Firefighting

More than 42,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses in 2016. In 2009 at least 23.5 million people over the age of 12 needed treatment for illicit drug or alcohol use in the US. That number is growing dramatically.

People are dying.

LAcs are rightfully enthusiastic about the use of acupuncture to treat the physical and emotional pain that can lead to the use of and dependence on addictive medications and drugs. We have been proud of the history of auricular acupuncture helping those who struggle with addiction.

The development of a profession of Licensed Acupuncturists and the spread of acupuncture detox specialists happened comfortably, side-by-side, for a long while. Lincoln Recovery in the Bronx was treating addicts with acupuncture in 1974. In 1975 (More History ) the Traditional Acupuncture Institute was founded in Maryland. The AAAOM was incorporated in 1983, NADA in 1985. In many states, auricular acupuncture programs predated the regulation of acupuncture. Their safety and effectiveness was used promote acupuncture and lobby for Licensure.

In 2005 South Carolina (currently 123 LAcs, 658 deaths in 2016 related to prescription opioids and heroin) passed a licensure law with a dark side. Although 53 Acupuncture Detox Specialists (ADSes) had been working without incident in South Carolina, language was included that required an LAc be on site to supervise ADSes. With zero LAcs at the time the law passed, no ADS could continue to treat. (The force behind the legislation was Acupuncturist and then-president of the AAAOM, Martin Herbkersman, whose brother was and is SC state Representative Bill Herbkersman. Rep. Herbkersman also shut down a 2007 bill that would have removed the direct supervision requirement.)

Programs to provide the NADA protocol to addicts have been limited by the supervision requirement.

People are dying.

Unfortunately, South Carolina is not a fluke. The only voices against New Hampshire HB 575, allowing for the certification of acupuncture detox specialists, were the voices of LAcs. Luckily for New Hampshire (127 LAcs, almost 400 opioid related deaths in 2015, over 2000 opioid-related ED visits), the bill passed.

Connecticut (323 LAcs, 539 overdose deaths in the first six months of 2017) did pass a law expanding use of ADSes, but comments in response to the legislation from LAcs included gems like, “acupuncture should be left to the experts, the licensed acupuncturists” and ADSes “have absolutely no idea what it truly entails to safely provide acupuncture to others whether it be one needle or many.”

People are dying.

Remember, at least 42,000 opioid deaths in 2016. The number of Acupuncturists in the US? About 32,000 at best. Dealing with the epidemic is expensive, funding is limited.

It’s a crisis.

  • If you believe ADSes require in-person supervision, become a supervisor.
  • If you believe only LAcs should provide the NADA protocol, commit to weekly shifts at recovery centers, jails, and other programs, and take responsibility for daily staffing of those programs. Remember, funding will be minimal or nonexistent, and, unreliable.
  • If you believe that everyone deserves the benefits of full body treatment, commit to provide them to everyone – even if they can’t pay, don’t have reliable transportation, and aren’t as tidy as your typical clientele.
  • If you believe ADSes should work only within treatment programs available to those in active addiction, make sure your services are accessible to those struggling to maintain their recovery, whatever their circumstances.

Remember, some of the people most needing treatment won’t have insurance, housing, financial resources, steady employment, or reliable transportation. Where and how will you provide the services you think they should have?

If you don’t want to supervise, don’t want to treat everyone who walks through your door regardless of ability to pay, and don’t want to take regular shifts at treatment facilities, then, please, get out of the way of the people who do. Better yet, support them.

People are dying.

I’ve joined NADA, I’m making plans to receive training, and I’ll keep supporting efforts to increase access to NADA-trained providers in all states.

People are dying.

 

This post is in honor of Dr. Michael O. Smith. May his memory be for a blessing.

Fourth Night – Service

Join your state acupuncture association.

At least once in your professional life, serve on the Board of that association, or, serve on the Board of another professional group, or serve on a committee that serves the profession, or serve in a regulatory position.

If you support other groups, like AWB, SAR, POCA, join them too. But not instead.

Join your state association even if you are thinking “but they haven’t done anything that I agree with” or “they don’t do anything at all” or “they are a bunch of a-holes who actively work against my interests” or, “I already support these other organizations that actually do the stuff I care about.”

Trust me, when I get a newsletter telling me that a top priority for my state association is continuing the fight against dry needling, I struggle to write that membership check. (Because the fight has sucked up our resources and poisoned relations with potential allies and there is no chance we’ll win.)

Why give your hard-earned and too often insufficient money to a group that you believe uses it poorly?

  1. Membership organizations are designed to represent the needs and desires of their membership. To think “I’ll join when they stop doing stupid stuff I hate” is asking them to put the preferences of non-members over members, and that’s unreasonable.
  2. Health care is regulated by the states, and the state association has some degree of power (it varies from state to state) over regulations, legislation, and appointments. It’s good to have a say in how they’ll use that power.
  3. The policies of our best hope for a productive, consensus-building, national organization meant to serve all LAcs, the ASA, are determined by a Council, the membership of which is determined by state associations.
  4. There aren’t that many of us. Even if state associations have 25% of their state’s practitioners as members (optimistic – though maybe our lower percentage is related to misperceptions in how many LAcs practice in the state) that’s still a small number. It’s hard to do much if your organization is supported by and represents fifty people.

You should serve on a Board at least once because –

  1. The experience of: working to give people what they want, balancing the demands of those who want very different things, explaining that there is no shortage of good ideas just resources, explaining (again) why the association can’t provide a health insurance plan, giving people what they’ve asked for only to find out they weren’t really going to take advantage of it (you all said you wanted inexpensive monthly CEU classes, but only two of you came) – is educational. It builds compassion and understanding for those who serve.
  2. It will teach you a lot about regulation, legislation, and how some of what people insist we could do if we just FOUGHT, is not actually doable, even when everyone involved fights their hardest.
  3. Numbers again. A fifty person organization, with a five person board, and three committees of three people means about a third of the members have to be serving at any given time.
  4. People usually become willing to make the sacrifice of serving when they get worked up about something. They feel strongly about a particular issue. It’s good to have balance so one strong leader doesn’t shut out other voices.

Now, for my friends who are serving –

  1. Thank You!
  2. Working for consensus is good. Compromise is good. Listen to the concerns of all of your colleagues and don’t automatically respond with the party line. Be thoughtful.
  3. We’d have an easier time getting people to serve if Board members didn’t end up burdened with tons of administrative work. $$ for political action is important, but let’s not neglect the benefits of $ for organizational support.
  4. Criticism is not the same as negativity. Some positions and actions are deserving of criticism. If we don’t dismiss it, we can learn.

 

And, for all of us — let’s not take our differences personally.

 

(It’s not dark yet. I made it.)

 

(Note to self, 8 posts in 8 days requires advance planning. Not a good spur of the moment project.)

 

 

Success is Accessible!

When choosing or upgrading your office there is one consideration that will have a profound impact. Prioritizing it will help you —

  • retain clients for decades
  • appeal to clients who need your services regularly
  • decrease the need to make house calls
  • contract with insurance companies
  • participate in federal programs (such as Veterans Choice and ACA plans)
  • gain respect and referrals from other health care providers
  • keep your office in one location for the duration of your career
  • reduce legal threats
  • minimize workplace injuries to you and your staff
  • comply with civil rights law.

It’s a win, win, win, win, win, win, win,win, win, win.

That consideration is compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in every day activities, including medical services. Any private entity that owns, leases or leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation (that includes your office) is responsible for complying with Title III of the ADA. (Source – DOJ/HHS Publication)

19% of the US population reported having a disability in the 2010 census.

If you are blessed with good client retention and a lengthy career your patient population is likely to increasingly include those with disabilities. You might develop your own temporary, or permanent, mobility issues.

Acupuncture schools need to teach students about our responsibilities under the ADA. Ethics classes should address the de facto discrimination that occurs when we choose inaccessible work spaces. And, when practitioners seek advice from peers about potential office arrangements, renovations, or accommodations (such as interpreters) emphasis should be on the legal, ethical, and practical benefits of compliance. Preemptive absolution is offered too often, especially by those who don’t understand the law.

The ADA does include exemptions to protect small businesses from accommodations that would be an “undue burden.” Is a $2,000 lift table an undue burden? How much have you spent on Biomats, lasers, tuning forks, and travel to conferences? Rent for a first floor office might be more, but house calls also affect your bottom line. (If you rely on house calls to comply with the ADA requirements for accessibility, remember: you can’t charge more, you must offer the same level of service, you have to offer flexible scheduling as you would to your in-office clients, and, if you are accepting new clients it is discrimination not to accept those whose disability would make your office inaccessible.)

It’s true, individual practitioners who don’t comply are unlikely to suffer legal consequences and many Practices flourish despite a lack of accessibility.

“Getting away” with not complying is no way to run a business or a health care profession. Doing all we can to meet the needs of those with disabilities is good business, good for the profession, and good for the public. It should be a top priority.

Here are some resources to help you understand the ADA and our responsibilities —

Access to Medical Care for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities

Americans with Disabilities Act Title III Regulations

Title III Highlights

ADA Q & A for Health Care Providers

ADA Checklist for Existing Facilities

ADA and Small Businesses

NPR Story about Accessing Care for People with Disabilities

Post on California Law impacting Lease negotiations

ADA Enforcement Activities

ADA in a Health Care Context

ADA for Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Delaware’s Revised Acupuncture Law: Good Will, Good Sense, or Good Riddance (Guest Post)

By Joseph Ashley Wiper M.A., MSc. Dipl. Ac. NCCAOM

 

On June 27th 2008 then Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner signed HB 377 into law, regulating the practice of acupuncture in Delaware. This law turned out to be problematic and, primarily as a result of legal challenges[1], was replaced on July 19th 2016 when Governor Jack Markell signed HB387 into law. The reported histories of how HB 377 came about (both here and elsewhere) are inaccurate, inconsistent, and have the marks of contrived post hoc fabrications.  I was in constant communication with the self-appointed leader of the initial legislative effort, re-writing a number of the worst paragraphs of the bill during the entire initial process. Almost none of the ‘facts’ in the above reports were shared with me, or the acupuncture community, at the time the bill was being composed and negotiated. I would have reported this history very differently.

The original proposed bill (HB 308), supported by the majority of Delaware practitioners, would have legalized the practice of acupuncture on the basis of possession of the Dipl. Ac. (NCCAOM) credential. At the very end of the negotiation process HB 308 was inexplicably replaced with HB377, requiring NCCAOM certification in Oriental Medicine[2]. This, at the time, excluded over 80% of acupuncturists in the US and made acupuncturists the only class of persons in Delaware requiring a license to prescribe or dispense herbs (even if they had no interest in using herbs). I informed all parties involved of the problems, but was ignored. The NCCAOM representative failed, when asked, to produce the data on impact on eligible practitioners. The bill “grandfathered” in those already practicing in Delaware, then locked the door behind them, even though many of them did not meet the terms they were now proposing for everyone else. One licensee has never been to an acupuncture school or written any of the NCCAOM examinations. The “exemptions” clause in the original Delaware law was not written to permit this.

A number of authorities (Rose, 1979 pp. 189-193; Stephenson & Wendt, 2009 pp. 185-189), supported by a multitude of published peer-reviewed  studies, have concluded that occupational licensing laws typically fail to deliver their promised benefits[3]. This is because they originate within, and are driven by, professional associations and not consumer advocacy or public interest groups[4]. They tend to protect the interests of licensees from competition within their jurisdiction, while offering little accountability for engaging in protectionist gamesmanship. Moreover there are good reasons to suspect that interest in protection of the public has been a very low priority in many jurisdictions. The Bradley Case is one particularly egregious example of systemic failure to protect the public interest from moral turpitude in the State of Delaware[5].  Scholars who have studied the problem including (Baron CH, 1983; Kry, 1999; Larkin Jr, 2016)–to name only a few–are near-unanimous in drawing these conclusions based on evidence developed in a multitude of studies. One compelling legal essay asks whether or not state boards should be subject to anti-trust (Sherman Act) scrutiny (Edlin & Haw, 2013). There are literally hundreds of articles to be found in the legal and economic literature that raise these, and related, questions.

Lessons learned?

I am certain that the principal parties at the negotiation table for the original Delaware law, including the ‘representatives’ of the acupuncture community, chiropractic profession, MDs, and members of other already licensed professions were happy with HB 377 precisely because it would reduce competition. The establishment of virtual cartels should never be passed off as protection of the public interest. There are less invasive means of incentivizing professionalism and securing the public trust.  The replacement of licensing with registration and voluntary certification (Kry, 1999 pp. 887-889; Potts, 2009; Program Evaluation Division North Carolina General Assembly, 2014) would be a step in the right direction, although it raises a number of complex, but not irresolvable, issues. Recent legislative initiatives have even questioned the necessity of these less burdensome measures (Kleiner, 2011 pp. 4-5).

What does “the public” need to be protected from? How effective have state licensing boards been at protecting consumers? Stanley Gross sums it up rather well, while asking the question of whether state licensing is actually justified:

Two forms of evidence have been brought to bear on the question of whether licensing is justified. First, there is the empirical research literature, which is rather new, dating for the most part from 1977. There is some support for the proposition that entry restrictions result in more qualified professionals to serve the public, as judged by the somewhat questionable ratings of peers, the self-reports of professionals themselves, and crude measures of consumer satisfaction (reduced malpractice claims and rates). However, measures of quality that tap the availability of professional services, the extent to which consumers choose to substitute other practitioners, and the direct outcomes of service primarily show either no relationship between entry restrictions and quality or a negative relationship.

 

Second, there is the evidence that comes from the evaluation of the functioning of state licensing boards. It has been shown that licensing boards do not effectively determine initial competence of licensees; they do not help to maintain the continued competence of licensees; they are ineffective in the disciplining of errant practitioners; and they do not properly address the needs of under-served populations. Instead, as has been shown, the licensing system has exacerbated the problems of maldistribution and under-utilization of professionals, and it has supported a “licensing for life” system. The evidence presented does not justify the loss of economic freedom or the costs associated with professional licensing. Neither the licensing boards nor the professional associations that desire licensing can be said to have made their case (Gross, 1986, Conclusion).

 

To this I add that consideration of the Bradley case in Delaware illustrates that the entire regulatory mechanism has, at times, failed catastrophically to protect consumers from harm (see above).

The original Delaware acupuncture law was the product of the collision of competing factions seeking to secure their private interests.  Although there was a cacophony of rhetoric about “protection of the public” and “high standards” there is no evidence that any of this was, or has been, intended or achieved.  In the end, this legislation was a failure that resulted in the denial of the right to work for a number of fully qualified acupuncturists. Only those who could afford attorneys succeeded in tipping the balance in their favor.

There have been a number of recent legal challenges to occupational licensing laws (Klein, 2016 pp. 418-420). North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission may signal that courts are now willing to consider the question of whether or not occupational licensing laws actually further legitimate state concerns or, instead, protect individual board member interests (Klein, 2016, p. 419). Further it may indicate that courts may be willing to limit unreasonable barriers to employment. Patel v. Texas Dep’t of Licensing & Regulation concluded that oppressive training requirements may violate the constitution (Klein, 2016, p. 420).

 Conclusions and how we could move forward

It remains to be seen whether the new Delaware acupuncture law is adequate.  The previous law both protected market player interests and instituted onerous and unnecessary barriers to licensure. There were successful legal challenges to the law. This alone indicates that the original legislation was problematic.  In addition, there are several aspects of the regulations proceeding from the original Delaware law that are also problematic –for many of the same reasons.

Recent challenges to occupational licensing laws in this and other jurisdictions should give us pause moving forward. Larkin reviews the grounds on which occupational licensing laws have been criticized. To put it bluntly, they frequently “hijack state power for the benefit of a few” (Larkin Jr, 2016). This is what happened in Delaware. I propose several changes:

  1. Abolish the licensing of occupations where possible. Substitute state registration based on education and training. When consumers ask that their practitioners be licensed what they mean is that they want some assurance of competency. Registration assures competency at least as well as licensing. Registration should be available to any qualified applicant based on either graduation from a legitimate school or training program OR to any applicant who has been certified in either acupuncture or Oriental Medicine by the NCCAOM (or its successor or equivalent).
  2. NCCAOM certification in acupuncture or Oriental Medicine should continue to be permitted. But it should not serve as the sole basis of licensing in any state. Instead it should be used as certification was original intended: as a voluntary means of distinguishing yourself from other market participants. One useful aspect of NCCAOM certification is that it is still possible to become certified on the basis of having completed an apprenticeship program. The documentation required by the NCCAOM to be permitted to write the certification examination based on apprenticeship is rigorous. The number of hours of documented training required exceeds that required of accredited schools. Given that many graduates of accredited schools take on almost insurmountable debt to complete their training, and have few prospects to earn a respectable income upon graduation, this is a potential solution that should be given serious consideration.
  3. A consumer grievance board under the aegis of the state attorney general’s office should be created in every state to hear and act upon legitimate complaints and concerns of any person registered in any occupation. It should be structured to promote the integrity and propriety of those granted the privilege of state registration. The majority of appointees should be members of the public and not occupational registrants. This could, if appropriately implemented, solve the problems of Boards failing to act on consumer complaints and failing to discipline their licensees—a failure that led to the Bradley debacle described above.

Will we do any of these things? What will happen if we continue on our current course? Only time will tell.

(You can see the most current version of this piece (a work in progress) here.)

References

Baron CH. (1983). Licensure of health care professionals: the consumer’s case for abolition. American journal of law & medicine, 9(3), 335–356. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRNGt3aVJDczBSODA

Bryson, A., & Kleiner, M. M. (2010). The regulation of occupations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(4), 670–675. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRM1VER3FaRVdob3M

Edlin, A., & Haw, R. (2013). Cartels by another name: Should licensed occupations face antitrust scrutiny. U. Pa. L. Rev., 162, 1093. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRZ2xyUlpmN0MzUEE

Gellhorn, W. (1976). The Abuse of Occupational Licensing. The University of Chicago Law Review, 44(1), 6–27. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRblFpLXoycmRGYWc

Gross, S. J. (1986). Professional licensure and quality: the evidence: Cato Institute. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRMU9sYlpwR2xDcEE

Klein, A. L. (2016). Freedom to Pursue a Common Calling: Applying Intermediate Scrutiny to Occupational Licensing Statutes, The. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 73, 411.https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRU0p3Y2tmY3g4UzA

Kleiner, M. M. (2011). Occupational Licensing: Protecting the Public Interest or Protectionism? https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRUmNCb1hDajJ0d3c

Kleiner, M. M. (2015). Reforming occupational licensing policies. The Hamilton Project. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRQ0RWSzEtSWYxWW8

Kry, R. (1999). Watchman for Truth: Professional Licensing and the First Amendment, The. Seattle UL Rev, 23, 885. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRazRRTS1IUjNITm8

Larkin Jr, P. J. (2016). Public Choice Theory and Occupational Licensing. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 39, 209. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRLUtSTWRtbW52QTQ

Potts, J. (2009). Open Occupations–Why work should be free. Economic Affairs, 29(1), 71–76. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRQUF6TGZRR1BKWU0

Program Evaluation Division North Carolina General Assembly. (2014). Occupational Licensing Agencies Should Not be Centralized, but Stronger Oversight is Needed: Final Report to the Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee. Report Number 2014-15. Raleigh, NC 27603-5925. Retrieved from Program Evaluation Division North Carolina General Assembly website: http://www.ncleg.net/PED/Reports/documents/OccLic/OccLic_Report.pdf https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRaUo5ZnRtYmxySmc

Rose, J. (1979). Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Analysis. Ariz. St. LJ, 189. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRazJvbFI4aUtrUTA

Stephenson, E. F., & Wendt, E. E. (2009). Occupational licensing: scant treatment in labor texts. Econ Journal Watch, 6(2), 181–194. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0bO1cR6ClJRM0p1S0Uya050Q1E

[1] See Douglas Robert Briggs V. Board Of Medical Licensure And Discipline of The State of Delaware and this letter written by James L. Higgins with the law firm of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP  on behalf of two applicants initially denied licensure in Delaware (also to the Board Of Medical Licensure And Discipline of The State of Delaware). Taken together these two challenges confirm just how problematic the law was.

[2] For those who do not know, the requirement that acupuncturists be certified as practitioners of Oriental Medicine would mean that they also had to bear the additional costs of returning to school, writing additional examinations, and pay higher fees to maintain this certification.

[3] These alleged  benefits include promises of quality assurance (Stephenson and Wendt, 2009), reduction of threats to health and safety (Kleiner, 2015), correcting for “information asymmetries” (Larkin Jr, 2016), providing mechanisms of redress for incompetency, dishonesty or malpractice (Bryson and Kleiner, 2010) and a host of others discussed in these papers.

[4]“… the principal proponents of licensing laws are typically the occupational groups themselves” Kry (1999). See also Gellhorn (1976) “Licensing has only infrequently been imposed upon an occupation against its wishes” (p.11).

[5] Final Report Submitted to the Honorable Jack Markell Governor, State of Delaware-May 10, 2010: Review of the Earl Brian Bradley case by Linda L. Ammons, J.D., Associate Provost and Dean, University School of Law, 4601 Concord Pike, Wilmington, Delaware 19803

 

(This post reflects the opinions of the author and is not the work of The Acupuncture Observer.)

Growing Opportunities for Acupuncturists

The Acupuncture Observer is still working to bring you the latest news relevant to the profession, despite the summer lull in posts.

BLS Code:  After years of effort, Acupuncturists will have a distinct Standard Occupational Code in the 2018 Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Handbook. The announcements have repeated the enthusiastic claims that accompanied the multi-year effort to make it happen —

 “Earning a distinct Standard Occupational Code for Acupuncturists is a milestone moment for the acupuncture and Oriental medicine profession. This event positions acupuncturists for a number of new opportunities,” said Kory Ward-Cook, Ph.D., CAE, chief executive officer of NCCAOM. “The classification of ‘Acupuncturists’ as its own federally-recognized labor category both validates and bolsters the profession and positions the industry for growth.”

Data is good. A unique code will distinguish acupuncture as a profession from acupuncture as a modality, and may make it easier to be included in certain state and federal programs. And yet, as far as I know, the only direct outcome of this accomplishment is that soon there will be a report like this for the profession of Acupuncture. Will the data encourage people to enter the field? Will it justify the cost of an Acupuncture Degree? Will it provide evidence that would support increased reimbursement rates? I’m not so sure. Self-employed folks aren’t included these reports and I’ve been unable to determine whether the category will be based on education, license, or just whatever your employer decides.

Like some of our past accomplishments (student loans for Acupuncture School and insurance coverage for acupuncture) the outcome may be a bit more complicated than expected. I’d love to hear more specifics about what we can expect from those who led the effort.

Delaware: No herbal credential? For years that meant you couldn’t be licensed in Delaware, even if you had no interest in using herbs in your practice. On July 19th Governor Markell signed into law HB 387 creating tiered licensing. The law also limits the use of the term “oriental,” eliminates some requirements for ADS’s, and removes the grandfathering provisions. It’s not the best bill text I’ve ever read, but it’s a wonderful improvement over the previous situation. It’s terrific that the Delaware Board of Medicine supported increasing access to acupuncture.This is one example of a jurisdiction where the BOM has been more welcoming to Acupuncturists than the LAcs serving on the Council.

Nevada: Yes, Nevada is another state where the (independent) Acupuncture Board has seemed intent on keeping practitioners out of the state. That explains why the state that had licensure first has so few practitioners. Now it seems that things may be taking a turn for the better. The Nevada Board of Oriental Medicine has had a change in membership. Fingers crossed that this will be the start of a new era with increased access to Acupuncture (and related therapies) for the people of Nevada.

