Tag Archives: legislation

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.

It’s Like Herding Cats

Posted on by

It’s a common refrain about reaching consensus in the acupuncture profession. But why try to herd cats? I learned a long time ago that opening a can of tuna would bring kitty running.

If there were an attainable action that would:

  • Increase patient access to Licensed Acupuncturists,
  • Assist in national marketing for the profession,
  • Decrease educational costs and student debt,
  • Decrease licensing expenses,
  • Increase political power,
  • Expand professional opportunities, flexibility, and mobility, and,
  • Increase the value of your practice,

Would that be like tuna to a kitty?

(Whirrr of can opener)

Tuna for me = Identifying the least restrictive licensure requirements necessary to protect the public and create successful practitioners and working to establish that as a standard in all states.

Before panic ensues, consider some of the situations I’ve heard about in the past few years:

  • Highly experienced and qualified LAcs unable to obtain licensure, even in states where there are so few LAcs that the public has little choice but to get their acupuncture treatment from Chiropractors.
  • Practitioners who want to sell their practices but have a limited pool of buyers because of the unique licensure requirements in their state.
  • Practitioners travelling many, many hours in order to practice, or leaving the profession, because life has taken them to a state in which they can’t obtain a license.
  • Practitioners and students who have no interest in using herbs being required to spend tens of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours learning herbal medicine in order to obtain an acupuncture license.
  • Acupuncturists supporting discriminatory laws or regulations such that the only group of people in a state who can not practice herbal medicine are other Acupuncturists.
  • Practitioners having to maintain licenses in multiple states because changing regulations mean that if they give up a license they will be unable to obtain it in that state again.
  • Acupuncturists being unable to advance reasonable state or national legislation because restrictive practices keep practitioner numbers so low that political support is unavailable.
  • The profession being unable to effectively educate the public about their excellent education and credentials because those credentials vary so much from state to state.
  • Acupuncturists struggling to build a practice in overserved areas, but unable to obtain licensure in nearby underserved areas.
  • Acupuncture organizations fighting for inclusion in managed care and federal health programs, even though many states have too few LAcs to serve the population. (Demographic data can be found at these links: Acupuncture Today LAc Map, US Population, Physicians per State.)

The current system in which some states require graduation from particular schools, others have their own exams, and others have their own educational requirements does not serve us as a profession. The situation is getting worse, not better, as states like Florida increase their requirements. Yes, states have differing scopes. (Those who advocate for scope changes should be required to consider and advertise the impact the changes will have on licensure requirements.) Yes, it is in the interest of the public and the profession to insist that practitioners limit their practice to the tools and skills in which they have been trained. Additional, optional, training can always be required for those who wish to practice more advanced techniques or modalities. The least restrictive licensure requirements have shown themselves to be sufficient for safe practice.

Limited, standardized, licensure requirements would lower practitioner expenses, promote mobility, ease national marketing, and help the profession grow. It sounds great — as good as tuna smells to a cat. Does it make you make you want to come running? Many changes in licensure requirements could be made at the regulatory level and are within our reach. It does not depend on establishing reciprocity. One problem — the LAcs within a state have the power to make or block change, and, especially in restrictive states, the small group that set up the rules is often in power. Another problem — many LAcs don’t care about this until they are directly impacted.

This is a place where national coordination is needed. I hope the CSA sees that this is a place where they could make a positive difference. Let your state association know if you support a more standardized and simpler licensure environment. It should not require any herding.

Cat Food

Cat Food

 

 

Late March Update

Posted on by

The weekend is winding down and I didn’t make it to my planned “The Biggest Problem Facing the Profession” post.  However, there is lots of news in Acu-World. Here are some items to keep you busy until I get back to the keyboard.

