We lack a national news source for the profession and so we are often in the dark about the forces shaping our future.
Here is some state-level news with national implications —
In January 2016 the NGAOM joined with CAOMA and nearly advanced AB758. This would have overturned last year’s legislation which moved California to the industry standard of ACAOM school accreditation rather than depending on the troubled CAB.
The NGAOM successfully fought for legislation mandating Malpractice Insurance for all LAcs. Practitioners in CT report this was done without consultation with the state association. Malpractice insurance is a significant expense, and a needless one for licensees not in active practice.This new requirement doesn’t seem to benefit anyone other than insurance companies and the NGAOM (which gains members through discounted coverage) despite the NGAOM’s pro arguments.
Regular readers know that the DE Acupuncture Advisory Council has generally refused to use their waiver power to license practitioners lacking the full NCCAOM herbal credential. The BOM knows that depriving the public of qualified practitioners is not a public service and is proceeding with draft legislation (text not yet available) that would establish tiered licensure. While it’s not the best solution, it’s an improvement. New Council members are taking their seats in the next few months. Let’s hope we can all work together to grow the profession in Delaware.
The Nevada Board continues to push for an increase in educational requirements far beyond the Masters level. Having again ignored the advice of Nevada’s Deputy Attorney General they are now moving to hire their own counsel, perhaps explaining why Nevada’s fees are the highest in the country.
Acupuncture Today didn’t just miss these important news items, history shows AT is willing to selectively hide some developments within the profession.
After a series of well-received columns in 2007 author Lisa Rohleder received a letter from Executive Editor Crownfield — “After several conversations with my publisher and others, we are concerned about continuing your column under its current “theme”, for lack of a better word. While the concept of social entrepreneurship, particularly the “pay according to what you can afford” aspect, is admirable, it has dangerous potential from the perspective of professional advancement.” Yes, AT considered affordable acupuncture dangerous. (The ideas did have potential. The ideas Lisa presented developed into POCA. POCA has established a school, helped clinics provide millions of treatments, helped practitioners establish successful businesses, and provided free CEU’s and many other benefits, to members.)
The Acupuncture Observer may change a bit over the next few months. But until the profession develops a reliable source for news delivered in a timely fashion, TAO will do what it can to keep you in the know. Let’s keep each other informed. Are you aware of news of importance to Acupuncturists? Is there regulation that could keep Acupuncturists from practicing in your state? Is a group pushing for change that seems detrimental to the practice environment? Email firstname.lastname@example.org with your news. Let me know if you’d like to write a guest post. And subscribe to TAO (box on the upper right of the home page, your address will not be shared or sold) for news updates.
© Elaine Wolf Komarow and The Acupuncture Observer, 2013-2033. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express written permission from Elaine Wolf Komarow is prohibited. Excerpts and links are encouraged, provided that full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content.
TAO – Glad to see you are reading the NGAOM Point Of Fact blog where I write about activities in which the Guild is involved in different states. Some kind of clearinghouse that alerts LAcs to what is transpiring in the profession is sorely needed. The trade paper Acupuncture Today that masquerades as a new journal may as well be loaded with advertising from vendors. Oh. It is.
You foresee changes in TAO. Can’t wait to see these. Thanks for linking to our posts. I hope your readers will read our POV regarding ACAOM and malpractice insurance (the font can be made larger on the malpractice piece). Your concern about malpractice being a financial burden for inactive licensees is perplexing. Inactive LAcs need not buy malpractice. We support active LAcs carry malpractice. This is standard in medical practice.
Maybe that is where the Guild distinguishes itself when it comes to acupuncture practice. Our goal is to make sure our members find their place in the medical mainstream. LAcs who wish to remain inactive are not our community. Membership in the Guild ($180/yr) includes access to discounted and greatly improved malpractice insurance. The Guild receives no $$ benefit from the sale of malpractice policies unlike the #1 insurance vendor in this profession.
Our goal is to build our membership buy offering value and opportunity. We also offer guidelines for what we believe will place our members in the medical mainstream. We leverage our affiliation with organized labor to support the legislative causes of acupuncturists who share these same interests.
Perhaps the NGAOM was unaware of the consequences of the legislative changes it sought in CT, but it requires all licensees to carry malpractice insurance, although there is a provision for a waiver for those with a medical disability of illness. The NGAOM certainly has no obligation to care about inactive licensees, but this group includes people taking time off to raise children or care for an ailing parent, those who are saving to open a practice, those who have retired but wish to maintain a license in case they decide to return to practice, those licensees who have decided to focus on teaching, and many others, all of whom are now required to carry insurance. Your comment above is incorrect that inactive licensees do not need to purchase malpractice coverage under the new law.
Despite what you say in your blog, I have never found any connection between the respect MD’s and other have for our profession and whether or not we are required to carry malpractice coverage. I don’t think most in the establishment have any idea whether we have that mandate or not. I’ve heard LAcs bring up PT’s lack of coverage for dry needling as a reason they shouldn’t be allowed to use that technique, but it certainly hasn’t been an effective argument.
The NGAOM may not make money directly from sales of malpractice insurance, but it does get membership dues. It may not have been the NGAOM’s intention or motivation, but establishing a mandate for a product that that drives members to you certainly looks self-serving.
I’m happy for you to serve those that share your vision of success — being part of the mainstream. But don’t drag those with a different vision down that path. Your legislative actions impact us all.