In reply to AOPA Executive Director Wilson’s post “setting the record
straight” he should again read my comments which he claimed were” misstated
by a wide mark” when they were posted by me on January 1st.
It’s no doubt that AOPA remains very committed to a single meeting concept
as they were to the former but failed consolidation effort of the industry
and professional associations into one association.
However, it is inaccurate to state that my previous comments eluded to AOPA
being “secretive” of their membership list.
I stated within my comments:
“It is also relative and discerning that many of the below manufactures
(indicated in COPA’s published letter) members of NOMA are also AOPA
members.”
“It is in fact why NOMA has been so secretive of their membership list.”
I stand by those statements as anyone who participated on the Neg Reg
committee (including AOPA ) and COPA whom met their formal opposition during
their first O&P regulation effort in California, can attest to.
I did not indicate in my comments that AOPA was “secretive” as to their list
of members but that NOMA was and remains secretive to not reveal their
membership list, most likely to reduce membership fallout and retaliation
from other AOPA members whom make up the 80% of O&P patient care facilities.
I believe it is also a accurate statement that, although AOPA does not take
a position on state and federal O&P regulation, many of their members are
actively lobbying to oppose it at a state and federal level !
“I think it is imperative that we have full disclosure about who is fighting
our legislation,” commented COPA’s Legislative Chairman, Ed Arnold.
“Manufacturers need to know that our business relationships depend on a
certain degree of trust. I want to know if I am doing business with a
company that is supporting an effort to lower the public’s perception of the
quality of work that we do,” continued Arnold.
“I think it is very unwise for manufacturers to threaten their relationships
with the companies who sell the majority of their inventory in order to
preserve a small portion of their direct sales,” explained Arnold. “This is
a unique industry. Telling the Legislature that anyone off of the street is
qualified to perform the services of a prosthetist/orthotist may appear to
gain a short-term advantage for these companies, but will have untold
long-term consequences that will be destructive to the entire industry,
including the manufacturer.”
The fact remains that most of the 10% of the AOPA membership that Mr.
Wilson stated, are non O&P patient care members, or approximately 160
members of approximately 1600 members, are suppliers of O&P and DME. Which
members have access to more funding for lobbyist activities ?
>From a consumer’s and advocate’s perspective, I have written my concerns of
this conflict, or at the very least the public perception of trade industry
representing the professional interests, in a recently published O&P Edge
magazine article which can be accessed thru:
http://www.oandp.com/edge/issues/articles/2004-01_07.asp
It is necessary that this division of philosophies ,special interests and
goals exists between profession and industry.
However, both organizations require their own identification and must stand
on their own merits.
Suppliers should be represented by one and the delivery of O&P professional
care by another.
The perception by law makers and the general public is that you are all one
in the same by drinking from the same well …Medicare/Medicaid
reimbursement.
Perhaps consideration of a selecting a consumer member to both the AOPA and
the Academy board of directors maybe a method to which patients can provide
input and better understand the need of both memberships?
Since Mr. Wilson has stated that a ” list of all AOPA members is available
to the public” perhaps he could provide the general public, thru a post to
the list serve, a list of non O&P patient care facility members?
Tony Barr
—–Original Message—–
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of AOPA
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [OANDP-L] Setting the Record Straight
On Jan 1, there was a posting to the ListServ that unfortunately misstated
by a wide mark AOPA’s position on combining its National Assembly with the
Academy’s Annual Meeting. AOPA’s support for combining the two meetings was
and remains strong.
As stated in an open letter to the O&P field, that appeared on the Web sites
of the Academy and AOPA and was published in the September 2003 issue of the
O&P Almanac, AOPA “supports the single-meeting concept based upon the keen
interest of its supplier members and favorable response that its general
membership has given to the idea of a joint O&P event.” AOPA maintains that
the members of both organizations would benefit by combining the meetings.
By eliminating the duplication of expenditures (two preliminary programs,
two final programs, etc.) and pouring the merged resources into one
comprehensive O&P education conference and trade show, attendees as well as
exhibitors would gain from the resulting synergies. For this reason, AOPA
remains committed to the single-meeting concept.
Also, despite misconceptions to the contrary, it is important to note that
90% of AOPA members are O&P patient care facilities. Less than 8% of the
membership consists of suppliers. And, there is nothing secretive here–a
list of all AOPA members is available to the public (and has been for
years). To view the entire list of current AOPA members, go to
http://www.aopanet.org/memberdir/ and click the “Search Membership
Directory” button while leaving all other fields blank.
I would be happy to answer any other questions regarding either of these
issues.
Tyler Wilson
AOPA Executive Director
571/431-0876 ext. 202.
******************** 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.