  • Want to support the profession in a positive way? You may have contributed to funds for inter-professional squabbles or federal legislation. That money hasn’t helped us in a lasting or tangible way. Support POCATech and you’ll be supporting an acupuncture school committed to providing an affordable education. How would your practice be different if you didn’t have educational debt? Check it out here! POCATech will help more people get acupuncture from acupuncturists — it is a win/win.
  • ACAOM is considering changes to the post-Graduate Doctoral Program and they want to hear from you.  The survey took me about 15 minutes, most of that for reading. Personally, I support a Doctoral track open to those who have an acupuncture-only education. There is a long history of practitioners choosing one specialty.  The movement in some states to insist on complete OM or Herbal training and credentialing is discriminatory against acupuncturists and expensive! It is important that we all weigh in, whether or not we plan to pursue a doctoral degree. Deadline for response — April 17th.
  • In January NCASI was celebrating a ruling they believed meant PT’s would not be able to do dry needling in Utah. In March, Utah HB 367, legislation which would add dry needling to PT scope of practice, went to the Governor’s desk for a signature. Shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Utah has fewer than 100 LAcs and about 4000 PT’s.
  • Likewise, “despite the warning” of AZSOMA, SB 1154, which would add dry needling to PT scope of practice, has passed the Senate and made it through two committees of the House. The votes have not been close.
  • Last, and maybe least, the AAAOM collapse continues.  Acupuncture Today printed part II of their article, now with updates. The AAAOM came out with a response (prior to the latest updates). Given the latest updates it probably isn’t worth the time to go through the AAAOM response. Suffice it to say, it contains plenty of spin and quite a few inaccuracies. Mostly, I continue to note that we’ve heard nothing from the AAAOM about who is currently in charge there. And, no practitioners really seem to care.

That should be enough to keep everyone busy.  Back soon, with “The Biggest Problem Facing the Profession.” (No, it isn’t Dry Needling.)

A Practical Next Step

Posted on by

Okay, I’ve heard the critics — too much blaming the profession and focusing on mistakes, not enough positive things we can do now.  So, here goes —

A very practical next step, or maybe the most important thing to do to prepare for a next step, is getting your bearings. Any confusion about where you are now and your next steps might be in the wrong direction.  So let’s take a look at where we are with our old friend Dry Needling —

On January 23, 2014, the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon issued a ruling regarding the practice of dry needling by Chiropractors. Surfing the web I’ve read “the issue came down to whether chiropractors could perform dry needling after having 24 hours of training,” and “The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled “dry needling” is acupuncture and not within the scope of practice of chiropractic medicine” and “This ruling sets a precedent which can have far-reaching effects beyond Oregon. It becomes part of the record for each state acupuncture Association to use in it’s own fight for appropriate licensure, training, and practice.”

It is certainly correct that the ruling does set a precedent, so let’s be sure we understand what that precedent is. I encourage all of you to read the ruling, linked above.  It isn’t long and it is interesting. You can see a nice summary here. Most critically —

  1. The ruling does not say that dry needling is acupuncture.  I don’t believe it includes any mention of the word acupuncture.
  2. The ruling does not consider how much training is necessary to practice this technique safely. Hours of training are irrelevant to this ruling.
  3. Patient safety is not explored or addressed in this ruling.

The Court focuses on the Chiropractic Board’s argument that Dry Needing is Physiotherapy and rules that it is not, based on the understanding of the word in 1927, when Physiotherapy was added to Chiropractic scope in Oregon.   (The Court clearly states that it does not find that Physiotherapy is the same as Physical Therapy.)

So, if you are in a state in which the PT Board or Chiropractic Board has argued that Dry Needling is Physiotherapy, and if Physiotherapy was added to that Board’s scope in the late 1920’s, this ruling sets a very important precedent.  I’m guessing the ruling may not quite live up to its reputation as a game-changer.

In other news, while NCASI is celebrating the Utah DOPL’s decision that dry needling is outside the scope of practice for Physical Therapists, there is a bill (HB 367) moving through the Utah House that would add Dry Needling to the Physical Therapy scope. (There are fewer than 100 LAcs in Utah, and several thousand PT’s). Similarly, Arizona S.B. 1154, legislatively adding dry needling to Physical Therapy scope has passed the Senate.

So, that’s where we are. And if you don’t buy my argument that knowing where we are counts as a practical next step, here, on its one year anniversary, but so relevant it could have been written today, are not ten, but ELEVEN, positive, practical, and fulfilling next steps.

