advocates.
NOMA was not successful this past session, largely due to the FAOP diligence in protecting the licensure bill and persons with disabilities in Florida but NOMA is agressively seeking support from legislators to go after it again next session. I certainly hope licensed practitioners in Florida and consumer watchdogs will call their legislators to warn them about the dangers of such legislation.
It is pretty obvious why NOMA members want to remain anonymous , with these kind of proposals would’nt you?
Thank you Tony, for shedding light on these difficult issues by making them public , it is important that your voice is out there, often, it is the only one. All who truly know you , also know that your heart is in it for consumers not your wallet or for any other reason.
—–Original Message—–
From: tony barr [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [OANDP-L] Response Re: [OANDP-L] FW: NOMA members FYI only
Lisa , Randy,
It is my understanding from attending the many Centers of Medicare/Medicaid Neg Reg committee meetings, and running opposition to NOMA multiple state assaults on state regulation efforts, that all current and past NOMA members are also AOPA members.However DeRoyal Industries did quit NOMA because of lack of manufacture provider qualification criteria and perhaps because Mr.Pete DeBusk Chairman of DeRoyal sits on the federal Medicare review committee.
NOMA has always chose not to disclose their membership in fear of retaliation and possible boycotting of their purchasing products by providers.
On the other hand it’s consistent with the fact that many past ABC and Academy board members having been industry (AOPA) board members.
You know like musical chairs of a incestuous family members for the past 50 plus years.
Also fact that professional O&P manufacture and practitioner members are represented by AOPA lobbyists whom also have DME and NOMA members within their membership. However
The Academy mission statement states:
“The American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists is dedicated to promoting professionalism and advancing the standards of patient care through education, literature, research, advocacy and collaboration.
Would not supporting manatory O&P coverage and state regulation efforts fall within those perimeters?
Is the Academy’s collaboration confined exclusively to industry interests?
The Academy’s goals are allegedly about professionalism, education, advancing the quality of patient care, supporting literature and research and advocating.
However, they have continued to delegate these legislative responsibilities to the trade industry whose main focus is to sell product.
I would also be interested in hearing the tremendous amount feedback that you most likely will not receive re: who is responsible for the L-Code restructuring and reimbursement questions you proposed above.My quess is that AOPA leads the charge with authority delgated to them by the Academy.
I could be mistaken ! Be interesting to find out.
Tony
—–Original Message—–
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lisa Urso, CPO
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:06 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [OANDP-L] Response Re: [OANDP-L] FW: NOMA members FYI only
Randy,
Thank you for your efforts and most recent post regarding the NOMA lobbying group.
I would appreciate some clarity from AOPA (past or present member). Do we have a lobbying group or committee that works proactively with Medicare BEFORE changes are made to our codes/reimbursements? I’m not referring to submitting information to obtain NEW codes for our industry. I am only referring to the numerous, recent changes in coding/reimbursements that we’ve all experienced
(especially) this year.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Lisa Urso, CPO
Albuquerque Orthotics & Prosthetics
******************** To unsubscribe, send a message to: [email protected] 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 protected]
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.
******************** To unsubscribe, send a message to: [email protected] 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 protected]
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.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, (or authorized to receive for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments and contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone (813) 281-0300.
