Tag Archives: professionalism

Acupuncture Exceptionalism

Posted on by

American Exceptionalism is the idea that The United States of America is inherently different from other nations. That our founding and background gives the US a unique mission to transform the world and a superiority over all of other nations.

I’ve recently noticed that practitioners of Chinese/East Asian Medicine have their own version of this, which I call Acupuncture Exceptionalism.

The attitude of exceptionalism skews the interpretation of events. Our own actions are given the benefit of the doubt and ascribed to the best of intentions. The actions of others are considered with a critical eye.

Some examples of Acupuncture Exceptionalism:

We regularly advise clients regarding vaccinations, pharmaceuticals, procedures, and dietary plans suggested by other health care providers. When other providers advise about acupuncture and herbs we are outraged at their presumption.

We widely share studies and news reporting positive results from acupuncture treatment. Studies and news showing a negative outcome are dismissed because “they aren’t doing it right” or didn’t tell the whole story.

When a patient reports harm from “Western medicine” or a treatment done by a non-LAc we rant about the failings of the system or the provider. When a patient reports harm after a treatment provided by an Acupuncturist we find ways to deny that harm occurred, find another cause for the situation, or place responsibility on the patient.

We encourage patients who have been harmed by dry needling to report it to the authorities, and if they won’t we will. We are shocked and angry when a patient files a formal complaint pertaining to treatment received from an Acupuncturist.

We complain that PT’s are engaging in insurance fraud by using the Manual Therapy code for Dry Needling. We justify the use of pain codes for every client, because, well, everyone has pain and, after all, the system is stacked against us.

We are furious that other professions are using “our” medicine, especially without what we determine to be appropriate training. We add homeopathy to our scope without a second thought.

We support and celebrate a lawsuit filed against a PT Regulatory Board as an appropriate defense of our profession. We are outraged when a counter-suit is filed against our board.

 

An attitude of American Exceptionalism does not increase the standing of the US in the eyes of the world. You can’t learn from mistakes when they are denied or explained away. Hypocrisy and double-standards impress no one.

Likewise, Acupuncture Exceptionalism does a disservice to our medicine and to our future as health care providers. If our medicine is powerful enough to help people, it is powerful enough to cause harm. Denying risk puts our patients and our profession at risk. Dismissing valid concerns about acupuncture and herbs from other professionals prevents us from establishing collaborative and respectful connections. If we want to improve our skills and training and service, we must take a clear-eyed look at where we are succeeding and where we could do better.

I’m confident enough about the benefits and overall safety of this medicine that I’m not afraid of looking inward with a critical eye. Are you?

 

 

NCCAOM Code of Ethics & Grounds for Professional Discipline, Part II

Posted on by

The NCCAOM’s call for comments on the Code of Ethics and Grounds for Professional Discipline ends September 12, 2015 .We owe it to ourselves and our profession to share our thoughts with them.

Here’s what I’ll tell them —

Dear NCCAOM,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Code of Ethics and Grounds for Professional Discipline. My significant concerns with these documents can be traced to three overarching issues —

  1. The NCCAOM credential is required to maintain state licensure for many acupuncturists. You advocate for this arrangement. Yet the current Code of Ethics is more suitable for a voluntary exceptional standard adopted by choice.
  2. States that require NCCAOM credentials have their own regulatory boards, ethical codes, and disciplinary process. The NCCAOM Grounds for Professional Discipline empowers you to pull a practitioner’s credential, removing them from practice, even when a state board would allow continued practice for the same violation. This turns the NCCAOM into de facto regulators and creates double jeopardy for practitioners.
  3. The NCCAOM reserves the right to take disciplinary action against any practitioner who violates the Code of Ethics. The Code covers behaviors ranging from serious threats to the public safety to those in the realm of Public Relations. The NCCAOM should explicitly limit the use of disciplinary action to violations that risk the public safety.

A few specific examples —

  • “Exceeding the scope of practice as defined by law or certification” is grounds for discipline. Scope is defined by the state, and may not be accurately determined by written language in code or regulation. Since state regulatory boards ultimately rule on whether or not a procedure is within scope, and since that board would determine proper discipline for any violation, no action from the NCCAOM is needed. References to scope should be removed from the NCCAOM document.
  • “I will continue to work to promote the highest standards of the profession” is listed in the Code. Must practitioners promote the FPD or DAOM, the addition of herbal exams to licensure requirements, and the expansion of the NCCAOM credential requirement to all states? Who determines the highest standard? This language is coercive at best.
  • The Code of Ethics requires credential holders to report peers who violate the Code. It is untenable to expect Diplomates to report every peer in violation of any aspect of this far-reaching code, and it is unfair to wield the power to hold us responsible for any failure to do so.

