Insurance, Again. The s**t got real.

Photos of an acupuncturist in a prison jumpsuit, bond reduced to $455,000, facing charges of racketeering, insurance fraud, engaging in an organized scheme to defraud, patient brokering, and unlawfully waiving copays and deductibles. It’s bad for the profession.

It’s worse when the acupuncturist taught insurance billing seminars.

Whether or not she is ultimately found innocent, I’m sure none of us want to be in her shoes. Let’s learn what we can from the case, and from the discussions about it happening on social media and elsewhere.

(Here are additional stories about the case: Indian River Meeting MinutesMarch 2017August 24, IRC MemoFlorida CFO, September 13)

My takeaways –

  • There are wonderful, respected, kind, people who engage in criminal activity. Encomiums about the accused show us humans aren’t one-dimensional, but are irrelevant to guilt or innocence.
  • Insurance billing is no game, despite books, seminars, and conversations presenting it as one.
  • As a profession (the community acupuncture folks being the main exception), we haven’t accepted the conflict between wanting people to get as many acupuncture treatments as we think appropriate/they desire, earning what we “deserve”, practicing in our preferred style, and the overall health care economy. We grabbed insurance as the savior. It isn’t.
  • It is easy to rationalize wrongdoing. Practitioners justify creative billing to help their clients or counteract an unfair system. That’s bad for our profession, personally risky, and, because “insurance money” comes from people buying insurance, ultimately costly to anyone buying insurance.  If a plan doesn’t cover acupuncture for depression, explaining that to your clients, and giving them a discount if you’d like, is honest. Believing that the insurance company is forcing you to figure out a way to “treat them for pain so it gets covered” is dishonest.
  • If you want to advocate for better coverage, be prepared with data to show the economic benefits. Do you want your premiums to cover other non-medically necessary choices? Who should decide?
  • We need to be honest when discussing the efficacy and cost of acupuncture. Many practice websites, and much of our lobbying for increased coverage, refer to a course of treatment of eight to twelve visits. If an average of almost forty treatments/year, as in this case, is appropriate “for today’s complex patients” (as many commenters stated) we need to own that. If it varies based on condition (of course it does), let’s make sure we let patients and insurance companies know. If you are treating for a complex condition, but code for a simple one to facilitate reimbursement, you’re skewing the data about acupuncture efficacy.
  • There are lots of acupuncturists eager to give definitive answers to questions outside their area of expertise. Having a successful insurance-based business does not make one an expert on insurance law.
  • Our burdensome systems for approving CEU/PDA classes don’t provide quality control.
  • Having demanded entry to the system, we owe it to ourselves (as consumers and providers) to speak up when we see wrongdoing. We need to acknowledge that our colleagues who review charts and advise insurance companies are necessary if we are going to be part of the system. It’s a bad sign when those within the profession who work to protect the consumer are dismissed as the enemy. The insurance companies will find problems even without our participation.
  • Context is important when determining legality. Patterns of individually legal actions (in this case, waiving co-pays was permissible) can add up to illegal activity.

Here’s more on Health Care Fraud – from an investigator.

Being a health care provider is serious business. Participating in the insurance system is serious business. Let’s be careful out there.

 

 

 

The NCCAOM Replies

In early August I received a comment from Mina Larson of the NCCAOM in response to A Feature or a Bug. I approved it, replied, and now, with a bit more time, will give it a closer look.

I always encourage those who disagree with my posts to share their thoughts in the comments. I moderate to limit rudeness, screeds, and ad hominem attacks, not viewpoints. I’ll run guest posts, though I admit I’m more enthusiastic when the guest is a voice that doesn’t already have access to various other megaphones.

As I wrote in About Me,

” I continue to do my best to serve the profession and the public by encouraging a deeper exploration of the professional choices we are making. This blog is an effort to provide a forum for the dialogue necessary for our success.

