Ron, John and list serve subscribers,
Mr. Billock’s March 10th comments (below) and couldn’t agree more
“it became apparent the two organizations needed to consolidate. The
primary reason for this being — to begin the process of laying the
foundation for a single credentialing board that could better assure the
quality of O&P care being provided to disabled persons needing our services.
In my opinion, protecting the disabled public by assuring that O&P care is
being provided by appropriately trained, educated, and qualified O&P
practitioners was the goal of the ABC Board in their negotiations with BOC,
knowing the personal integrity of the individuals on the Board.
Although I may not agree with what appears to be a “tit for tat” post
negotiation skirmish ($75 Vs a free application and credentialing process),
it still boils down to an inevitable grandfathering process that must be
accepted in good faith by both organizations! If you are practicing in a
state with O&P Licensure Laws, you may understand this better than the rest
— whether you find it an acceptable reality or not! The fact is however,
grandfathering is and always will be a part of any Licensure effort and, for
that matter, any federally regulated credentialing process, should it come
to that! Again, we may not like it, but we must accept it, because it won’t
happen any other way!!”
“Given the times we are in, I firmly believe the unification of ABC and BOC
is essential to the future stability, growth and, most importantly, the
stature of our profession within today’s healthcare environment. It should
be obvious to everyone heath care insurers, government agencies included,
are truly not looking at the differences between ABC and BOC credentialing
processes — nor do they seem to care despite efforts that have been made to
educate them. One thing is for sure — they are getting a mixed bag of
messages regarding who’s qualified to provide what and it doesn’t just
include an ABC or BOC practitioner! Hearing from one credentialing voice
would certainly help to clarify this, if ABC and BOC could come together.”
Perhaps this current unification fiasco represents a great opportunity for
the “New” Academy to resolve the issue and come to the rescue of two
credentialing associations by revolving them the one profession. One doesn’t
have to wait for the credentialing associations to sort out the power
struggle when the “professional association” can unify both groups and
become one professional association voice to, “most importantly, improve
the stature of our profession within today’s healthcare environment.
BOC has no “professional” association. AAOP could fulfill the void.
After all AOPA recently opened their membership doors to BOC members.
Are not BOC credentialed providers also worthy for membership to the
Academy?
If the unification proposal had been adopted would not BOC providers be
eligible for Academy membership anyway?
AAOP can stop this division and bring some much needed unity back to the
profession.
Alternative credentialing eligibility for AAOP membership would increase
your professional membership(under a strong platform of promoting state
licensure)generate a stronger legislative voice to separate O&P from DME and
unify both credentialed practitioner groups at a time that is crucial to
your “profession” and providing qualified patient care.
Aren’t the real issues here to eliminate unqualified and uncertified
providers providing services to the public and change the perception by law
makers that O&P is DME?
My take is that this field can be viewed as a united profession Once every
provider is licensed, under one professional association and better assure
all 50 states get regulated, provided AAOP would consider a more unified
policy on promoting such efforts!
James McCoy LP and AAOP from Texas has recently taken on the mission of
scheduling a national licensing conference, a worthy goal allegedly
supported by the Academy.
Please help in providing him information on your regulated states statues.
Who knows one day perhaps AAOP might even include a consumer member to your
board.
I maybe available and further eligible as a honorary member of FAOP:)
Second related question:
I am very curious as to why not all the name tags and meeting info, at the
recent Academy meeting, did not reflect licensed designations to
practitioners whom were from regulated states. Neither does the ABC 2004
Registry and all the O&P publications in stories they feature.
Is this done intentionally as to not promote the license designation or an
oversight which can be corrected ?
My understanding is that providing proper license identity is not optional
and that all state laws require the licensed designations be displayed on
business cards, ads and signage.
Have a good weekend everyone.
Tony Barr
—–Original Message—–
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Gingras, Ron
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 10:39 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OANDP-L] ABC BOC
>From either organizations perspective why merge? When this stratagy has
>led
to the largest money making, membership drive, field day that either
organization has seen in recent years. It was easy for them too. Just
threaten to merge and then accept each other members , and look what
happens.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.New members for ABC , many BOC members jumping over
to ABC and a slew of new candidates joining BOC in hopes of getting BOC
certification for the next ABC membership drive.Everyone does great but
patient care. Do you think these guys stay up nights to figure this stuff
out?
—–Original Message—–
From: John Gibson CP [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 11:11 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [OANDP-L] ABC BOC
With all the free cross transfer of certifications being done now, can
someone please explain why the merger is not happpening. It seems that a de
facto merger is currently underway.
******************** 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.
******************** 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.