I support rigorous professional ethics and respect the NCCAOM’s intent to establish high standards for the benefit of our patients and our profession. However, your role for the profession is to validate entry-level competency. Much of the current Code of Ethics and Grounds for Professional Discipline goes far beyond this role. Continued overreach into areas best left to regulators and voluntary affiliations puts at risk the NCCAOM’s position as a credentialing organization.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Elaine Wolf Komarow, L.Ac, Dipl. Ac. (NCCAOM)

Those of you who would like more background on the role of the NCCAOM in our profession should look at Part I of this post.  I encourage those who are interested in another viewpoint of the NCCAOM and its impact on the profession to review these comments and consider signing this petition.

NCCAOM Code of Ethics & Grounds for Professional Discipline

Posted on by

The NCCAOM is preparing to update the Code of Ethics and Grounds for Professional Discipline and is asking for input. Informed comment requires not only a review of the documents, but also an understanding of the role of the organization.

The path to become an MD in the US is straightforward. Go to college and medical school, sit the licensing exams, complete a residency, apply to a state regulatory board, and, if desired, obtain a board certification in a specialty.  (It is not necessary to be board certified to become a licensed medical doctor, and it is not possible to become an m.d. without successful completion of the licensing exams.)

When the NCCAOM (then the NCCA) was established in 1982 few states had formal licensure. Rigorous credentialing was thought necessary to gain acceptance by the medical establishment. Having a group supported by the profession to ease the regulatory burden on states regarding this new profession was also helpful. Some states weren’t (and still aren’t) at all interested in licensing acupuncturists. In those states, a formal credential to attest to an ongoing fitness to practice was appealing.

But conflict in the early days of the profession, both within the community and from the outside led to disparate paths to practice. There was disagreement about how to test and evaluate the huge knowledge base and varied traditions of the medicine, and how much power to give to any one group. Additionally, the political climate in the various jurisdictions differed greatly.

The NCCAOM‘s official role is to validate “entry-level competency in the practice of acupuncture and Oriental Medicine through professional certification.” But, the NCCAOM is really a chimera, a hybrid, due to the factors mentioned above. It has become a quasi-regulatory agency in some states, establishing practice standards and acting as a disciplinary agency. In other ways it is more like a specialty board — attesting to a particularly high level of qualification (but not exactly, since some states require NCCAOM certification for entry level practice). And, the ongoing weakness and dysfunction of the AAAOM (I’m still waiting on membership numbers, but the practitioner search function reveals the weakness) has led the NCCAOM to fill promotional needs and provide professional support, roles typically handled by professional organizations.

So, does the Code of Ethics and Grounds for Professional Discipline support the NCCAOM’s role of validating entry-level competence? Should it fill the role of a regulatory agency with control over whether or not individuals can obtain or maintain their license? Should it uphold a particularly high standard of practice, suitable for a selected subset of practitioners? Should it fulfill a PR need for the profession? These all need to be considered as we get ready to provide feedback to the NCCAOM.

The NCCAOM has requested input by September 12th.  In part II of this post, coming soon, I’ll share more background information and provide my own thoughts about the documents. I look forward to hearing what you think about the documents and encourage all of us to offer input by September 12th.

Sixteen (or so) Questions for the AAAOM

Posted on by

AAAOM representatives advocate transparency and Board members have offered assistance. I’ve got some questions, and I look forward to getting some answers!

