I simply do not agree that one should tolerate
Dr. Scholl's method of marketing their OTC
insoles. In my opinion, overlooking a
misrepresentation of providing "custom"
orthotics to the general public simply because
they "bailed out" the former Illinois College of
Podiatric Medicine is not best representative of
this profession's and the public's interests.
Such "altruism" was rewarded in having the
Illinois School of Podiatric Medicine renamed in
that corporation's name which I remember created
quite a bit of controversy then with current and
former alumni.
In the past few years, other than some of their
products carrying the APMA Seal of Approval, I
have failed to see their corporation as a
sponsor of the APMA in their Bronze, Silver,
Gold or Platinum Levels of corporate support. I
do not know what fees are paid to the APMA to
sustain such a seal on some of their products. I
haven't seen any of their sales representatives
in my office or as exhibitors within clinical
conferences I have attended in recent memory. I
am not directly aware of any discussions between
the APMA and Dr. Scholl's over this issue
reported to the general membership. Therefore, I
wonder how exactly they contribute to my field
and those of my colleagues?
In my opinion, their description as "custom" of
their OTC insole should be viewed as a
misrepresentation to the general public. It
implies that their devices are comparable to
those that are truly custom fabricated in
efficacy of treatment. It "cheapens" the medical
care we all provide to our patients. Although
not being an attorney, one could argue that
there is a corporate failure to provide
such "truth in advertising." I would think
complaints to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
by physicians and patients could lead to a
possible resolution if the company is found to
be at fault if the APMA was not so inclined to
act on this issue. Certainly their devices are
marketed with a "money-back guarantee" and I
encourage all my patients to seek such
remediation when these devices fail to alleviate
their discomfort to a substantial degree.
I advise my patients that their devices are like
buying OTC eyeglasses at your local drug store.
They may provide partial improvement in your
eyesight but are not fully "custom" to the
variable structural changes in their eyes (ie,
corneal irregularities, bilateral eye strength
disparities, etc.) However, these companies do
not peddle these medical devices as "custom," so
the public is not mislead when they purchase
such devices.
More importantly, perhaps the APMA should listen
to those general members that have been
expressing concern for many years of this
particular issue. Have we, as a profession,
become so "blind" as to pass off palliative
podiatric care of skin and nail conditions to
pedicurists and now orthotic devices to a
corporation with no contributory studies or
literature contribution I've seen in the field
of biomechanics?
Gino Scartozzi, DPM, New Hyde Park, NY,
Gsdpm@aol.com
