Monday, May 23, 2022

Re: U.S. Politics Re: BOC Study Information

Tony Barr

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

1998.

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

Legislation??

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.

Tony Barr

—– Original Message —–

From:

To:

Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 3:25 AM

Subject: U.S. Politics Re: BOC Study Information

> Bob,

>

> First of all, I don’t know how you came to such a conclusion based on what

I

> wrote. But, If you do want to know what I think about it, I will tell

you:

> 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

that

> 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

result

> of those less qualified and those with no qualifications abusing the

system.

>

> Paul

>

>

> “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.”

>

> Bob

>

> Robert T. Van Hook, CAE

> E

>

>

RECENT NEWS

Get unlimited access!

Join EDGE ADVANTAGE and unlock The O&P EDGE's vast library of archived content.

O&P JOBS

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

The O&P EDGE Magazine
Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?