Joe, I think this idea poses a number of challanges. NBCOT, AOTA and state OT boards have different missions. I am not sure how they could be combined without creating conflicts of interest. You'll recall that AOTCB (now NBCOT) was separated from AOTA in the mid-1980s as the result of anti-trust concerns. AOTA and NBCOT's ability to regulate the profession is limited compared to that of government. Governments may impose fines, restrict one's rights to practice or even impose jail sentences. And I do understand the structure of Canada's system, but I think health professions regulation has been historically different in the United States. In terms of continuing competence, states, NBCOT and AOTA all have roles. My department recently prepared this fact sheet in response to an RA charge: http://www.aota.org/members/area6/2006-ra/pres2-A14a.pdf (Ron, I'd post these documents to the listserv if it allowed attachments).
I've enjoyed the recent discussion on the listserv. Today I am off to AOTA's Annual Conference in Charlotte, NC so I may not be able to reply to messages right away. Chuck >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/24/06 9:28 AM >>> Bill: I am all for it, too. Feasibility about something like this is questionable but not out of the question. NBCOT, AOTA, and the individual State Boards (equivalent to the provincial colleges) will have to coordinate the disbursement of funds after the practitioner pays his/her dues to a central facility. Hypothetically, if I apply to my state board to renew my license, they should charge me my license fees, NBCOT recert fees and my choice of state and/or national association fees. The state thus knows that I am in good standing with NBCOT (if required) and ensures that I am a member of my professional association/s as well. The state association of OT and the national association should then coordinate, how attractive they can make it to have a practitioner become members of both. Or, if an individual is a member of one and not the other, the association should still be able to share funds to be resourceful enough. Fast-forwarding a bit, after the initial certification, the state may take up all requirements to ensure competence and NBCOT may just take the role of a certification board (general entry or specialized). May be the NBCOT recertification fees can altogether be eliminated versus confusing between whether or not one should keep up with the COTA nad OTR titles while the state protects the public interest by certifying continued competence. I also see a bigger role for AOTA to play in this model. In my opinion this will also help to generate closer ties between the state boards, AOTA and state associations as well. I think this would be welcomed by AOTA. Can we do anything about it? We should try. Bill we can send in a petition to the Board of Directors or draft an RA motion backed by as many practitioners as we can get. May be Chuck can help us with this process. And, Bill if you can make this happen, you got my vote for the next elections :-) Regarding the issue of professional designations as pointed out earlier, I am glad to see that AOTA is proposing using OT or OT/L and OTA or OTA/L. It would make sense ( also then we are looking at another reason to opt out of the redundant process of getting recertified by NBCOT and keeping up with the state competency measures). If I may add my radical thought to it, I would just go with "OT" or "OTA" as the designators along with academic degrees and specialist certifications, i.e, John Doe, OTD, OT, CHT. I don't see titles like MD/L, DO R/L, Psy. D./L, etc.. Ofcourse, we assume if they are practicing they are licensed and registered as needed. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Maloney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <OTlist@otnow.com> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [OTlist] OTlist Digest, Vol 15, Issue 14 > Amen, Joe! > > You asked: "How many of us in the US will welcome the > mandatory state or national association membership > along with a yearly 'recertification' process by the > NBCOT, similar to the Canadian system?" > > I would! And, I absolutely agree with you that the > Canadians have it right. In fact, you beat me to > stating that (I was going to post a message stating > this same thing). Thanks for sharing this thought. > How feasible do you think this would be to implement > in the U.S.? I sure hope that many more of us, > including our leadership will get on board with this > notion. > > Bill Maloney, OTR > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Send OTlist mailing list submissions to >> OTlist@otnow.com >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, >> visit >> http://otnow.com/mailman/listinfo/otlist_otnow.com >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body >> 'help' to >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it >> is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of OTlist digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: The Public Occupational Therapy Journal - >> OccupationalTherapy and Evidence Based >> Practice (Joe Wells) >> 2. Re: OTlist Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8 (Joe Wells) >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:19:26 -0400 >> From: "Joe Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [OTlist] The Public Occupational >> Therapy Journal - >> OccupationalTherapy and Evidence Based Practice >> To: <OTlist@OTnow.com> >> Message-ID: >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; >> charset="iso-8859-1"; >> reply-type=original >> >> Congratulations Urs! Sites like yours are much >> needed by the OT community. I >> wish you and the other organizers the very best and >> congratulate you on a >> work well done. >> >> Joe Wells >> www.americare-health.com >> www.f-cot.org >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Urs Albisser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 8:38 AM >> Subject: [OTlist] The Public Occupational Therapy >> Journal - >> OccupationalTherapy and Evidence Based Practice >> >> >> > Hi OT's, >> > >> > I am working in the neurological department of a >> rehabilitation clinic in >> > Switzerland. I have built a new international >> community website named 'The >> > Public Occupational Therapy Journal' the goal of >> which is to bring >> > together >> > the knowledge of clinical expertise and evidence >> based practice in >> > occupational therapy. Well, now the site is ready >> for use and accessible >> > on: >> > >> > www.ot.public-journal.com >> > >> > Because it's a new site there are only a few >> contributions added as yet, >> > but >> > you can change all that if you take part actively! >> > >> > Discussion forums: >> > It would be great if you could take part in >> numerous discussions in the >> > 'Occupational Therapy Forum' and/or the forum >> concerning Evidence Based >> > Practice. >> > >> > Downloads: >> > As mentioned above, the aim of the site is to >> bring together knowledge >> > relating to occupational therapy -perhaps you have >> written professional >> > articles or have given a lecture relating to O.T. >> you would like to >> > submit. >> > You can upload entire documents in the download >> section to provide them to >> > other OT's. >> > So do profit yourself with the knowledge from >> documents uploaded by other >> > OT's and they will certainly appreciate your >> articles, presentations or >> > any >> > other specific professional documents too! >> > (Important: Please check the copyright of the >> documents before you upload >> > them. If necessary get the approval prior to >> publishing/copying etc - Only >> > the owner of the copyright decides on what happens >> with his or her >> > document). >> > >> > News: >> > Do you have some news relating to occupational >> therapy? Post them for free >> > to one of the following topics: >> > | Articles | Books | Downloads | Education | >> Events | Jobs | News | >> > Projects >> > | >> > >> > Links: >> > Do you know interesting OT websites? If so, you >> can add them to our link >> > module. Or if you are an owner of a website >> yourself then it would be >> > great >> > if you could in turn link back to us. Please help >> to make The Public >> > Occupational Therapy Journal known. Thank you very >> much! >> > >> > >> > If you would like to let me know what you think >> about the website, I'd be >> > very pleased to get your feedback. >> > >> > Thank you in advance. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > Urs Albisser >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Unsubscribe? >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > Change options? >> > www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com >> > >> > Archive? >> > www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com >> > >> > Help? >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:45:59 -0400 >> From: "Joe Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [OTlist] OTlist Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8 >> To: <OTlist@OTnow.com> >> Message-ID: >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; >> charset="iso-8859-1"; >> reply-type=original >> >> How many of us in the US will welcome the mandatory >> state or national >> association membership along with an yearly >> 'recertification' process by the >> NBCOT, similar to the Canadian system? >> Currently, the cost of AOTA membership is $225.00. >> With 35,000 members, AOTA >> receives revenues in the amount of approximately $ >> 7,875,000.00 through >> membership dues. If all practicing OT and OTAs >> (~115,000) were manadated to >> become members, the same