APMA News - January 2013 - (Page 27)

A Creating the Future: A 2012 Retrospective on Advocacy by State Components sion. Any winning strategy engages state component member podiatrists in the process. Thus, the grassroots advocacy category attempts to determine whether members are communicating regularly with their legislators. The results show a need for growth in this category in 2013: State component scores were decidedly average. With four points available in this category, only 38 percent of states earned a two or greater. Although more than three-quarters of states have set up a phone tree or other means to mobilize members, only one-third have hosted a lobby day at the state capitol in the last two years, and just half make use of APMA’s eAdvocacy tool (www.apma.org/eAdvocacy) and have established a key contact program. Grassroots advocacy has been a renewed focus for APMA recently, and we hope to see an increase in member activism during 2013. The eAdvocacy site has been fully integrated with APMA.org and can be customized to include state-specific issues. The CPA is available to provide guidance on how to set up a state capitol lobby day similar to the Podiatric Legislative Conference APMA holds in March. PMA’s Vision 2015 is a roadmap to the future of podiatric medicine. The Vision 2015 initiative envisions a future in which the profession has obtained parity with allopathic and osteopathic medicine. However, visualizing the future is only the beginning, and the profession must make it happen through continued advancement and advocacy. With 2015 around the corner, APMA has been laying the necessary groundwork to help carry the profession forward. In 2010, the APMA House of Delegates supported the creation of the Center for Professional Advocacy (CPA). The CPA provides direction for legal, regulatory, and state legislative advocacy activities that advance podiatric medicine. The CPA develops resources and provides support to resolve conflicts commonly confronted by APMA members and state components. In an effort to assist state component societies and identify their strengths and weaknesses, the CPA developed an advocacy self-assessment survey for state leadership to complete. The self-assessment asked each state component to answer questions in five categories: advocacy infrastructure, grassroots advocacy, political action, relationships, and public outreach and education. Each question was assigned a numeric value to provide a quick snapshot of how state components were performing in the five categories. In total, 38 states completed the survey from January 2012 through November 2012. The CPA used the results of the survey to develop an overview of state component activities and to compare state components. The CPA has shared the results with the state societies and made the results available on the APMA website at www.apma.org/ cpa. Additionally, the results are being used to plan the APMA State Advocacy Forum to be held April 26–27 in Detroit. Category Three: Political Action The political action category determines whether a state component has a political action committee (PAC) or other mechanisms to support legislators’ campaigns. With a possible five points in this category, only one-third of state components scored below 2.5 points, making political action a clear strength for most components. A majority of respondents reported having a PAC, and most of these reported having more than 15 percent of members contribute. However, a PAC is only helpful if a state has a political giving strategy. Such a strategy may include contributing to the campaigns of leaders on key state committees or making contributions to legislators in both parties and chambers. State components are very engaged in the process, with 72 percent giving to key committee leaders, and another 70 percent giving to leaders in both parties and chambers. However, only 38 percent host fundraisers for legislators—one area where the CPA would like to see improvement from the state components. Having a state PAC is not the only form of political advocacy. Some states prohibit PACs, and sometimes PACs are not feasible. Other ways members may become politically active include contributing personal funds to candidate campaigns, volunteering, or hosting a meet and greet. Three-fourths of state components do not track whether members give to candidates for office, but it may be useful for state societies to periodically ask members about their personal connections to state legislators. Category One: Advocacy Infrastructure The advocacy infrastructure category was designed to determine whether the state society has the internal support it needs to run a state advocacy campaign. For example, does the state component retain a lobbyist or lawyer? Does the state component have a legislative committee to help oversee the lobbyist, review proposed legislation, or develop a legislative agenda? Does it have a budget it can use to either promote or oppose legislation? A total of five points were available in this category, and an analysis of the results shows infrastructure is a strong area for state components generally. Nearly two-thirds of respondents scored a three or above, and close to 40 percent scored a four and above. Eighty-one percent of state associations indicated they have a lobbyist either on retainer, hired as needed, or on staff. However, although more than 70 percent of state components have a legislative committee, only half of those surveyed reported having a dedicated state advocacy liaison. Category Four: Relationships Building strong relationships is another key ingredient of an effective advocacy program. Podiatric medicine advances when the profession reaches out to other groups, such as MDs, DOs, 2012 Retrospective continued pn page 28 APMA News January 2013 Category Two: Grassroots Advocacy Although it is important to make use of paid lobbyists and attorneys, they alone cannot fight the battles for the profes- 27 http://www.apma.org/eAdvocacy http://www.APMA.org http://www.apma.org/cpa http://www.apma.org/cpa

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of APMA News - January 2013

APMA News - January 2013
President’s Message
Contents
Dr. Wenstrup Goes to Washington
A Son’s Tribute to His Father, a 9/11 Hero
Podiatrists Golf for a Good Cause, Raise More than $500,000
CAC-PIAC Attendees Learn How Relationships Can Literally Pay Off
Creating the Future: A 2012 Retrospective on Advocacy by State Components
Profile in Progress: MPMA Gets It Done
Editorial: Understanding the Needs of the Current Generation of Learners
Find Out What’s New and Exciting for The National in 2013
Next Young Physicians’ Institute Slated for April
2012 Podiatric Practice Survey: Years in Practice and Board Certification Qualification by Primary Practice Arrangement Type
Annual Scientific Meeting Registration Form
Federal Advocacy Forum
APMAPAC Chair Report
IT Consultant
Website Wisdom
Small Business 101
CPME Update
In Short
Worthy of Note
Affiliates Corner
List of Affiliated Organizations
Insurance Advisor
Seeking Award Nominations
New Members
Death Notices
APMAPAC Update
Resolutions Deadlines
Annual Meeting Sponsors
Development Update
Classified Advertising
Dates to Remember
Advertising Index
10 Questions
Your APMA

APMA News - January 2013