  1. What is the current dues paying individual voting membership of the AAAOM and how many individual members voted in the March 2015 elections?
  2. How many organizational voting members does the AAAOM have, who are they, and how many voted in the March 2015 elections?
  3. Who was on the Election Committee supervising that election?
  4. Why do the new bylaws close Board meetings to members unless invited by the Board?
  5. Why is there such a large range (9-15) allowed in the size of the Board of Directors?
  6. How will the size of each Board be determined?
  7. A 15 person Board requires a vote of 8 for a position to prevail. A 9 person Board only needs a vote of 5.  Isn’t there risk that dissenting members could be driven from (or removed from) a larger Board in order for what would otherwise be losing positions to prevail?
  8. Does the new provision that elections be held only for contested positions open the door for a board to manipulate elections by setting the board size?
  9. What or who determines whether a director’s meeting absence is excused?
  10. What is the hold-up in the whistleblower policy? Why has it been impossible to develop a policy acceptable to the Board over the past two years?
  11. In the past 5 years, how many past employees or board members have been threatened with legal action by the AAAOM after departing their positions?
  12. Who was on the Governance Committee in 2014, and who is currently serving on that committee?
  13. Are substantive changes being made in the draft legislation from the 2013 language? How is the AAAOM planning for a different outcome than in 2013?
  14. Who is on the expert panel reviewing the “unified competency model“?
  15. AAAOM 2013 990 states that annual reports are available to the public via the website.  However, currently access is limited to members. Where can the public access the AAAOM annual reports?
  16.  The AAAOM refers to itself as the “profession’s national flagship organization.”  Is this similar to this Flag Ship Service Organization?     Okay, just kidding on that one.

AAAOM, how about some answers?

 

 

AOM Leaders?

Posted on by

Who decides the future of the profession?

Did you know about the meeting of the Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine “leaders” last weekend?

Who represents working acupuncturists at these meetings?

These meetings started in 2005. You can read about previous meetings here, here, and in CCAOM newsletters. Attendees typically include reps from ACAOM, CCAOM , NCCAOM, SAR, NFCTCMO, CSA, AAAOM, AOBTA, and sometimes COMRE. It’s good (I think) that these groups are communicating. It’s not good that most acupuncturists in the US are several degrees of separation away from representation there.

There’s not yet a publicly available report of the 2015 meeting. I do know —

The AAAOM continues to be invited and to attend, despite being out of compliance with their bylaws for years. The AAAOM website currently has no news of the recent elections, the board information is outdated, and there is still no whistleblower protection policy. Word is that the current board overlaps significantly with the board of the NGAOM. Michael Jabbour continues to fill the board position of Immediate Past President (what happened to the real immediate past President Don Lee?) and was present at the AOM Leaders meeting. Membership numbers of the organization are a mystery and I hear the AAC continues to provide much of their funding.

The others present at these meetings know that the AAAOM is a deeply troubled organization that represents only the smallest handful of practitioners. Why, oh why, does the AAAOM rate a seat at the table?

Representatives of the Council of State Associations are also in attendance at these meetings. I am glad that the CSA exists, working to mitigate the damage done by the lack of a functional national organization. I’m concerned, though, that few practitioners have any direct knowledge of this group and what they have to say at the AOML meetings. If you are involved with a state organization, and if the state organization participates in the CSA and communicates back to the membership, then you’ll find out about the CSA. Otherwise, you’re in the dark.

Why isn’t POCA invited? I don’t suppose they’d enjoy being there, but if the AAAOM with their mystery membership is invited, and the NFTCTCMO is invited, why isn’t POCA?

It’s difficult to find the right tone for this post.  I know the groups representing acupuncturists depend on volunteers who are doing their best. I also know that working practitioners too often find themselves at the mercy of the “good ideas” of credentialing agencies, accreditors, schools, and a few powerful colleagues. To make it worse, most practitioners have been misled about what actions are likely to be effective and create positive change.

When I look at who is invited to the AOM Leaders meetings, and how far most of us are from what happens there, it’s no surprise that so many of the developments within the profession seem to work against the best interests of acupuncturists. It reminds me of Congress, and that’s not a good thing.

 

 

An Acupuncturist Looks for Balance

Posted on by

How do I help the greatest number of people?

The wisdom of Acupuncture/East Asian Medicine has improved my health and the health of my clients for more than two decades. Throughout that time I’ve worked with professional regulation, legislation, and our organizations, with the goal of increasing public access to the full benefits of this medicine.

My involvement in the political sphere of our profession has taken significant qi that I could have used to study the medicine, improve my technical skills, and increase my own well being.  Most days at my clinic include at least one moment when I know that with deeper study I could have provided better care.

This fall I felt that I should choose, Practitioner or Advocate? My clients weren’t getting my best. Could I find a way to support myself through advocacy and leave my practice? Would I be happier if I focused on the intellectual challenge of working toward a widely shared vision of success for the profession, and developing a path to that success? Or should I leave the advocacy work and focus on my patients? In the clinic the appreciation doesn’t carry a side order of harassment and ill will. When I treat I see the positive impact of acupuncture and Asian medicine every day.