amount of revenues could be >> generated by charging >> less than $70.00 per individual. Again the costs >> such as maintaining an >> online library etc. would drive down due to >> increased sharing. I was told >> that an institution that had approximately 200 >> members were required to pay >> $ 12,000.00 per year to access the OVID Gateway >> (Medline, ACP, Cochrane, >> CINAHL, Medline, OVID all included). However, >> individual access costs around >> $ 250.00 yearly. I am assuming that with mandatory >> membership we could bring >> the governance process under one umbrella, better >> serve membership interests >> and have a more unified existence at a much lower >> cost to the practitioners. >> In my opinion the Canadians have it right again! >> Joe >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Bill Maloney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <OTlist@otnow.com> >> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:09 AM >> Subject: Re: [OTlist] OTlist Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8 >> >> >> > Ok, I've been sitting on the sidelines for a bit, >> but >> > now must speak up. Chuck, regarding a few of the >> > "eight elements viewed as relevant to a shared >> vision" >> > from the "Proposed Centennial Vision Statement" >> you >> > detailed in Vol 15, Issue 8: >> > >> > "3. Membership equals professional responsibility" >> > >> > How about we start by unifying our professional >> > competence governance (in reference to one of the >> "six >> > barriers" identified in the proposal "4. >> Inconsistent >> > competencies for education and practice") I pay >> dues >> > to the AOTA, get access (albeit LIMITED - more >> about >> > this later) to the "members only" section of the >> > website. Then, to legally use the designation of >> OTR, >> > which I initially earned after passing the >> > certification exam (issued originally by the AOTA >> > prior to its historic, and well-publicized battle >> with >> > what's now the separate entity known as the NBCOT) >> I >> > pay an extra $60.00 biennially. Come on. >> > Professional responsibility indeed. What about >> the >> > responsibility of the leadership to it's paying >> > members? >> > >> > Then, from the "six barriers identified" we have: >> > "3. Limited appeal of AOTA membership" >> > >> > Well, for starters refer to the above information. >> > Can you tell me why any responsible consumer would >> be >> > attracted to pay into such a chaotic and >> non-cohesive >> > organization? We can't even agree amongst our own >> > colleagues as to how to credential and identify >> our >> > practitioners: we have OTR, LOT, OT/L, OTA/L, >> COTA, >> > LOTA, LOTR. Are you kidding me? Professional >> > identity indeed! Check out our colleagues on the >> > other side of the isle, and chances are you'll >> find >> > one designation: PT or SLP----period. >> > >> > It is a little surreal to read all of the >> > "cheerleading" and well-meaning pseudo-positive >> > statements from the leadership individuals posting >> to >> > this list. I suggest we cease with all the >> political >> > rhetoric and posturing and start by unifying our >> > profession once again, present a TRUE united >> front, >> > then build a plan to be a relevant player in the >> > healthcare environment. I mean seriously, did >> > everyone read the same posting from Chuck that I >> did? >> > Is it me, or is it fraught with useless committee >> > lingo? No offense intended to anyone, but can we >> > please see some real results before imploring >> > practitioners to "be responsible" by joining? >> > >> > And finally, my last rant: >> > Under the "Four strategic directions emerged after >> a >> > careful analysis of barriers and opportunities" >> > section: >> > "1. Building the capacity to fulfill the >> profession's >> > potential and mission." >> > >> > One of the bullet points is "* Increasing research >> > capacity and productivity" >> > >> > When I log in as a member on the AOTA website, and >> > attempt to access the "OT Search" feature, I find >> that >> > I must pay an additional $75/year (since I am a >> > member, but would pay $200.00/year if I weren't) >> to >> > fully use the research capabilities on the site. >> So, >> > if I choose to use the designation of OTR, (for >> which >> > I felt I initially "earned" the right to use) I >> pay >> > $60.00 biennially to another entity to do so. If >> I >> > elect to be an AOTA member, I pay $225.00 >> annually. >> > If I want to access research capabilities in the >> > comfort of my own home on the website for which I >> > purchased a membership I pay an additional $75.00. >> > Anyone? -- Unsubscribe? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Change options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com Help? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
