Wade;
There is, has been and will remain a total lack of appreciation for what AOPA
already does for the Academy. When the Academy helps a state effort such as
you mention in Florida they do so out of funds being generated as a result of
the current national office agreement. The Academy pays a percentage of the
cost of running the national staff and other related expenses. The Academy
has never paid its rightful share of those expenses and has instead been
subsidized by AOPA and ABC by their willingness to carry a larger percentage
than they would otherwise be responsible for. If AOPA totally opposed the
mission of the Academy I doubt they would be so generous.
The Academy is made up of people like you and me that believe strongly in what
the Academy stands for. But we represent (at our best) about 55-60% of
available ABC practitioners. I don’t know what your state Academy membership
numbers are compared to the national rate but I hope you can visualize the
problem. While membership in the Academy on a National basis is at an all-
time high (55-60%), so too are costs.
The point to all this is: instead of subsidizing each others infrastructure
and governance systems, just because “We’ve always done it this way.” Our
united profession ought to be spending our resources on ways to improve and
secure quality outcomes for our patients and thereby secure the future of P&O
for ALL our members. The savings of having one less board of directors should
be about $30,000.0 per year (if my calculations are correct). That alone will
generate $300,000.00 over 10 years. I’m sure this money would be better spent
advocating on be half of education.
All for now.
Bob Brown, Sr, CPO, FAAOP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a message dated 3/13/99 10:15:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
>
> It was very evident that there are differences in the objectives of the
> three
> organizations, our state officials analyzed and recognized the motives of
> all
> groups presenting information and suggestions on the formulation of our
> practice act. Not just ABC, AOPA, and AAOP, but also DME, Podiatry,
> Chiropractic, Pt’s, Pharmacists, BOC, Ot’s even hearing aids, eyeglasses,
> Dentists… you name it, they were there… The fact that we presented
our
> data without mixing product with practice made for a significantly more
> legitimate argument for regulation…
>We need more $$ for education, if we present as a consolidated
>group, we become the “salesmen” for the manufacturers (in the eyes of the
>politico’s). They will be less inclined to recognize the profession, and
more
>inclined to see our causes as self serving for the “business” of P & O…
>that my friends, I assure you, is a place we don’t want to be…. I would
>also be inclined to think that this same sentiment will be universal on any
>issue we present either on a state or national level…. In politics, the
appearance of >a conflict of interest is just as significant as the real
>deal… they don’t care what we think about ourselves… just how we look to
>the outside world!!! that’s the reality of politics.
>