It’s winter. I’ve been taking a break. I can’t quite follow the Nei Ching and sleep until the sun rises, but I’ve stepped back. I’ve read the communications from ACAOM and the AAAOM (and this, and this (apologies for it being post-deadline, it was hidden), followed the complaints about health insurance (what it costs, what it covers, what it pays, the work involved in getting those payments), wondered about our dry needling strategy, and pondered whether blogging about these things is “worth” the qi.

It’s still winter….

 

 

 

 

17 Foundational Beliefs of The Acupuncture Observer

Posted on by

Embracing the season of gratitude and thanks, it’s time for The Acupuncture Observer to take a step back and share some of her foundational beliefs about the medicine, the profession, and life.

  1. Acupuncture/OM works. The unique situation of the patient and the unique skills of the provider influence effectiveness. No single tradition provides all of the answers or benefits.
  2. Acupuncture/OM has fewer negative side effects and risks than conventional treatment for many conditions.
  3. Access is a necessary precursor to effective treatment.
  4. Effective treatment will increase wellbeing and could decrease health care costs.
  5. Every means to increase access carries trade-offs. Those trade-offs must be understood as we determine our path forward. We should learn from the experiences of other professions.
  6. Understanding and explaining the mechanism of acupuncture from the knowledge base of modern biology and physiology is useful and interesting, but is not necessary for acceptance by the medical establishment.
  7. The current “science-based” understanding of health is known to be limited. Insisting that Acupuncture/OM be taught, thought of, or explored only in the language of modern medicine/science is unscientific and risks centuries of experience and wisdom.
  8. Consumers should have significant freedom of choice in health care. Understandable and clear information about potential benefits and risks, as well as an exploration of the costs (financial and otherwise) is necessary for good decision-making.
  9. Self-serving thinking leads to hypocrisy. Special attention is needed when an argument for patient protection creates an economic benefit for particular providers.
  10. Simple, easily learned treatments can be effective and safe.
  11. There is the potential for growth and success within the acupuncture/OM profession.
  12. Many acupuncture programs do not provide sufficient or accurate information about post-graduation life and do a poor job of teaching business skills. This can be changed easily and inexpensively.
  13. The financial and karmic ROI (Return on Investment) of positively promoting our profession is superior to that of engaging in political/regulatory battles with others.
  14. The future of the medicine and of the profession are interconnected but not identical.
  15. Thoughtful and respectful analysis can identify areas of common ground.
  16. Focusing on areas of common ground decreases factionalism, and builds unity, understanding, and participation.
  17. The profession lacks venues for respectful dialogue on these issues. As a result, many scholars and potential leaders within the profession avoid involvement.

Do we agree on some of these? Can respectful dialogue increase the areas of agreement? What if we read the Tao Te Ching, the I Ching, and The Art of War first? What if we go deeper than our Wei level response to some of these issues? I believe it is possible that we’ll be able to find a new path forward, one we can walk together, with our hair flowing free. After all, I’m an acupuncturist.

Positive Developments for the U.S. Acupuncture Profession

Posted on by

Volume 1, No. 1 of Meridians: The Journal of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine hit my mailbox last week.  It’s difficult to keep up with my “reading pile,” but knowing that Jennifer Stone and Lynn Eder were involved was a great incentive.

Though my time at the AAAOM was “nasty, brutish, and short” I did meet some great people there. Jennifer, who was editor-in-chief of The American Acupuncturist, and associate editor Lynn were among them.  Their work was top-notch and when I saw that they were part of the exodus from the AAAOM I feared their skills would be lost to the profession. Luckily, the new endeavor is off to a great start.

My favorite section was “Clinical Pearls”, focusing on Frozen Shoulder this issue. (Submissions on How to Treat Blocked Menses (Secondary Amenorrhea) will be accepted until November 15.)  I was so glad to see a focus on acupuncture treatments rather than herbal remedies. The growing (damaging and disturbing) trend in the profession to restrict practice to those with full herbal credentials demands frequent reminders that needling points is an incredibly effective stand-alone treatment. Thanks, Dylan Jawahir, Clinical Pearls Editor.

I also appreciated Jennifer Stone’s piece on postherpetic neuralgia. I’ll give the protocol a try the next time I’m confronted with a case that does not respond to my usual treatment choices. Again, simple needling can have great results.

