March 28, 2008
Dear Mr. Mark Levy,
Recently, I became aware of some opinions of the Board and suggested changes to the language of the OPP Licensure Bill. Both of these items are concerning from several standpoints and I would like to clarify the inaccuracies.
First of all, it may be beneficial for the Board to have a clear understanding of the course curriculum currently being taught for pedorthic education. For example, Temple University and Oklahoma State University in conjunction with the PFA curriculum provide Sub Talar Control Orthoses, as well as Ankle Foot Orthoses education and both of these devices extend proximal (above) to the ankle. Therefore, it is not necessary to restrict the scope of practice for Pedorthists because they are competently taught how to design and dispense these appliances.
Secondly, no objective evidence has been presented to support the current scope of practice limitation. The limitations have a distinct feel of restraint of trade. A logical person would therefore assume that this is a politically driven agenda. In addition, it appears that the Board does not have an impartial Medical Director Representative to bring an unbiased objective view.
Thirdly, to continue this narrow scope will distinctly limit Ohio citizens’ access to care that they deserve. Obviously, this limited accessibility is not in the patients’ best interest.
Your thoughtful consideration of these points is appreciated. Please let me know how I can support the change.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Veder, LO, LPed,
PFA, Board Member
937-336-2000
gaitwell@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment