Tag Archives: sacred cow

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.

LAcs = Tea Party & Acupuncture Today = Fox News?

Posted on by

The threat to acupuncture from dry needling is like the threat to “traditional” marriage from gay marriage. That is, the real threat is our obsession with the issue and our willingness to make any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to keep people from connecting with the provider of their choice.

Despite thousands of years of experience and a big head-start, we didn’t establish ourselves as the undisputed experts of this method of pain relief. Having failed to convince the PT Boards that PT’s performing dry needling is a danger to the public, or that LAcs should get to determine the appropriate training for this technique, we are now arguing that we’ll accept it, as long as it hurts.

The November 2013 issue of AcupunctureToday included Dry Needling: Averting a Crisis for the Profession, here is my response to AT —

Dr. Amaro’s “obvious solution” to Dry Needling, that PT’s be judicially mandated to use a hypodermic needle, is awful. Has it come to this? Despite our 2,000+ year head-start our plan for success is to require other providers to use a tool that causes tissue damage and pain? There is no non-political reason for a board to require its licensees to use an unnecessarily harmful tool. To present it as a possibility is an embarrassment to the profession.

While some auto insurance and worker’s compensation will reimburse for dry needling, for the most part Trigger Point Dry Needling is not a billable service when performed by a physical therapist. It is considered “experimental and unproven” by Medicare and major medical insurance companies. And, if it were true that PT’s were getting rich on reimbursements for this technique, is that an argument against allowing them to perform an effective procedure? Don’t we support people getting relief from pain, regardless of who is paying the bill?

It would be tragic if we were successful in requiring everyone using a filiform needle to use the term acupuncture while losing the battle to prevent non-LAcs from performing the technique. Given various rulings of state AG’s, and of the regulatory boards responsible for other professions, this is a strong possibility. Then, we will have lost our ability to distinguish what we do from what others do. (And, ironically, would help PT’s obtain reimbursement.)

We had decades to establish ourselves as the experts in this technique. We didn’t, and, frankly, many of us are unpracticed with it and uninterested in making it a major part of our clinic offerings.  Addressing unfair reimbursement scenarios is reasonable. Respectfully presenting evidence-based concerns about risks to the public is part of our civic duty. Our ongoing panicked response to TPDN, with arguments based on misinformation or a misunderstanding of such basic topics as scope and the regulatory process, culminating in the argument in Acupuncture Today – that it’s okay as long as it hurts –  is the real threat to our reputation and our future.

I encourage you to read all of my posts on this topic (you can get them via the categories or tags on the homepage) and on scope of practice. It is time for the acupuncture profession to stop shooting itself in the foot.

Smart Policy for the Acupuncture Profession

Posted on by

That’s my agenda —  to help acupuncturists and their affiliated organizations (AAAOM, NCCAOM, ACAOM, state organizations, schools, etc.) explore and analyze policy choices to help identify smart and effective policies and to avoid knee-jerk wild goose chases and unintended consequences.

My agenda is not to overthrow the NCCAOM, undermine the AAAOM, or to create conflict and division.

We are suffering from a professional auto-immune disease. How many subjects have been the greatest threat to the profession? How many LAcs have walked away from professional affiliations disheartened at the amount of energy spent attacking other professions or colleagues? How many of us react with outrage the moment we hear of some challenge, ready to mount an attack before we have all the information?

As acupuncturists, we see the suffering that results from an overactive immune system. Let’s stop making that mistake.

Last month I shared my email to my state association regarding their comments at an Advisory Board meeting. Here is ASVA’s response, and here is my reply. (I include the documents to show how challenging it can be to have non-triggered dialogue on an issue facing the profession. Rest assured, I am grateful to those who serve.)

Sacred Cows

Posted on by

The First in a Recurring Feature —

As I was leaving an Acupuncture Advisory Board meeting I had a brief discussion with a Medical Acupuncturist (an MD who does acupuncture) who had attended the meeting as an observer.  It left me pondering one of the “truths” trotted out whenever acupuncturists talk about non-LAcs using acupuncture (and even sometimes when folks from one acupuncture lineage talk about a different tradition) – that treatment from “one of those” practitioners might reduce pain and symptoms and the patient might feel better, but, because the underlying imbalance wouldn’t be treated, the patient would be harmed.

I’ve heard it said about PT’s doing dry needling, and in the past I’ve said it myself about Medical Acupuncturists.  In the conversation I was having, the Medical Acupuncturist said he had concerns with patients going to LAc’s if they hadn’t first been seen by an MD.  After all, he said, in what I’m sure he thought was a respectful and honoring way, you guys are SO GOOD at treating pain, you could mask an underlying serious condition.

I set aside my immediate desire to respond, hey, that’s what we say about you because your acupuncture training is so pathetic (yes, old habits die hard).  I tucked away for future action my shame that after all these years we LAcs haven’t done a better job educating and connecting with the MD’s who respect and use our medicine.  (No doubt they have much to teach us about things like participating in Medicare and could be allies in some of our political work.)  And I have continued to ponder this idea that acupuncture, done by anyone, could really treat symptoms well while leaving a festering problem untouched. Can this happen?  Does it?  I mean sure, maybe for a week or two, but isn’t one of the underlying teachings of our paradigm that if we don’t treat the underlying imbalance the problem will continue to reveal itself?

I’ve begun to think that this belief is nothing more than a Sacred Cow.  What do you think? I don’t need to hear about MD’s missing medical diagnoses, or about the harm done by western treatments.  I’m looking for the specifics in which acupuncture treatments relieved symptoms but did not address the underlying imbalance, thereby doing harm.