All of my writing for The Acupuncture Observer reflects my own opinion.  I do not speak for any organization or board and am not representing any group here. I apologize in advance for any mistakes. Please let me know of any errors so that they can be corrected.”

Now, Mina’s comment (in italics), and my responses:

Elaine, it is very disappointing and alarming that you do not share with your group the many times I have communicated with you, informed you and updated you on updates on and rationale for proposed and new policy decisions – even our decision to not move forward proposed policies when we received input from our Diplomates (you were one of them) regarding a PDA and eligibility proposed policies a few years back. You also conveniently forgot to mention the fact that we delayed our linear testing (that we have to do to stay complaint with adaptive testing) and pre-grad elimination (also to stay compliant [sic] for our accreditation) based on stakeholder input. Please see NCCAOM Student Webinar: http://www.nccaom.org/nccaom-webinars-posted/student-webinars/

 

Mina, I have been unclear on whether all of our discussions are “on the record.” In several cases I have not shared our communications as I was unsure what was official NCCAOM policy. I’ll do better in this regard in the future. In many cases our discussions have not changed my assessment of the situation. Some of our talks were a factor in my feeling that the NCCAOM talks out of both sides of their mouth. I did not “forget to mention” to the times the NCCAOM has changed or delayed changes in response to input, I specifically refer to it. I even include a link to the announcement of the delay in linear testing, as well as an additional post (June 5th) reporting on some changes.

You continue to also bring up the NCCAOM testimony in Utah, in which I have provided information about our Chinese Herbology exam and requirements upon request by the Utah Advisory Board of Acupuncture. We testify at state hearings upon request from state regulatory boards and state associations to provide information about our standards and our exams. That is what credentialing organizations do! The herbal exam is one of our requirements for OM Certification and if you listen to the testimony at the Utah hearing, we provided information. We did not “side” with any group during that meeting. I had several meetings with groups opposed to and for the CH exam. We do not “pick and chose” what hearings we should go to – we are there to provide information about our standards and exams and to support our Diplomates in that state. How do you think there are now 47 states that have a practice act for acupuncture? We have been involved with helping a majority of these states to develop a practice act. How convenient you leave this info out.

I included a link to the entire testimony in the post about Utah. In that post, I include a link to a letter (UtahNCCAOMletter), distributed under the NCCAOM’s auspices and letterhead, showing that the NCCAOM supported the position of the state association and regulatory board to require the herbal testing. Although, in discussion, you told me that the letter was a mistake, the NCCAOM has not done anything to correct record. If the profession is confused about the NCCAOM’s position, that is on the NCCAOM. You and I went through that post word for word. In the end, the only place you could quibble with my writing was that my statement that the NCCAOM was unwilling to reconsider the hourly requirements for sitting the test did not include your position that that change was not within the NCCAOM’s purview.

In the interest of space, every post leaves out all sorts of history. Overall, I have often expressed my appreciation for the hard work of the NCCAOM.

Yet some people want to blame the NCCAOM for any problems with the profession. They want to point out that we moved to DC from Florida, but leave out the fact that not one dollar was spent on “moving employees”. Any employee who moved to the DC area from Florida, paid their own expenses. It is very disturbing to see people making false assumptions and publish information that is not validated. We did not invest, lease or buy headquarters, in fact, we are sharing our space with other associations in DC so that we can give those funds back to our Diplomates through our advocacy and PR work for promoting them and our profession.

I can’t be held responsible for what “some people” think. I have often defended the NCCAOM. I have not concerned myself for one second about where you are moving and how much it is costing. It’s an insignificant issue in my book. The NCCAOM has a MONTHLY column in Acupuncture Today, and the ability to mail or email every single Diplomate in the US. If you can’t make your case to “some people” I hardly think I’m responsible.

Now the gossip continues by assumptions that we go out and testify on selected issues, when what we do and have always done is testify and provide support to state associations who need our help or regulatory boards who request our input on NCCAOM standards. How come you do not speak of the many times we have traveled to states to provide information to advance the profession and our work with the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the VA? You and others on this blog choose to ignore the information on our website and focus on assumptions.