The Acupuncture Profession, News and Analysis

Posted on by

Three dedicated AAAOM Board members and AAAOM (super-qualified, knowledgeable, and committed) Executive Director, Denise Graham (my last hope that things could get better) resigned recently.

One board member spoke of an uncomfortable and increasingly controlled board environment, a declining membership (now less than 2% of the profession), and poor relationships with national and state leaders. Another stated that the AAAOM doesn’t have the support, revenue, or credibility to make progress towards legislative goals.

This isn’t the first time AAAOM has been on the ropes. If it hadn’t been for money from the AAC and support from other organizations, I doubt they would have survived this long. Somehow, though, they still manage to control the conversation.

In other news, NCASI, the National Center for Acupuncture Safety and Integrity, has appeared on the scene. NCASI’s list of “10 Facts” should be titled “10 Things We Insist are True and/or Important.”  Dry Needling by PT’s is legal in many states. Review my past posts on dry needling and scope for more background. We take real risks when we files lawsuits like these.

For twenty years, the acupuncture organizations have insisted that our success depends upon —

  • Increasing credentials/educational requirements/scope. It doesn’t matter if the old education, credentials, and scope worked fine. It doesn’t matter if it increases practitioner expense, decreases practitioner flexibility, or prevents some LAcs from utilizing techniques available to any other citizen.
  • Getting someone else to pay for acupuncture. Fight for third-party payment systems even if other professions report they make good medicine more difficult and practice less enjoyable. Ignore the hypocrisy of participating in a system that requires discounting services while also criticizing LAcs who offer low-cost or discounted treatments directly to patients. Insist that practitioners who don’t want to participate won’t be impacted, and turn a blind eye to the fraud that many practitioners engage in to make the $’s work.
  • Demanding a monopoly.  There’s no need to earn your market share by providing the best product — instead establish it through litigation and turf battles. Don’t worry if this requires you to disparage your fellow health providers or contradict your message that the public should be able to choose their providers.

After twenty years many LAcs struggle to stay in business, and most voluntary acupuncture organizations struggle to survive. Got questions about ADA compliance, insurance billing, privacy issues, advertising questions, disciplinary actions? You won’t get answers from the AAAOM and you probably won’t get them from your state organization.

It’s time to change our strategy. We have enough training, clients who seek our services, and other providers who respect the medicine so much they want use it themselves. Yes, we always need be aware of and informed about the regulatory/legislative landscape, but we also need business skills, PR, positive marketing, and an easing of the regulatory burden.  We need a good hard look at the cost of education. We need legal advice and business tools and positive interactions with potential referral sources and colleagues. We don’t need more legal battles, more regulation, more legislation, more degrees that further divide us.

When our organizations provide these things, we’ll have successful organizations, and successful practitioners. (If you don’t believe me, ask POCA.)

 

AAAOM Medicare Town Hall

Posted on by

A few folks asked me to post after the Town Hall, so here goes —

Sorry to say I missed the beginning of the call — the instructions to join were not easily available or straightforward.  At the peak, there were about 70 participants.

Bottom line, the AAAOM lacks the level of expertise they need before moving this legislation forward. The AAAOM does not have an idea of how many LAcs are likely to opt in, didn’t have the correct history of why the Chiropractors do not have the opt-out clause (and seemed to believe they currently can opt-out), didn’t realize that becoming part of the system would limit the amount non-participating providers could bill Medicare clients (a participant provided correct information), wasn’t clear that other providers would be able to bill for acupuncture if it becomes a covered service, hadn’t considered the impact on the practices of practitioners opting out, etc. The information about enrolling, opting in or out, participating or non-participating was still unclear.

A caller suggested it is premature to ask practitioners whether they’ll be likely to opt in — there are too many unknowns. I understand, but don’t we need some idea before we spend millions moving forward with the legislation? A few callers seemed confused about the difference between acupuncture as an EHB and the proposed legislation. Others seemed to think the legislation had already been introduced.

