I’d like to thank John for his timely, informative, thoughtful and rational
letter regarding his thoughts on the issue of consolidation. Considering his
involvement and knowledge of the workings at the National Office over the past
decades, his opinion is undoubtedly pertinent and I would suggest that
everyone print out his letter and bring it to work to share with your fellow
practitioners to educate and facilitate discussion amongst our non-online
colleagues!
I can see John’s point on having a separate organization for the
manufacturers and suppliers (apart from the P and O facilities), but there may
be something to be said for keeping them together from the aspect that they
are all businesses. The other organizations address totally different need of
the profession such as the education, certification and accreditation needs of
the profession which should be separate for appearances’ sake alone!
On the other hand, he observed that the AOPA is having a difficult time
with participation and attendance at meetings. This may be partly due to the
practice of some chain companies convincing the manufacturers/suppliers to
give “closed” continuing educational meetings/seminars. This may appear save
money for those involved, but it puts a greater load on the rest of the
profession, like the meeting organizers (who now have fewer attendees who need
of all their efforts) and individual facilities and practitioners who have to
bear the increased cost of attending the educational meetings. If this “big
boy” influence is working on our suppliers within our industry to the
detriment of the rest of us, then it follows that the politics and therefore
the decisions of our organizations are at risk as well. However, if the
suppliers weren’t in the AOPA, it would just be the big boys vs the individual
facilities and majority would rule!
As Mr. Billock said, pointed out, the organizations do have some
overlapping business, but their primary purposes are quite different and to
blend everyone together into “one voice” is sure to dilute everyone’s position
except for the few who have the time and money to head up the merged
organization.
When it comes right down to it, there will be no less work that needs to
be done in any quarter, and a larger, unwieldy organization is even less
likely to effectively focus on the varied needs of everyone involved. In the
long run, this will negatively impact everyone, including our patients!
Finally, with the current organizations housed in the same building, it
would seem that the physical, secretarial and logistic needs are already being
shared. Having four different organizations certainly carries more clout that
one, and if they work together on the lobbying front, our gains will certainly
be enhanced!
Randy McFarland, CPO
Fullerton, CA