I have often reported on the work of the NCCAOM in various states. Your work is widely reported in AT and in your news alerts. There is no need for me to cover it extensively, though I do cover it. I link to the NCCAOM website and publications regularly.

You seem to leave those details out! How come you publish our 990s but forget to reveal that Kory, I and other NCCAOM dedicated employees work around the clock to help our Diplomates? You even have my cell phone number and I have taken your calls weekends, nights, holiday, but you are on a mission to discredit the NCCAOM because there needs to be someone to blame for issues in the profession. Anyone can also take a look at our annual report on our website with our financial statements. In fact, if you were to look at the data from the last couple of years, you will see a deficit as we have invested to give back to the profession. If you want evidence, just contact associations in Kansas, Wyoming and others who received practice acts last year as well as associations like FSOMA whom we have helped over the years, just to name a few.

I don’t leave those details out. I am glad for your hard work, and have said so many times. I appreciate your willingness to communicate. The 990’s and annual report stand for themselves.

In is also interesting that you have also left out the PR and advocacy work that the NCCAOM has accomplished (please go to http://www.nccaom.org for this information) to advance the profession. I have learned in my 15 years of serving this profession, there are some amazing people that make a difference by collaboration, selflessness and hard work and some who will continue to point fingers, have agendas, and cause needless disruption at a time when we need to unify to strengthen our medicine and the profession.

I haven’t left any of this out. I agree that there are many people working hard to strengthen the profession. I too, have worked selflessly on boards, with associations, to increase collaboration and unity. My goal is never “needless disruption” and I am sad that you seem to believe that is what I am doing.

Many of us have worked to build a better profession. And, honestly, much has been done that has not served us well. We have created fault lines, left qualified practitioners with limited options (requiring the herbal exam of all practitioners is one example), and selected winners and losers among the varied lineages behind this medicine. My efforts have always been to help us learn from our past and from the experiences of other professions, so that we protect the public without unnecessarily limiting freedom to practice and without putting additional burdens on professionals who are struggling for success.

It’s too bad that within this medicine, which looks for balance and harmony, we have so much trouble negotiating our differences.

A Feature or a Bug?

Quote

When a trusted business or organization screws up, it’s good to give them the benefit of the doubt. We all make mistakes.

I have trusted the NCCAOM. They were important to our acceptance as a legitimate profession. In 2014 I encouraged people to support a transition to their exams in California, hopeful that one national standard of entry would further the growth of the profession.

But I’ve noticed a pattern – the NCCAOM makes a big announcement and seems unprepared for the response. They scramble to address the upset, explaining why we don’t understand their good intentions or their difficult position.

I used to think it was a bug. They just weren’t as competent as I’d thought. And Acupuncturists mostly don’t understand their role and are quick to react.

But now I think it’s a feature.

We don’t understand their role because they talk out of both sides of their mouth – they say or do contradictory things depending on their immediate desire.

In the “NCCAOM Questions and Clarifications” document (released in draft format), their response to the reaction to the changes in testing policies, the NCCAOM writes:

“There are some policies where we may ask our stakeholders’ opinions and use that to determine policy.  There are many other policies where this is not appropriate because of the requirements of our accrediting body, fiduciary responsibilities (the fiscal health of NCCAOM), or impacts to public safety need to drive our policy decisions.  NCCAOM is not a membership organization, it is a credentialing organization. Examples of this include: the elimination of the apprenticeship-only route, elimination of the pre-graduation route, and the revisions to the NCCAOM® Code of Ethics and the Grounds for Professional Discipline. These are examples that our policies are driven by our NCCA accreditation standards.”

But the NCCAOM did ask for input on the Code of Ethics and Professional Discipline, and their revised code reflected that input.

And the NCCAOM did step back from some of their announced changes in response to concerns from stakeholders. Clearly they had some flexibility, and could have done this prior to their announcement.

And in 2016 the NCCAOM shared –  “Breaking News! New Membership Organization Announcement!” describing their “Academy of Diplomates.” The Academy Board is a subset of the NCCAOM Board, your NCCAOM recertification fees support this organization, and links on the Academy website take you back to the NCCAOM. No wonder we’re confused.

In “Questions and Clarifications” we read – “It is no secret that the number of students taking the exams, annually, has dropped dramatically over the past decade.” Their upbeat NCCAOM Spring 2018 newsletter doesn’t mention it, nor has it been a topic in their frequent Acupuncture Today articles. Study their annual reports and you can uncover the truth, but that isn’t the news they’ve been sharing.

Fewer people taking the tests means fewer new practitioners. Shouldn’t the profession give scrupulous consideration to any policy or regulatory changes that make it harder to enter the field?

The NCCAOM’s current honesty regarding their financial concerns is appreciated. It also demands that we reconsider their previous denials that money drives their policy positions. Their support of efforts to require the herb exam of all practitioners (UtahNCCAOMletter), and their complicated PDA system, make sense from a financial perspective, not from a safety one.

The NCCAOM denies that their exams shape our education. They say schools should not teach to the test. They also advertise, “It is recommended that ACAOM Approved Schools Faculty members sign up for [the NCCAOM] practice tests to familiarize themselves with the process.”

They dismiss concerns that a new voluntary certificate program could become mandatory. They simultaneously support efforts to make the voluntary herb testing mandatory.

Underneath it all is the refrain, the “NCCAOM’s number one priority and mission is to protect the public.” This is as it should be. But one insurer recently reported receiving 1-3 reports of harm per week, including reports of pneumothorax, burns, and infections. In a profession of, at best, 30,000 practitioners, shared between multiple insurers, that’s alarming. Is there evidence that patients in Maryland or West Virginia, where there is no NCCAOM testing requirement, are more likely to suffer harm?

With great power comes great responsibility. The NCCAOM denies their power and their responsibility, but they are the gatekeeper to the profession. They have us by the short hairs. Their denials aren’t believable.

I’ve given them the benefit of the doubt for years. I’ve explained away their errors as bugs and defended their good intentions. It’s painful to acknowledge that I no longer trust the NCCAOM.

They need to get a lot more honest and a lot more competent quickly, or we need to get serious about finding an alternative.

 

 

 

Third Night – Lowering Standards!?

In recent conversations with colleagues I’ve heard a few exclaim “we won’t agree to lower our standards!” and “we aren’t going to go backwards on our education!”

I haven’t heard anyone suggesting that we lower our standards or go backwards, so I was baffled.

Only momentarily, though, because then I remembered -The Acupuncture Revisions Proposal from the POCA Tech BOD to “revise acupuncture education and testing standards so as to benefit current and future (1) acupuncture students, (2) acupuncture schools, (3) acupuncturists, and (4) the general public.”

They make clear that their proposed standards are based around students meeting all of the competencies required for ACAOM accreditation and preparing graduates to be safe and effective practitioners. (The proposal is concise, well-written, and worth reading. Please do.)

Unfortunately, “high standards” in this profession has come to mean number of hours spent in school. So any change in the number of hours is interpreted as a lowering of standards.

I understand how it happened. When we’ve fought for acceptance, we’ve stressed our hours of training to establish our worth. When clients mention that they got acupuncture from their Chiropractor, we talk about how much time we spent in acupuncture school compared to the D.C.’s short courses. Hours of education has been a battle cry in the dry needling fight. (Which has been mostly unpersuasive since the PT’s 1) deal in competencies, and 2) we use different rules when we count our hours and we count theirs.)

Actually, a standard is “a conspicuous object (such as a banner) formerly carried at the top of a pole and used to mark a rallying point especially in battle.” (Merriam-Webster).

So, hours has become our standard. But it’s such a meaningless standard. I’m sure I’m not the only person who’s been to three-day CEU classes that have been a complete waste of time while a one-hour class contains a transformative nugget. I’ve spoken to people who have taught at some acupuncture schools and the picture they paint is not of hour after hour of quality programming.

We’ve got a workforce that needs to grow. And levels of educational debt that are an impediment to professional success. Affording graduate school and repaying loans isn’t going to get easier.

Read the Acupuncture Revisions Proposal with an open mind.

Our banner should be more meaningful than a number.

 

 

Proposal regarding Acupuncture Education

The POCA Tech Board of Directors has been studying what it takes to become an LAc and wondering whether there isn’t a better way. POCA Tech has been approved by ACAOM as a candidate for accreditation, and has graduates who are NCCAOM-credentialed, state-licensed and working in the field. The POCA Tech BOD is in a good position to know what works. Here’s what they propose –

Acupuncture Revisions Proposal

I’ve been around long enough to expect the proposal will be met with some outrage. We’ve been insisting that it is the hours of education we have that set us apart. And that almost 2000 hours of training only scratches the surface of what there is to know about Acupuncture and Asian Medicine.

I’ve also been around long enough to know that 1305 hours of training is enough to produce competent providers. That there are countless CEU programs and additional degree programs to help us deepen our knowledge. And that there is no clear evidence that our more extensive training leads to better outcomes.

People want acupuncture. We need more practitioners to meet the demand. And 100K in debt helps no one. I think the POCA Tech proposal makes a lot of sense. What do you think?

 

 

Happy AOM Day??

“Acupuncture is a safe and cost-effective treatment that could benefit so many. If only the medical establishment could see the benefits of what we do.”

That was our mantra decades ago.

So one might think, now that Acupuncture has become accepted and of increasing interest to the establishment, we’d be happy, thriving, and confident.

But that isn’t the prevailing feeling. We love our work and most of us couldn’t imagine doing anything else. And yet AOM Day 2017 finds us fearful and disheartened.

Many of us carry significant debt and are not earning enough to pay it down in a timely fashion. Many of us are limited in where and how we practice due to varying state rules. The hoped for benefits from insurance reimbursement came with significant administrative burden and limits on what will be covered. Increasingly acupuncture is being provided by non-acupuncturists. Meanwhile, the profession isn’t growing. Based on figures from Acupuncture Today, there are fewer LAcs now (24,612) than there were in November 2013 (24,707).

So it is not surprising that we aren’t hopeful. The public and the medical establishment see the value of acupuncture, but we aren’t thriving.

There are things we control that could change our trajectory.

Those of us who completed acupuncture training prior to 1990 (some of our most admired mentors and colleagues) probably got about 1000 hours of formal schooling. If you graduated in 2000 you likely had about 1725 hours of schooling, and if you completed your training after 2011 your program was at least 1905 hours.

You can see, here, how the Virginia regulations have changed over the years. The hourly requirements did not change in response to concerns about practitioner safety or skill, but to keep the regulations compatible with the ACAOM and NCCAOM requirements.

In 1988 tuition at The Traditional Acupuncture Institute (now MUIH) was $11,000 (about $23,000 in today’s dollars). When I started in 1992 it was about $18,540, ($32,616 in today’s dollars). By 2003 tuition had increased to $32,865 ($43,722 in 2017 dollars). And, if I wanted to begin at MUIH today, the program would take almost four years to complete with tuition of $75,924. For a Masters in Oriental Medicine, necessary to practice in Florida, California, and Nevada, I’d pay $99,604.

A student loan of $40,000 at 6.8% interest can be paid off in 10 years at $460/month – considered manageable with an annual salary of about 50K. A $100,000 loan will take over $1150/month and you’d need to make almost 140K/year to manage that.

So it’s not surprising that the profession isn’t growing and that acupuncturists are worried.

