Guest guest Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 To followup on 's good question, wouldn't it be preferable to have each CCO be served by "any willing credentialed provider," rather than percentaged ratios of provider types? Sears, DC, IAYT1218 NW 21st AvePortland, Oregon 97209v: 503-225-0255f: 503-525-6902www.docbones.comOn Mar 7, 2012, at 9:22 AM, wrote: I am not sure what either you or michael are trying to say.Are we trying to ensure that folks have reasonable freedom and ability to choose qualified/licensed provider types?If so, then are you trying to word it so if they limit the number of a given provider type (i.e. 100 MD/DOs) that they apply the same relative ratio when limiting other provider types (i.e. 10-20 chiros, 5-10 NDs, etc)??? Or are you trying to say something else?Again, i did not understand this wording that you put forward.john collins-- Note: In future please use this Gmail address instead of: cdc@... and Spbkchiro@.... Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 We simply want the coming administrative rule language to clearly state what an “adequate network” of provider types within Oregon’s coming “Coordinated Care Organizations” means. Further we want to write that language so the CCO network(s) are not extremely restrictive as in only allowing “token” numbers of DCs and other providers on their networks. So we can say that the same percentage of provider types in the CCO’s service area must be allowed in the network. Another way to say it would be…a sufficient number of healthcare practitioners from all licensed or certified healthcare professions are members of the CCO network of providers such that all patients can receive care from a provider type of their choice without unnecessary waiting periods or other restrictions….Vern Saboe From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 9:22 AM Subject: adequate network I am not sure what either you or michael are trying to say.Are we trying to ensure that folks have reasonable freedom and ability to choose qualified/licensed provider types?If so, then are you trying to word it so if they limit the number of a given provider type (i.e. 100 MD/DOs) that they apply the same relative ratio when limiting other provider types (i.e. 10-20 chiros, 5-10 NDs, etc)???Or are you trying to say something else?Again, i did not understand this wording that you put forward.john collins-- Note: In future please use this Gmail address instead of: cdc@... and Spbkchiro@.... Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Will not fly…the language copied from the federal law the ACA and its coalition got through specifically states this is not and “any willing provider” law…if we would have attempted such we would have gotten nowhere and been left with nothing as there is just to much push back for any willing provider provisions including from the legislators…namely Co-Chair Mitch Greenlick…which surprises me….Vern From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of SearsSent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10:05 AM Cc: Subject: Re: adequate network To followup on 's good question, wouldn't it be preferable to have each CCO be served by " any willing credentialed provider, " rather than percentaged ratios of provider types? Sears, DC, IAYT1218 NW 21st AvePortland, Oregon 97209v: 503-225-0255f: 503-525-6902www.docbones.com On Mar 7, 2012, at 9:22 AM, wrote: I am not sure what either you or michael are trying to say.Are we trying to ensure that folks have reasonable freedom and ability to choose qualified/licensed provider types?If so, then are you trying to word it so if they limit the number of a given provider type (i.e. 100 MD/DOs) that they apply the same relative ratio when limiting other provider types (i.e. 10-20 chiros, 5-10 NDs, etc)???Or are you trying to say something else?Again, i did not understand this wording that you put forward.john collins-- Note: In future please use this Gmail address instead of: cdc@... and Spbkchiro@.... Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 That's a good question... Are we talking adding 1:1 medical:chiropractic, or a "ratio" as Dr. points out (1%, or 5%, or 10% of each provider type?). (:-) RR adequate network I am not sure what either you or michael are trying to say.Are we trying to ensure that folks have reasonable freedom and ability to choose qualified/licensed provider types?If so, then are you trying to word it so if they limit the number of a given provider type (i.e. 100 MD/DOs) that they apply the same relative ratio when limiting other provider types (i.e. 10-20 chiros, 5-10 NDs, etc)???Or are you trying to say something else?Again, i did not understand this wording that you put forward.john collins-- Note: In future please use this Gmail address instead of: cdc@... and Spbkchiro@.... Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 All, Isn't the VA likely to come down with all kinds of restrictions regarding people who will be allowed 'into' their service.....meaning it seems to me that our interns have a bettr chance of being accepted than numerous field practitioners. Given their interest in military mindedness, how many of our field docs would/could qualify. I certainly can't, having no direct military background. Getting our interns in there is a MAJOR step into their system. Once they see what can be done for the vets with this added service, referrals out into the community can occur as the various vets 'go home'. my 2 cents. SunnySunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7CEugene, Oregon, 97401541- 654-0850; Fx; 541- 654-0834www.drsunnykierstyn.com johncollinsdc@...; From: vsaboe@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 10:10:35 -0800Subject: RE: adequate network We simply want the coming administrative rule language to clearly state what an “adequate network” of provider types within Oregon’s coming “Coordinated Care Organizations” means. Further we want to write that language so the CCO network(s) are not extremely restrictive as in only allowing “token” numbers of DCs and other providers on their networks. So we can say that the same percentage of provider types in the CCO’s service area must be allowed in the network. Another way to say it would be…a sufficient number of healthcare practitioners from all licensed or certified healthcare professions are members of the CCO network of providers such that all patients can receive care from a provider type of their choice without unnecessary waiting periods or other restrictions….Vern Saboe From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 9:22 AM Subject: adequate network I am not sure what either you or michael are trying to say.Are we trying to ensure that folks have reasonable freedom and ability to choose qualified/licensed provider types?If so, then are you trying to word it so if they limit the number of a given provider type (i.e. 100 MD/DOs) that they apply the same relative ratio when limiting other provider types (i.e. 10-20 chiros, 5-10 NDs, etc)???Or are you trying to say something else?Again, i did not understand this wording that you put forward.john collins-- Note: In future please use this Gmail address instead of: cdc@... and Spbkchiro@.... Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Sunny I believe Dr. was referring to the “Coordinated Care Organizations” with Senate Bill 1580 and the non-discrimination language as per how to ensure the soon to be written administrative rules put us in a better position and the issue I posed was what an “adequate network” of provider types should constitute. In short his post wasn’t about veterans issues nor the meeting we are putting together at the Portland VA Medical Center…Vern SAboe From: Sunny Kierstyn [mailto:skrndc1@...] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:24 PMVern Saboe; johncollinsdc@...; Subject: RE: adequate network All, Isn't the VA likely to come down with all kinds of restrictions regarding people who will be allowed 'into' their service.....meaning it seems to me that our interns have a bettr chance of being accepted than numerous field practitioners. Given their interest in military mindedness, how many of our field docs would/could qualify. I certainly can't, having no direct military background. Getting our interns in there is a MAJOR step into their system. Once they see what can be done for the vets with this added service, referrals out into the community can occur as the various vets 'go home'. my 2 cents. SunnySunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7CEugene, Oregon, 97401541- 654-0850; Fx; 541- 654-0834www.drsunnykierstyn.com johncollinsdc@...; From: vsaboe@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 10:10:35 -0800Subject: RE: adequate network We simply want the coming administrative rule language to clearly state what an “adequate network” of provider types within Oregon’s coming “Coordinated Care Organizations” means. Further we want to write that language so the CCO network(s) are not extremely restrictive as in only allowing “token” numbers of DCs and other providers on their networks. So we can say that the same percentage of provider types in the CCO’s service area must be allowed in the network. Another way to say it would be…a sufficient number of healthcare practitioners from all licensed or certified healthcare professions are members of the CCO network of providers such that all patients can receive care from a provider type of their choice without unnecessary waiting periods or other restrictions….Vern Saboe From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 9:22 AM Subject: adequate network I am not sure what either you or michael are trying to say.Are we trying to ensure that folks have reasonable freedom and ability to choose qualified/licensed provider types?If so, then are you trying to word it so if they limit the number of a given provider type (i.e. 100 MD/DOs) that they apply the same relative ratio when limiting other provider types (i.e. 10-20 chiros, 5-10 NDs, etc)???Or are you trying to say something else?Again, i did not understand this wording that you put forward.john collins-- Note: In future please use this Gmail address instead of: cdc@... and Spbkchiro@.... Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Ditto, says Dr. Ann . :>)From: "Sunny Kierstyn" <skrndc1@...>"Vern Saboe" <vsaboe@...>, johncollinsdc@..., "" < >Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 3:23:51 PMSubject: RE: adequate network All, Isn't the VA likely to come down with all kinds of restrictions regarding people who will be allowed 'into' their service.....meaning it seems to me that our interns have a bettr chance of being accepted than numerous field practitioners. Given their interest in military mindedness, how many of our field docs would/could qualify. I certainly can't, having no direct military background. Getting our interns in there is a MAJOR step into their system. Once they see what can be done for the vets with this added service, referrals out into the community can occur as the various vets 'go home'. my 2 cents. SunnySunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7CEugene, Oregon, 97401541- 654-0850; Fx; 541- 654-0834www.drsunnykierstyn.com johncollinsdc@...; From: vsaboe@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 10:10:35 -0800Subject: RE: adequate network We simply want the coming administrative rule language to clearly state what an “adequate network†of provider types within Oregon’s coming “Coordinated Care Organizations†means. Further we want to write that language so the CCO network(s) are not extremely restrictive as in only allowing “token†numbers of DCs and other providers on their networks. So we can say that the same percentage of provider types in the CCO’s service area must be allowed in the network. Another way to say it would be…a sufficient number of healthcare practitioners from all licensed or certified healthcare professions are members of the CCO network of providers such that all patients can receive care from a provider type of their choice without unnecessary waiting periods or other restrictions….Vern Saboe From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 9:22 AM Subject: adequate network I am not sure what either you or michael are trying to say.Are we trying to ensure that folks have reasonable freedom and ability to choose qualified/licensed provider types?If so, then are you trying to word it so if they limit the number of a given provider type (i.e. 100 MD/DOs) that they apply the same relative ratio when limiting other provider types (i.e. 10-20 chiros, 5-10 NDs, etc)???Or are you trying to say something else?Again, i did not understand this wording that you put forward.john collins-- Note: In future please use this Gmail address instead of: cdc@... and Spbkchiro@.... Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.