<img style="float: right;" src="https://opedge.com/Content/OldArticles/images/2009-03_12/pers.jpg" hspace="4" vspace="4" /> <b>I'm an old shoe-nearly worn out-</b> but my passion for orthotics and prosthetics has never diminished. And, like many in the field today, I was attracted to orthotics and prosthetics because of the great personal satisfaction that often accompanies successful outcomes for those who need our services. Being in the same room with families as they watch their young child stand for the first time at the age of three or four can be a very emotional moment for all concerned-orthotists and prosthetists included. As the years pass, we begin to realize how fortunate we are to play a part in helping to make someone's life a little better. Are there failures along the way? Of course there are, and these moments are not pleasant for any of us. But when a successful outcome happens, and it usually does now and then, the gratification that is often felt is hard to put aside. I believe those moments are largely responsible for helping many of us "hang in there" in spite of unpleasant professional and business issues that seem to come our way more often than they should. The latest issue is the Medicare surety bond requirement, which comes at a time when many of us can least afford the time and resources to deal with it. But deal with it we must. How, then, can we turn this energy into a positive outcome for O&P? Perhaps, like our recent presidential election, which has seemingly energized citizens of diverse backgrounds and persuasions, we can take this opportunity to energize the O&P community in a way that helps us focus our energies on important issues, the Medicare surety bond issue being one of them. At the present time, it appears that there are far more questions than answers about the surety bond. But in a nutshell, it appears that licensed orthotists and prosthetists practicing in a state that requires licensure are exempt from the surety bond. Physicians and therapists, also licensed professionals, are exempt as well. This comes to me from a much-respected O&P source. And it appears that the exemption is only valid when the facility is "solely owned" by the licensed practitioners. When required, it appears that a bond will need to be issued for each National Provider Identifier (NPI) number that facilities have in effect. Two NPI numbers would mean two surety bonds. It also seems that the cost may be about 10 percent of the bond value, consistent with bonds of other types and the financial risks associated with the same. I have also read that a surety bond is not easy to get, and some in our profession will not qualify. It should be emphasized that a surety bond is not an insurance policy. Should the government call a bond, the O&P practice would still owe that money in full to the bond company. From my viewpoint, it appears that all money spent to purchase a surety bond will simply be an additional cost of doing business in the O&P profession. Until final language is printed and released, we really can't interpret this new regulation with any accuracy. It is my understanding that a committee is currently working on this issue with Medicare and that some progress is being made. So, as was suggested to me by a few knowledgeable practitioners, we need to sit back for a while longer and give the committee a chance to improve the situation. But when the time comes, I believe it will be important that each of us be willing to quickly voice our concerns and participate as our professional committees might request in the coming days. In the meantime, I am hopeful that those currently involved will be able to improve this regulation for each professional O&P practice. <i> Wil Haines, CPO, is the owner of Maxcare Bionics, Indianapolis, Indiana. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:whaines@maxcarebionics.com">whaines@maxcarebionics.com</a></i>
<img style="float: right;" src="https://opedge.com/Content/OldArticles/images/2009-03_12/pers.jpg" hspace="4" vspace="4" /> <b>I'm an old shoe-nearly worn out-</b> but my passion for orthotics and prosthetics has never diminished. And, like many in the field today, I was attracted to orthotics and prosthetics because of the great personal satisfaction that often accompanies successful outcomes for those who need our services. Being in the same room with families as they watch their young child stand for the first time at the age of three or four can be a very emotional moment for all concerned-orthotists and prosthetists included. As the years pass, we begin to realize how fortunate we are to play a part in helping to make someone's life a little better. Are there failures along the way? Of course there are, and these moments are not pleasant for any of us. But when a successful outcome happens, and it usually does now and then, the gratification that is often felt is hard to put aside. I believe those moments are largely responsible for helping many of us "hang in there" in spite of unpleasant professional and business issues that seem to come our way more often than they should. The latest issue is the Medicare surety bond requirement, which comes at a time when many of us can least afford the time and resources to deal with it. But deal with it we must. How, then, can we turn this energy into a positive outcome for O&P? Perhaps, like our recent presidential election, which has seemingly energized citizens of diverse backgrounds and persuasions, we can take this opportunity to energize the O&P community in a way that helps us focus our energies on important issues, the Medicare surety bond issue being one of them. At the present time, it appears that there are far more questions than answers about the surety bond. But in a nutshell, it appears that licensed orthotists and prosthetists practicing in a state that requires licensure are exempt from the surety bond. Physicians and therapists, also licensed professionals, are exempt as well. This comes to me from a much-respected O&P source. And it appears that the exemption is only valid when the facility is "solely owned" by the licensed practitioners. When required, it appears that a bond will need to be issued for each National Provider Identifier (NPI) number that facilities have in effect. Two NPI numbers would mean two surety bonds. It also seems that the cost may be about 10 percent of the bond value, consistent with bonds of other types and the financial risks associated with the same. I have also read that a surety bond is not easy to get, and some in our profession will not qualify. It should be emphasized that a surety bond is not an insurance policy. Should the government call a bond, the O&P practice would still owe that money in full to the bond company. From my viewpoint, it appears that all money spent to purchase a surety bond will simply be an additional cost of doing business in the O&P profession. Until final language is printed and released, we really can't interpret this new regulation with any accuracy. It is my understanding that a committee is currently working on this issue with Medicare and that some progress is being made. So, as was suggested to me by a few knowledgeable practitioners, we need to sit back for a while longer and give the committee a chance to improve the situation. But when the time comes, I believe it will be important that each of us be willing to quickly voice our concerns and participate as our professional committees might request in the coming days. In the meantime, I am hopeful that those currently involved will be able to improve this regulation for each professional O&P practice. <i> Wil Haines, CPO, is the owner of Maxcare Bionics, Indianapolis, Indiana. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:whaines@maxcarebionics.com">whaines@maxcarebionics.com</a></i>