Sure, the NCCAOM can embark on a major public education campaign touting our training and credentials.(Well, touting their credential, actually). That’s fine. But with the downward pressure on health care spending in this country, and the impact of debt considerations on professional training, it’s going to take some damn fine PR to make a difference. (Big Pharma & Health Products spent about 245 million on lobbying in 2016.)

A far more direct way to help the profession grow, help future graduates make a living, and make Acupuncturists available to those who want acupuncture would be to address our training. If those who graduated in 1989 were safe with a 1000 hour $18,000 education, why do current students need at least 1905 hours and $75,000? Can we simplify the path and reduce the cost of becoming an Acupuncturist? (Yes, we can!)

If people want acupuncture they will find a way to get it. If we’re not there to provide it, someone else will be. We do have the power to change this, and it won’t take 245 million. In honor of AOM Day 2017, let’s agree that more Acupuncturists and less debt would be a very good thing.

 

 

Ethical Questions

Our future requires a willingness to explore beyond our quick conclusions of what is “right” and what is “wrong.” How do we proceed when two “rights” are in conflict with each other, or when a good end might depend upon a questionable means (or vice versa)?

Providing safe, effective, and accessible treatment to everyone who wants/needs treatment while also supporting ourselves and our families requires us to face various ethical quandaries. Many ethics classes are short on teaching principles to guide ethical decision-making and are long on lists of rules like “don’t have sex with your patients.”

Marilyn Allen’s recent column on ethics demands our attention. She’s had a significant role in shaping the acupuncture profession, and she teaches ethics. She has power.

The column focused on a discussion about “gainful employment” that has since been removed from the AAAOM practitioner forum.

The forum included colleagues sharing concerns about their debt, and upset at schools that exaggerated the future acupuncture job market while glossing over the skills and financial backing needed for success.

Ms. Allen (who has given considerable funding to the AAAOM over the years) is angry that this discussion was permitted. She insists that it is in the best interest of the profession, and our future colleagues, to keep concerns to ourselves. Even a shared conversation in a practitioner forum is too risky. We “should have shown support for the schools,” she writes.

Ms. Allen proposes the Rotary’s Four-Way test in her column. It’s not my preferred guideline for ethical decision-making, but since she refers to it I’ll use it —

 

1) Is it true? Many graduates of acupuncture schools do struggle to pay off debt. Schools did use misleading data in promotional materials, leading to unrealistic career expectations. The proposed Gainful Employment regulations did raise concerns about acupuncture programs. The forum topic is no longer present to allow for a complete fact check, but my assessment is that much of the content was true.

2) Is it fair to all concerned? What do we mean by “fair.” Who is “all concerned?” And what is “it?” I could write a post on each question. When a topic is being explored by many people, in many settings, does each contribution need to reflect the views and feelings of each stakeholder? Is it unfair to share our personal experiences and opinions about a system in which we have little power and bear the consequences? Is it fair for a membership association to solicit the opinions of its members? My assessment – it was fair for the AAAOM to provide a forum and for practitioners to use it.

3) Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Humans do better when we know we are not alone. Sharing our concerns and our experiences is a way to build community and friendships, which support us in our sometimes isolated professional life. Knowing that other regulated fields share these concerns can also help build goodwill and understanding. If we feel that a friend (or, in this case, a system) is taking advantage of us, does it strengthen the friendship and build goodwill if we speak up, or stay quiet and suffer? Yes, the discussion had the potential to build friendships and goodwill. Ms. Allen’s column, by advocating denial and repression, does not.

4) Will it be beneficial to all concerned? My list of people who would benefit from the conversation, even if it escaped the private forum: current debt holders who feel alone and unheard, schools who care whether graduates are satisfied, potential students who may not have fully explored the economics of entering their dream career, and taxpayers who may not want to subsidize ineffective programs. The discussion isn’t beneficial for the schools that want to keep raking in loan money while avoiding responsibility. Should we be censored for their benefit?

Ms. Allen writes “It is sad when you read an article about the profession that contains negativity coming from inside the profession. Essentially, this is giving the other professions (those looking to treat acupuncture patients) the ammunition they need to diminish acupuncture and attain their own goals.

