Paul,there is no question that with the VA, MediCal and other federal and
state agencies have opened the door wider by permitting less than CAAHEP
standards for O&P providers. All you need to do is read the IOG report of
Since AOPA has been delegated the responsibility of negotiating and
presenting legislative reform by the Academy and for ABC practitioners, it
seems inappropiate that they would be promoting even lesser standards by
supporting legislation that would allow ” the Secretary to deem those
qualified to provide O&P services”. This loophole could generate providers
with less educational standards than are required today and sabatoge
successfull state regulation efforts!
Now that the Executive Director of AOPA has concurred that ABC certifees
are also quilty of fraud and abuse , should AOPA be encouraging the
initiation of lesser established standards by supporting the Harkin
The point is that the battle of the alphabet soup certification debate is
over.There is simply no accountability in the system.
Certification does not necessarily equate to qualification nor does it fully
quarantee quality work or fair and honest billings.
How often is a certification revoked or suspended?How important is it when
you dont even need that in most states to provide O&P services?
If AOPA’s own executive director states that fraud and abuse is not
exclusive to non certified providers or those with other certification
credentials than ABC, why is the profession of both ABC and BOC allowing
their “sister” trade associations to support less than those CAAHEP
quidelines ,or predeecessor organizations standards which would include
CAHEA,NCOPE and the EAC to medicare reform legislation?
Bob asks who the major enemy is in the fraud and abuse battle? My personal
opinion, it is not BOC. It is the self serving interests of the industry
leadership who have the freedom to sell to anyone at any price deemed
qualified or not!
The other major problem here is that most of the certified ABC or BOC
practitioners nor their respective professional associations are speaking up
on behalf of THEIR profession , by demanding that all providers of O&P
services be qualified by meaningfull regulation!
By remaining passive on supporting meaningfull state and federal regulation,
the professional is condoning the initiation of less than meaninfull
requirements by allowing the industry to promote (deemed qualified language)
educational standards to providers that are less stringent than your own .
The issue is not ABC VS BOC,which the industry would like you to believe in
order to smoke screen the real issues.
It is interests of the professional practitioner VS. the interests if the
trade industry.The trade association has positioned themselves to do the
negotiating for the establishment of ” educational standards” with the
federal government for all providers of O&P services!! As a O&P
professional, do you feel comfortable with that?
The fox is gaurding the hen house!
What happened to the mission statements of promoting educatiion standards
that were the responsibity of the Academy,ABC, and BOC ?
Does AOPA members restrict sales of O&P products to qualified providers?
Would there be less fraud and abuse if they did?
The industry does not want to reduce their membership base by supporting
meaningfull educational standards to all member/providers of O&P services.
Now with the failed consolidation strategy behind them, and the apparent
seperation of the “sister organizations” from the bureacracy of the
national office, perhaps ABC, the Academy and IAOP/BOC can take back the
position of leadership to strengthen protection of the patient from
unqualified providers and dealers.
Many of which are AOPA members and vendors of their products.
Shouldn’t the professional associations and credentialling associations
take charge of their own destiny by establishing meaningfull educational
standards to all providers as required in their by-laws? Standards that are
fair and grandfathered to professionals of both certification associations
but with continuing educational requirements to eventually upgrade the
standards of the profession.
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 3:25 AM
Subject: U.S. Politics Re: BOC Study Information
> First of all, I don’t know how you came to such a conclusion based on what
> wrote. But, If you do want to know what I think about it, I will tell
> Fraud and abuse has increased since HCFA allowed non-ABC certified
> individuals use of the L-codes ( I believe back in 1994.) I don’t deny
> some ABC practitioners are guilty of it, but, it stands to reason that the
> recent 3-4 year propelling increase of fraud and abuse can only be the
> of those less qualified and those with no qualifications abusing the
> “Do you think BOC is the major “enemy” in the fraud and abuse battle? My
> sense is that there are a lot of folks that don’t even have the BOC
> credential that are ripping off the system and messing it up for the good
> guys. More disturbing are the reports for ABC-certified folks that I hear
> at every meeting we have on fraud and abuse that suggest that some of our
> folks are guilty of the same stuff.”
> Robert T. Van Hook, CAE