Monthly Archives: May 2014

Acupuncture in Louisiana

Posted on by

If a resolution is passed and no one is listening, does it still impact the profession?  Sadly, in this case, yes.

I wasn’t planning to write today, but then I came across Louisiana SCR 22 which has been moving through the legislature. It may have passed already (I’m trying to find out), though according to the information here it is still in a House Committee. (5/21, verified, this is not YET a done deal, there are still two opportunities for the resolution to be amended!) You may know that in Louisiana only MDs and DOs can be Acupuncturists.  An individual who has gone to acupuncture school or passed the NCCAOM exam can apply to be an “Acupuncture Assistant” and work under the supervision of an MD. This resolution would establish The Practice and Regulation of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Review Committee, and could have been a terrific opportunity to make the practice environment in LA more amenable to LAcs.  It gets off to a great start –.

WHEREAS, the practice of acupuncture and oriental medicine provides important health benefits to the residents of this state; and

WHEREAS, the practice of acupuncture and oriental medicine has become a well established, widely-used, viable modality across the United States; and

WHEREAS, when practiced as a whole medicine, by a fully trained practitioner, the practice of acupuncture and oriental medicine satisfies a missing niche that includes a prophylactic approach that allows the patient or a referring medical director a proactive avenue towards health when neither symptoms nor severity of disease warrants other forms of treatment; and

WHEREAS, oriental medicine often becomes a valuable way to identify those in need of a referral to a western medical provider.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby direct the Department of Health and Hospitals to create the Practice and Regulation of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Review Committee

But, look at the language for the committee membership  —

(1) The secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals or his designee.
(2) The Senate president or his designee.
(3) The speaker of the House of Representatives or his designee.
(4) The executive director of the National Certification Commission for
Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine or his designee.
(5) The executive director of the American Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine or his designee.
(6) The executive director of the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners or his designee.
(7) The executive director of the Louisiana State Medical Society or his designee.
(8)A chiropractor designated by the Chiropractic Association of Louisiana who is certified as a diplomat of the American Board of Chiropractic Acupuncturists or has completed equivalent training in acupuncture.
(9) A physical therapist designated by the Louisiana Physical Therapy Association.

 

So, eight members, including a DC and a PT, but no fully-trained acupuncturist. The AAAOM doesn’t even have an Executive Director at this point, and probably doesn’t have the funds to hire one, and in any case represents only a tiny portion of the profession.  The NCCAOM should be on our side, but their input in Delaware, for example, wasn’t positive for the majority of LAcs.  Once upon a time we might have looked to the PTs as allies, but our speech and actions regarding dry needling destroyed that.

I did send this Letter to Senator Mills today (which you can borrow from), but if the resolution is engrossed it is too late. The best we can do then is advocate for acupuncture friendly designees, make sure to stay in touch with the eventual appointees, and hope we can show them that the public would be served by allowing those trained as acupuncturists to be acupuncturists.  I’m sorry that this one got by me (I’ve got a practice to maintain), and sad that we don’t have a national organization to track and act on such things. AAAOM, where were you? I have high hopes for the CSA, but, without a state organization, Louisiana probably wasn’t on their radar. This was a missed opportunity.

Licensure News

Posted on by

Finally! At the May 6th Delaware Board of Medicine meeting two experienced and NCCAOM-credentialed acupuncturists were granted Delaware licenses, bringing the number of the LAcs in the state to just under forty. This is good news for the people of Delaware. It is also good news for the profession as whole. And hopeful news for the practitioners who are now commuting to Maryland, or not practicing, because they were unable to obtain a Delaware license.

Why did it take action from the MD’s on the BOM to get these practitioners licensed?

These LAcs had appeared before the Acupuncture Advisory Board four times since applying for licensure in late 2012/early 2013. At several of these appearances the Acupuncture Advisory Board members acknowledged the applicants’ excellent qualifications but refused to grant licenses despite having the authority to do so.

For decades one of our “sacred cows” has been that we need our own boards. Then we’ll have the power to control our destiny. Sadly, when given the chance, some of us prefer to control our destiny right down the tubes.