I say, it’s sad when those with the power to change things for the better instead advocate for a flawed status quo. It’s a danger sign when secrecy is demanded for the good of the group. The Catholic Church and the Penn State Football program are examples of the moral failure that comes with that argument.

Thank goodness we’re dealing with finances and not child abuse. Nonetheless, shutting down conversation and preaching secrecy is neither ethical nor effective. If Ms. Allen wants to uphold acupuncture as the place “where hope and healing meet” then we need to delve into our challenges, not hide them.

 

 

Protected: An Immature Profession

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Acupuncture Exceptionalism

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?

 

 

Dry Needling and Acupuncture 2015 – The State of the Profession

Dry Needling wins again – it receives “the greatest threat to the profession” practitioner’s choice award.

In recent years, Acupuncturists have devoted more resources to this issue than to any other.

A (fairly accurate) review of legal and regulatory actions shows that we’re not having much success. (Here’s another review, APTA’s Dry Needling Resource Paper.)

Even our wins have been temporary. For example –

– the Georgia Acupuncture Board added language stating that Dry Needling is acupuncture. The PT’s then added Dry Needling to their scope via legislation. (Could Georgia PT’s now advertise they’re doing acupuncture?)

– the October 2014 ruling in Washington State against dry needling was widely celebrated. Now the PT’s have introduced bills which would add Dry Needling to their scope. With almost 5,000 PT’s in the state, and about 1,100 LAcs, it’s likely they’ll eventually succeed.

We say the PT’s:

  • are stealing our medicine! (But we don’t own it.)
  • are illegally expanding their scope. (The majority of states have ruled it is in the PT scope. Modifications to scope are common in health care.)
  • are using Regulation to do what should be done Legislatively. (Scope clarification is often done via Regulation, which gives the public and other professionals the opportunity to weigh in and is preferable to politically driven legislative action. The public is protected through regulation. The PT’s have been successful in passing Legislation allowing dry needling.)
  • are pursuing this because their own techniques don’t work. (Even if true, 1) why does that matter, and 2) does the argument apply to us when we add techniques lasers, essential oils, e-stim, herbs –  to our scope?)
  • can’t possibly know enough to do this technique safely. (Many clearly do.)
  • can’t possibly be providing good treatments. (Their patients disagree.)
  • wrongly say that dry needling isn’t acupuncture. (Is it better if they say it is? Is there a legal reason our definition should prevail?)
  • make the public fear acupuncture. (Insisting this technique is acupuncture will contribute to the problem. Don’t we have the same problem when we use the technique?)
  • should use hypodermic needles. (Does that show concern for public safety?)

We can continue the fight to stop dry needling – getting caught in the cycle of suit (complaint) (never-mind the SCOTUS ruling) and counter-suit (NC PT lawsuit). We can fight state by state, and attack any Acupuncturist who suggests anything other than “the PT’s must be stopped.” We can keep insisting that if we just devote more resources and fight harder, we’ll win.

Or, we can learn from our history and the history of all of the other professions that have fought to maintain a monopoly on technique or turf.

We could be fighting for strong regulations. Mandated adverse effect reporting, strict definitions of what dry needling is and what it isn’t (other than whether or not it is acupuncture), requiring direct supervision for all clinical hours, requiring PT’s to post their hours of training, requiring registration with the PT Board, requiring physician referral for dry needling – all of these are possible.

A PR campaign promoting acupuncture and helping the public find an Acupuncturist? That’s possible too. Supporting ease of licensure so that people in every state can find an LAc? We can work for that. Support for new practitioners so that the public can actually find an Acupuncturist? That’s a great goal. Building collaborative relationships with other professionals who want to decrease pain and suffering? That would serve everyone.

Putting our energy into stopping dry needling? Not so much. It’s our obsession with stopping dry needling that is the greatest threat to the profession.