The bill writer/lobbyist wasn’t willing to make predictions, but I’ll go out on a limb. The AAAOM says they need about $1,000,000/year to move this legislation forward and the fundraising remains at around $25,000. According to the lobbyist she’s only been contracted for a month. The current Congress (113th) ends January 3rd, 2015. I say there is a 0% chance any of these bills will pass in the next year.

Would the AAAOM please focus their efforts on things that could help all practitioners now? In an ideal world they could work on both long term and short term projects, but this isn’t an ideal world. Without evidence that a significant majority of the profession intends to participate, why oh why is this legislative effort their only focus?

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.  I did.

Acupuncturists and Medicare, Questions for the AAAOM

Posted on by

I’m thankful I spend my days helping people. I’m grateful I’m my own boss and that I’m able to treat every client as a unique, complex, individual, not as a diagnostic code. I could write a whole post on what I’m thankful for, but, this coming Sunday, it’s time for another AAAOM Town Hall. There are other things I’d rather be doing the evening of December 1, but I plan to participate, and I hope you will too. So, before we head off to sweet potatoes and cranberry sauce, here are my questions for the AAAOM —

  • Given the current political climate and the current level of involvement from the profession, what are the odds these bills will be successful within the next 5 years.
  • How many LAcs intend to become participating providers in the Federal Health Programs?
  • Does the small number of contributions from practitioners to the AAAOM legislative fund indicate that this effort is not a priority for the community?
  • Given that there are fewer than 30K active licensees in the US, and that not all will participate, could legislative success benefit other professionals who use acupuncture more than it helps LAcs?
  • Do the Medical Acupuncture and the Chiropractor communities support this legislation? Will they participate in the legislative effort?
  • Many LAcs treat Medicare beneficiaries. If acupuncture becomes a covered service won’t LAcs who opt-out lose most of that portion of their clientele to providers choosing to participate?
  • How many LAcs are providing acupuncture via the Medicaid system in the five states that permit it?
  • Is it possible that the opt-out provisions could be stripped as part of the legislative process (related to the small number of potential providers)?  Would the AAAOM be able to stop the legislation if that happened?
  • Can you clarify the distinction between enrolling, participating, and opting in?
  • On page 8 of the FAQ it refers to patients falling into the opt-out exceptions.  Is it providers or patients who opt out?
  • On page 10 of the FAQ it states that the legislation will not require LAcs to use electronic medical records.  Is it true that participating providers will be penalized a percentage of their reimbursements starting in 2015 if they do not use EMR’s?
  • If you opt-in, and the beneficiary reaches the limit for their number of treatments and/or wants treatment for a condition that isn’t covered, are you able to treat them and bill them for those services?
  • If you opt-out could you still treat Medicare beneficiaries who have surpassed their treatment limit without impacting their future benefits?
  • If opting-in, can practitioners limit the number of Medicare beneficiaries they accept as clients?

There are other things the AAAOM could focus on that would be more helpful to the average LAc and be more likely to succeed. But this Town Hall is limited to the AAAOM legislative efforts. I am thankful they are asking for input, and I will oblige.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone — and thanks for reading.

Please support discrimination?!?

Posted on by

Another entry in our Hypocrites with Double Standards (HWDS) files?

I’ve been reading about the importance of Section 2706 of the Affordable Care Act for our profession. It wouldn’t be right for insurance companies to cover acupuncture only if performed by an MD, right? The concerns within our community, according to the press, are that the section might be undermined by the actions of the AMA (this makes us angry!) or not strongly enforced.

Okay, non-discrimination good.

Wait a second — AOMSM, the Massachusetts acupuncture association, is pushing legislation that discriminates.  Section 7 of S1107 and H2021 reads “The use of needles on trigger points, Ashi points, and/or for intramuscular needling for the treatment of myofascial pain will be considered the practice of acupuncture” (does it matter what type of needles?) and Section 8 reads “Only licensed acupuncturists or medical doctors shall be reimbursed for acupuncture services.” Is anyone surprised that “political agents for PTs in MA have taken measures to prevent “An Act Relative to the Practice of Acupuncture” from advancing”?

So — discrimination is good if it works in my favor, bad if it works against me?  How does this reflect on our profession and the future of integrated health? Not well, in my opinion.  What do you think?

