AMA intruding on our turf

[BigAl]

Don't know how many of you are aware that the AMA has issued a brief on Audiology scope of practice but here it is...
http://asha.http.internapcdn.net/asha_vitalstream_com/email/2009/AMAScopeOfPracticeDataSeries.pdf

Here is the basic summary by AAA...
http://www.audiology.org/advocacy/grnews/Pages/gr200910a.aspx

Here is an update from Vic Gladstone, he is the ASHA chief staff office for Audiology...

We have had some questions regarding the status of AMA?s Scope of Practice Data Series: Audiologists, so I wanted to provide everyone with an update.

We understand that the AMA has created ?issue briefs? for some of their Scope of Practice documents for use by their members at the state and local levels. To date, AMA has not made public any issue briefs related to audiology, and we don?t know if any have been developed. To counteract the information provided in the original AMA Scope of Practice document, ASHA is creating materials for members to use at the state and local levels. We also continue to work with the Coalition for Patient Rights (CPR), an organization that ASHA helped establish in 2006 that includes more than 35 organizations representing more than one million nonphysician, health-care providers. The CPR has discussed meeting with the AMA on this issue. While we and other members of the CPR have reservations, we believe there is benefit to opening a dialogue with the AMA to discuss areas of common interest and concern. We are beginning to work on setting up such a meeting and will keep you posted on the outcomes of our discussions with the AMA.

I also wanted to update you about another issue of prime importance to audiologists, namely, comprehensive Medicare coverage of audiology services. As I?m sure you know, ASHA is strongly advocating for improved public and private coverage and reimbursement policies for audiologists across the age span. This includes preventive, diagnostic, and habilitative and rehabilitative treatment services, and equipment. However, currently there is direct-access legislation before Congress that would create an audiology benefit that is strictly diagnostic in nature. ASHA is very uncomfortable with this legislation and believes the bill locks audiologists into a narrow diagnostic category that, if passed, would be extremely difficult to amend or change. In our view, a comprehensive Medicare audiologic benefit that includes both diagnostic and rehabilitative services is in the best long-term interest of the profession. This is a top advocacy priority for ASHA. We have prepared a brief Q&A (http://www.asha.org/aud/Comprehensive-Medicare-Coverage-of-Audiology-Services/ <http://lists.asha.org/t/651227/60952033/36103/0/>) that we hope will answer some of the questions you may have about this important issue.

Please don?t hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions.

Vic

This will have a direct impact on all of us, AMA only represents a small portion of physicians, but ASHA and AAA combined represent all audiologists. We have to stand up to the AMA and tell them to mind their own business and not dictate to others what is not in their control. They basically want more power for billing purposes, this is what it always comes down to. If we don't act now as future audiologists, we will only have ourselves to blame for whatever comes of this matter.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dustbug10]

AMA has been a thorn in our side for a while now. It's going to take a collaborative effort from professionals and students alike to provide a voice here. It's easy to say, "oh well, the next person will take care of it." That line of thinking is what caused some the issues we're facing today.

 

[rEliseMe]

This will have a direct impact on all of us, AMA only represents a small portion of physicians, but ASHA and AAA combined represent all audiologists. We have to stand up to the AMA and tell them to mind their own business and not dictate to others what is not in their control. They basically want more power for billing purposes, this is what it always comes down to. If we don't act now as future audiologists, we will only have ourselves to blame for whatever comes of this matter.

I'm still waiting to hear more from ASHA. The initial AMA report came out in 2009! We need to strike back quickly, because what is accepted for too long is much harder to change.

I have sent emails regarding the legislation, though. I advise everyone here to do that if they haven't already. There are form letters available on ASHA (and I think AAA)'s website; all you have to do is fill in your email address and tweak details (if you want) and you're good to go. It automatically sends to your senators/representatives based on your location.

 

[Cochlear]

I have sent emails regarding the legislation, though. I advise everyone here to do that if they haven't already. There are form letters available on ASHA (and I think AAA)'s website; all you have to do is fill in your email address and tweak details (if you want) and you're good to go. It automatically sends to your senators/representatives based on your location.

Yes!

AAA: 1) http://capwiz.com/audiology/issues/alert/?alertid=14745506
2) http://capwiz.com/audiology/issues/alert/?alertid=13002406
3) http://capwiz.com/audiology/issues/alert/?alertid=14745811

ASHA: 1) http://takeaction.asha.org/asha2/home/

Very simple steps to take in order to preserve our profession. It only takes a couple minutes at most.

 

[Audie2014]

"In September, while the task force was hard at work, the Academy sent a letter to the AMA acknowledging the existence and goal of this module. The AMA replied with the invitation to assist in correcting factual errors, and included the latest version of the module. The Board of Directors decided not to participate in a review process that was beyond the Academy’s control, and so declined to participate."

I don't understand this part. Are they saying that this review won't be distributed to AMA members?

 

[rEliseMe]

"In September, while the task force was hard at work, the Academy sent a letter to the AMA acknowledging the existence and goal of this module. The AMA replied with the invitation to assist in correcting factual errors, and included the latest version of the module. The Board of Directors decided not to participate in a review process that was beyond the Academy's control, and so declined to participate."

I don't understand this part. Are they saying that this review won't be distributed to AMA members?

Sounds to me like AAA didn't want to respond to the AMA review because they didn't want to be incorrectly cited. The AMA probably would not have sent the "fact-checked" version for approval (or AAA thought this would happen) and AAA probably didn't want to give undue legitimacy to the AMA's claims. That would have been my reasons for declining. This way, AAA and ASHA can still say that the AMA did not consult with them.

UGH. Politics. Hate it.