My state association membership includes online access to MeridiansJAOM, which is a great perk. Still, ongoing survival of the journal will depend on subscribers and I hope that many of us will step up, subscribe, and support its advertisers. Subscription rates are very reasonable.

I have just one gentle request for Jennifer — can we have a more eye-friendly font? The footnotes were almost impossible for me, and even the main text required good lighting and rested eyes.

Another bit of good news last week — the launch of the Acupuncture Now Foundation. I’m often frustrated that so much of our profession’s energy and money goes to fighting with other professions, increasing our own licensure and educational requirements, and fighting to participate in a broken medical system. Meanwhile, helping the public understand the benefits of our medicine doesn’t seem to be a priority for many of our professional organizations.

Just as Matt Bauer’s Making Acupuncture Pay book and website have helped new practitioners by filling the gaps left by many of our acupuncture schools, the Acupuncture Now Foundation promises to do the public outreach work often given short shrift by our organizations. I hope that Matt gets the support he needs to finally do the work that has been his vision for years. He’ll need our help if this project is going to reach its potential. Sign up to receive updates on the ANF home page.

NCCAOM/Dry Needling/A Young Profession

Posted on by

A survey about the possibility of a new NCCAOM certificate in Facial Rejuvenation showed up a few days ago. The online conversations were a reminder that many of us are confused about the NCCAOM — what their role is, what we want their role to be , what their role “should” be.  The topic deserves its own post, but, in short, the NCCAOM is a credentialing agency. They design, administer, and maintain the process by which most of us are able to be licensed.  There are loads of consequences of their power within our profession, especially because we have not had, for some time, a truly effective or well-functioning national professional association.

There were many complaints that the NCCAOM hadn’t done more to “stop dry needling.” That, combined with yesterday’s urgent petition regarding legislation on the Governor’s desk in Delaware, made we think I’ve got to try, one more time, to explain where we are with the issue and why what we’ve been doing won’t work. My post to my alumni group is out of context, but I hope still worth sharing (somewhat edited for clarity) —

Since Dry Needling is the issue that keeps coming up as a major focus for the profession, I wanted to give a little more info about the “court rulings” in our favor.

The one that received the most notice and attention was the case in Oregon regarding Chiropractors and Dry Needling.  The outcome of the case was widely misrepresented within the acupuncture community. Various stories indicated that the courts said that dry needling was acupuncture or that it had been determined that the training programs were insufficient.  This was not the case.  You can read a fuller explanation of the outcome of the case here – https://theacupunctureobserver.com/a-practical-next-step/. The gist of the ruling is that dry needling does not meet the implied definition of physiotherapy within the Oregon code.

Other states have also had rulings (usually informal) from the Attorneys General stating that dry needling is not within PT scope.  These rulings have typically been much celebrated within the acupuncture community, but we haven’t been hearing what happens next.  For instance, some time ago Utah was celebrating such a ruling.  Since that time, legislation added dry needling to the scope of physical therapists.  Similar legislation passed in Arizona.  When the AG recently ruled that dry needling was not within PT scope in Tennessee, the ruling included phrasing that basically said, PT’s will need to address this legislatively, as was done in Utah.  (You can get the link to the ruling here — https://theacupunctureobserver.com/late-july-acupuncture-news/).  Illinois is another state where the AG’s latest opinion agreed with the argument that dry needling was not within PT scope, but where the PT groups are already preparing legislation for the next session.

There will probably be states where the acupuncture community is large enough and well-connected enough (and Maryland might well be one) where similar legislation would not be successful, but if you look at the numbers in most states, the PT’s (who also often have business connections with the medical establishment) are likely to prevail.

Today I received a notice of a petition regarding DE HB 359, adding dry needling to the scope of PT’s in Delaware.  HB 359 passed by overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate and needs only the Governor’s signature.  Among the “gems” in the petition – “Accordingly, HB 359 will potentially place the general public in significant danger of injury and harm due to unsafe and unqualified needle practices.”  There are about 800 PT’s in DE, and even more PT Assistants.  There are 45 LAcs.  The odds of the Governor exercising his veto are slim, the odds of pissing off 800 PT’s?  Pretty good, considering we’ve just stated they are putting the public in significant danger.  Interestingly, one of the authors of this petition is the same person who pushed for the requirement of the NCCAOM OM credential in DE, putting practice off limits to about 70% of US acupuncturists.  Isn’t it ironic that the profession’s self-imposed restrictions on licensure in Delaware have left the LAcs scrambling to block action by an overwhelmingly larger group?