Consider the history of the independent California Acupuncture Board, with its unique accreditation and exam process, and its ongoing problems. Or Nevada, with an independent board, 53 LAcs, a $1000 application fee and $700 per year renewal fee.  If Delaware had an independent board my colleagues would have had to go to the courts to present the argument (made by a public member of the Board of Medicine) that requiring an herbal education and exam for individuals who do not want to use herbs in their practice, in a state in which anyone can sell and recommend herbs, is restraint of trade.

It isn’t the M.D.’s and “the system” that is limiting the growth of our profession these days. It is other acupuncturists. I’ve asked and asked, but I have yet to find anyone who can explain why the Florida (independent) Acupuncture board is increasing the education and testing requirements for licensure. Have patients been harmed? If a change is needed are there options that would be less burdensome for the profession?

I’ll be interested to see the full minutes of the May 6th DE BOM meeting. In a classic conjunction of issues, a practitioner instrumental in drafting the restrictive Delaware law, and a current Acupuncture Board member who had voted against granting licenses to the two qualified acupuncturists, appeared before the BOM to ask them to do something to stop PT’s from doing dry needling.

Did either of these practitioners consider that their previous actions that limit the number of LAcs in Delaware increase the odds that citizens will seek treatment from non-LAcs? Or that our political power is limited by our small numbers? Did the BOM wonder what’s up with this profession — they don’t want anyone to use a needle, even other LAcs?  (FWIW, the BOM doesn’t regulate PT’s.)

You’d think that our own self-interest would prevent the credential and educational creep that costs us so much. But it hasn’t. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics states “A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.” Restrictive laws and rules that limit access to qualified acupuncturists are contrary to the best interests of patients. Let’s work for change – for the people who need acupuncture and the qualified individuals who want to provide acupuncture. Credential creep hurts us all.

Five Important Dry Needling Developments

Posted on by

Yes, more on dry needling.  More about education will have to wait.

Five things to know —

  1. The Oregon Ruling did not (despite the Acupuncture Today headline) determine that “Dry Needling is Acupuncture.”  For a full exploration of the case, read this post. In summary, the ruling of the court was that Dry Needling is not physiotherapy.
  2. On April 1st Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB 367, legislatively adding Dry Needling to the scope of Physical Therapists.
  3. On April 24th Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1154, legislatively adding Dry Needling to the scope of Physical Therapists.*
  4. On March 25th Massachusetts HB 3972 advanced. This redraft of acupuncture bills HB 2051 and SB 1107 was necessary because the bill could not advance with the language that “dry needling is acupuncture.”
  5. At the end of April the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation issued an informal ruling that dry needling was not within the scope of practice for Physical Therapists “as the acts are currently written.”  That last phrase is important. From what I can tell there are about 550 LAcs in IL and over 9,000 PT’s.  The PT’s aren’t ready to call it quits. Time will tell if the victory for the LAcs is a lasting one. The PT’s could well look to Arizona and Utah and work for a legislative change.

(A colleague practicing in Delaware recently told me of the urgent phone calls and emails she’s been receiving — she must get involved in the fight against PT Dry Needling! Delaware is a state in which a few LAcs on the Advisory Board refuse to grant licenses to qualified acupuncturists. There are so few LAcs (less than 40) that they can’t maintain an association and citizens are far more likely to get acupuncture from a DC or an MD than an LAc. Now the profession wants to take on the PT’s? If there’s an urgent need for action from the LAcs of DE, perhaps it should be action to bring LAcs to the state?)

For those who insist we must do something about this serious risk to our profession, here are some suggestions. They would do far more to benefit our profession than this ongoing battle with the PT’s.

* One of the acupuncture profession’s strategies from the start of the Dry Needling issue was to argue, as the AAAOM wrote in their 2013 position paper,– “the addition of TPDN to physical therapy practice is being determined by physical therapy regulatory boards, deleteriously circumventing transparency and public health safety protections provided by standard legislative process.”  This was a mistake. Given the relative political strength of the PT profession and their MD supporters legislative victories are likely. Had we been willing to work with our health-care colleagues in the regulatory arena we might well have had input and influence in the use of this procedure.