We have a lot of organizations and associations for a small profession. Here’s some of what they’ve been up to.
AAAOM
Finally, communication from the AAAOM. According to their April mailing they’ve revamped their membership structure and are planning their first annual conference in over five years.
The new membership structure includes a free “Basic Membership” category. Does the basic membership give access to the annual report or permit the member to vote in BOD elections? If not, it isn’t a membership, it’s a mailing list. Calling it a membership gives the AAAOM cover to inflate their numbers (they’ve been throwing 7000 around) and mislead policy-makers about their strength.
ASA
The first Annual Meeting of the American Society of Acupuncturists was held March 4-5. You can read the full summary here. It includes updates on the activities of many other professional groups. Check it out, including the links.
CCAOM
I’ve only recently been alerted to significant problems in the 7th Edition of the CNT Manual released in July 2015.
One example – is wiping a point with alcohol prior to needling still required? In the position paper on their website and the July 2015 AT article CCAOM indicates that the skin does not necessarily need to be swabbed prior to insertion. Page 97 (or 73 in internal pagination) of the CNT manual puts swabbing with alcohol on the Critical (required) list, with the text “swabbing continues to be recommended.” Which is it, critical, or recommended?
The manual also contradicts itself regarding the cleaning of chairs and tables between patients. Must each table and chair be disinfected or cleaned? Between each patient, or only daily?
With our many traditions and practice styles it is difficult to define or describe a “standard of care” for many aspects of our medicine. This gives documents such as the CNT manual extra weight in the legal system.
This area of practice is outside my bailiwick. Is there an expert out there willing to do a thorough review and write a guest post? It is critical (not recommended) that we get this document right.
NCCAOM Academy of Diplomates
Yes, another new national organization. My feelings about it are as conflicted as my feelings about the NCCAOM.
On the one hand, NCCAOM Diplomates are a significant portion of the profession, and the NCCAOM has the money, power, and support staff to get things done. Earning a seat on the CPT committee (see the ASA report), for example.
On the other hand, an organization that promotes Diplomates only (and how can they vouch for anyone else) runs the risk of deepening a fault line in the profession. The NCCAOM’s history in the regulatory arena shows 1) they are persuasive and 2) their positions often benefit the NCCAOM and some subset of practitioners at the expense of the profession as a whole.
We don’t have a balance of power in the profession. The NCCAOM is in a weight class by itself and the Academy further tilts the scales in their direction.That concerns me. On the other hand, we’ve got no other group heavy enough to get in the ring with non-Acupuncture groups right now.
Let’s keep a close watch on the Academy.
NGAOM
The sparsely attended (30 practitioners?) February Town Hall covered why the NGAOM-affiliated malpractice insurance is such a bargain, how the OPEIU can help the NGAOM, and what’s happening in various states regarding dry needling and insurance reimbursements.
What I didn’t hear was further discussion of NGAOM’s baffling goal of mandating malpractice insurance for licensees in all states. Despite their claims, there is no evidence that lack of mandated coverage has had any impact on scope of practice issues or on how we are seen by other professions. Any insurance plan, landlord, wellness center, or employer can choose to require malpractice coverage. But if a self-employed or unemployed (by choice or circumstance) practitioner decides to bear the risk of working without malpractice insurance, they should be allowed to do so.
If this is the NGAOM’s idea of helping practitioners, we’re in trouble.
A few months ago I mentioned that change might be coming to The Acupuncture Observer. I haven’t yet resolved the tension between sharing breaking news and saving my limited time to explore the broader philosophical and strategic issues facing the profession. Would any of you like to be a breaking news blogger? (ASA, would you like a state update column every now and then?) For now, I’ve added a Facebook feed to the home page of the blog. Checking there (or liking The Acupuncture Observer on Facebook) should help you stay informed between posts.
Why is the post “an immature profession” password protected?
Because it created a huge amount of upset and I was told I had betrayed the profession. This was my way to respect the wishes of people who were afraid of having what it said be publicly available without allowing the censors to win. You can email me if you’d like the password.
Wow! Upset over an observation of the profession? I do not feel that post (which I read as an inline e-mail) did not think this was a “betrayal” but rather an observation of the actions of individuals within the profession. I think it is extremely important to note that individuals make up the profession and the professional associations. Those professional organizations contain some individuals that may have low emotional intelligence. Those that reacted poorly would do well to self-reflect as to why your public post struck chords that other observations (where you have directly critiqued the actions of the organizations) have not. Perhaps the overall critique of the immaturity of AOM was a little “too honest.” But it needed to be said…and you handled it with the appropriate amount of criticism without it sound scathing.
I fully support your right to post observations in a public forum that encourages discussion (and the occasional venting). It is unfortunate that you felt the need to self moderate your observations because some were made uncomfortable.
Thanks! The post was edited slightly from the email you probably read, but not significantly. I’ve been thinking about whistleblowers in general. It’s not what I really planned to do, but I guess that’s sort of what it is. And, most organizations attack whistleblowers rather than attack the underlying issue. So, we’re a lot like everyone else I suppose.
My main regret (and the main upset) is that I referred to things that were posted on closed groups. I certainly did so with too much specificity, especially as these similar posts appear on a regular basis.
I suppose attacking the messenger is a good way to avoid confronting the actual issues.