Had LAcs been more willing to work with the PT’s from the start, I suspect that in many jurisdictions we’d have come out ahead.  We’d have built relationships and understanding and had some influence, perhaps, on how this modality is practiced.  By sending PT’s to the legislative fix (that’s what “we” said right from the beginning – if they want to do this they should do it legislatively) we’ve taken ourselves out of the process.  As they succeed with changing the law we’ve lost any influence on the procedure.

Of course, trying to work together might not have changed anything.  Professions (including our own) are universally unhappy about outsiders coming in to tell them what they should do and how they should do it.

I will add three things in response to the previous post.  1) While I appreciate the frustration felt by LAcs when dry needling and acupuncture are spoken about as being equivalent, hasn’t it been our insistence that dry needling IS acupuncture that led to this? Wouldn’t we be better served by clarifying the distinction between the two? (Of course, that would undermine our argument that we have a right to regulate the procedure.)  2) There are many cases of patients not wanting to report harm suffered at the hands of providers.  This happens among acupuncture patients too. Even LAcs can cause a pneumothorax.  3) The cease and desist orders can’t help but remind me of the stories from decades ago of acupuncturists being threatened with arrest for practicing medicine without a license.

It hasn’t taken long for us to go from being the scrappy upstarts just wanting to help people with a simple technique, and frustrated by the establishment that was trying to shut us down, to acting like the establishment.  We’ve got our ever-increasing credentials, and maybe specialties soon, and are increasingly able to participate in the bureaucratic system of figuring out which set of codes gets us a reimbursement we can live with. Now, in Maryland, LAcs can interfere with a citizen’s ability to choose what treatments they get from which providers, and can throw their weight around in the provider community.

PT’s will outnumber us for a long time to come.  It’s a shame we’ve pissed in that particular well.

 

Late July Acupuncture News

Posted on by

CCAOM has released two new position papers regarding Clean Needle Technique. (No mention on the AAAOM or CCAOM sites about this important news.)  We practitioners are responsible for knowing the latest standards for safe practice, so here are the new position papers on the use of gloves and skin preparation for your convenience.

 

NCCAOM has finally released the report on 2013 Demographics from the JTA survey. 52K as the median pre-tax income is not good news, especially since most of us get no benefits (no paid sick leave, no paid vacation, no disability or health insurance, no retirement savings plan). (Then again, many of us seem to be working part-time, often by choice. So maybe the figure isn’t so crazy?)  Math lovers among my readers — feel free to share what additional number-crunching reveals. I’m not a numbers person, but I’m pretty certain that the average income will be below the median income figure.

67% of respondents hold only the NCCAOM AC credential.  If this accurately reflects the overall credential distribution within the profession the states requiring the OM credentials are off-limits to 2/3 of practitioners. That can’t be a good thing. (I’m still waiting for someone to explain the public health issues that led to the upcoming change in FL. And I sure wish FSOMA and the Florida Board would do a better job of spreading word of that change.)  Do those with the OM credential have a higher median income to offset the additional education and credentialing costs? The NCCAOM should collect that data next time.

The NCCAOM survey is designed to gather information from acupuncture practitioners so there is no data on how many acupuncture school grads have left the profession. I hope the CCAOM will soon require schools to track those numbers.

 

The California Board came in for some media scrutiny recently.  If the extra attention helps eliminate some of the extra hoops (which equal extra costs) necessary to practice in California, it will be a silver lining. I hear there might be some trouble on the New Mexico board as well (no details, though). Have independent boards been a winner for the profession?

 

It wouldn’t be an update without a little Dry Needling talk. The vocal segment of our community obsessed with the practice hasn’t been crowing about the Tennessee AG Dry Needling ruling that IMT/TPDN is not within the current scope of Physical Therapy. (Thanks National Policy Group for keeping us informed!) No doubt the concluding paragraphs referring to a legislative fix, as happened in Utah, tempers the celebration. And while I’m on the subject, here is a legal analysis of the faulty argument that the use of acupuncture needles by non-acupuncturists is illegal.  Can we please stop saying that now?  (As of Spring 2015, acupuncturists were unable to get needles from California suppliers, due to labeling of acupuncture needles as dangerous devices.  Around that time the NCASI FDA complaint became hidden on the NCASI site.  Here’s a copy NCASI – dry-needling-violations.)

I suppose this is enough to keep everyone busy for a while….