News Update

Posted on by

and a bonus at the end —

October 1st, NCCAOM, Facbook —

 NCCAOM has received a significant volume of responses, and the results of this feedback will be taken into consideration during the development of the final policy and standards, as NCCAOM continues to strive for increased customer satisfaction. We are always eager to hear your suggestions for changes that will benefit you, the Diplomate, and the AOM profession overall. It is with your feedback that we can continue to meet your needs.
We are listening!

Spin?

October 2nd, date of scheduled AAAOM Town Hall, AAAOM website —

Legislative Town Hall

CALL POSTPONED – DATE TO BE DETERMINED

No additional news.

October 9th, Richmond, VA, Meeting of Virginia Acupuncture Advisory Board.

Agenda includes discussion of an alternate path to licensure due to conflicts between Virginia law and the NCCAOM proposed policy changes.

The representative from the state association (ASVA) was against any discussion of the NCCAOM issues. ASVA stated  — “lowering of standards…would do harm to both our profession and the public.” Who mentioned lowering standards? Is there evidence that anyone is harmed in states that do not rely on the NCCAOM credential?  Here is my post-meeting email to the association  –  ASVA comments.

The NCCAOM rep at the meeting was clear — the proposals were just proposals, stakeholder comments will be taken into consideration, any language referring to the effective dates of the changes was referring to effective dates for the proposed changes, not the actual changes. I envisioned someone pedaling backwards.

Questions of the Day — We attack when another profession “interferes” with our practice (DVM’s “stealing animal acupuncture”, PT’s “stealing acupuncture”, MD’s wanting to see our patients) even when we have little or no power to change anything. Why are we unwilling to even discuss it when an organization supported by our money, controlling our profession, at our request, takes action that costs us or limits us? We made a difference this time (we hope) – why aren’t our professional associations helping?

Here is a new page on Legislation and Regulation. It contains important and valuable information. Please, read it and pass it on.

I’ll be working on a page about the Acupuncture orgs (the alphabets) and another for potential acupuncture students in the coming weeks.

Dry Needling, Herbs, and Scope — How to Regulate a Profession

Posted on by

A regulatory Board is contacted.  Your licensees are doing X, that isn’t (or, is that?) in your scope.

Ask a PT Board about Dry Needling and the answer usually goes something like this — We trust our licensees. Many learn this technique and it helps their clients. We find room in our regulation to include this in our scope.  We have a few concerns and suggest that those who want to utilize this technique have some additional training and take additional precautions. Our existing system for addressing unsafe practice is sufficient to address risk to the public.

Ask an Acupuncture Board or organization about herbs and the answer usually goes like this. We are being threatened again!  We’d better legislate, and fast! Help! Thanks NCCAOM and schools. We are so grateful for your efforts to ensure that any acupuncturist who wants to utilize this dangerous aspect of our medicine add your $20,000 education and your formal $800.00 seal of approval to their already extensive education and credentials. In fact, in the name of raising standards we should require that from all LAcs. It might prevent some of our most qualified practitioners from practice, but, hey, it is a step toward getting the respect we deserve.

Is something wrong with this picture?

It’s a radical idea, but how about we respect ourselves. Let’s recognize the safety of our medicine and the depth of our education.  Let’s trust our colleagues’ professional judgement and open doors rather than close them and let’s stop deferring to those who profit from our love of this medicine.

For additional reading, check out an example.  In this case, I agree with Dr. Morris when he wrote,

To avoid conflicts of interest, no individual who stands to profit from seminars should determine competencies and educational standards, nor should they testify in legislature on behalf of the common good.

(Of course, he was talking about the PT’s when he wrote it, so maybe in this case he doesn’t agree with himself.)

You have until Monday, 9/30, to comment on the NCCAOM’s “proposals.” Does the current CEU arrangement put the public at risk? Are the states incapable of effective regulation?

One more thing — during the great FPD debate, many expressed concern that once the degree was available the NCCAOM could, by fiat, require it for entry level practice. We were assured that would be impossible. Informed by history, it seems very possible indeed.