 

I’ll count Delaware as a solid win — increased opportunities for Acupuncturists and increased access for the public. The change in Nevada should be a change for the better, though time will tell. As for our unique SOC, I’ll be interested to see what that changes.

I still expect to write about the The Acupuncture Observer and Facebook fiasco. In the meantime, please share this post on AOF and with others who might be interested. And please let me know of any acupuncture news. In the meantime, enjoy these last days of summer.

 

 

Current Events for Acupuncturists, Spring 2016

Regulatory activity, licensure laws, and organizational news impacting LAcs –

Regulatory and Legal Round-Up:

In April the Washington State AG determined that Dry Needling was not within PT scope as currently written. The legislative session ended without success for either of  two competing bills to add DN to or restrict DN from PT scope. This fight is likely to continue in future sessions.

The North Carolina Acupuncture Licensing Board’s lawsuit against PT Dry Needling was dismissed  “without prejudice” on April 26th with a ruling that the NCALB has not exhausted its administrative remedies and so the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. A member of the NCALB distributed an email blast disagreeing with the ruling that seemed to have been written prior to reading the opinion. The NCALB (and anyone else crying foul) should study the Court’s ruling before pursuing the legal battle (and asking for money to fund it).

On May 9th the Texas Attorney General issued an opinion that the Court would likely conclude that the Board of Physical Therapy Examiners has the authority to determine that trigger point dry needling is within the scope of Physical Therapy.

The Virginia Board of Physical Therapy moved forward with regulatory language regarding Dry Needling. The proposed language (which will still go through a public comment period) specifies topics to be covered in the training but not required hours of training. Did the ongoing battle over number of hours in other states play a role?

A rare area of national bipartisan agreement is that Occupational Licensing has gotten out of hand. The right dislikes the burden it places on business, the left dislikes the burden it places on the working class. Add last year’s Supreme Court ruling regarding regulatory boards, and we should expect ongoing efforts to ease licensure routes and to diminish the power of active market participants on regulatory boards.

For example, the Governor of Tennessee (R) just signed The Right to Earn a Living Act, which requires agencies to limit entry requirements to those that are necessary to protect the public, and makes it easy for anyone to challenge professional entry regulations. The Governor of Delaware (D) has created a Regulatory Review Commission to review professional regulations. A North Carolina bill to disband many regulatory boards (including the NCALB) was defeated this session, but it won’t be the last we see of such efforts. (No, the PT’s had nothing to do with the bill.)

Licensure Laws:

KsAOM’s hard work paid off. The Kansas Acupuncture Act became law and licensure will begin in July 2017. The final language was a compromise that includes dry needling within both PT and LAc scope after the initial DN language almost derailed the bill. You can see the text here (see pages 11-17).

The Delaware AAC’s unwillingness to waive the requirement for all LAcs to have full herbal credentialing, even for those uninterested in prescribing herbs, has been an ongoing problem. Legislation has now been introduced which would create tiered licensing (and remove the word Oriental from the law). Tiered licensing puts acupuncture-only practitioners at a disadvantage to all other health care providers, but would nonetheless be an improvement.

Other News:

Last, but not least, CCAOM has voted to remove Oriental from the name of the organization. No word yet on the new name.

 

The Acupuncture Observer aims to inform all Acupuncturists of developments in the profession. Fallout from the previous Observer post leaves me without access to several of the newsiest FB groups. I’ll say more about that in a few weeks. In the meantime, if you know of news that deserves to be heard, let TAO know and I’ll get the word out. And, please, share this post with any groups, on Facebook and elsewhere, that could benefit.

 

 

Acupuncture News

We lack a national news source for the profession and so we are often in the dark about the forces shaping our future.

Here is some state-level news with national implications —

California: 

In January 2016 the NGAOM joined with CAOMA and nearly advanced AB758. This would have overturned last year’s legislation which moved California to the industry standard of ACAOM school accreditation rather than depending on the troubled CAB.

Connecticut:

The NGAOM successfully fought for legislation mandating Malpractice Insurance for all LAcs. Practitioners in CT report this was done without consultation with the state association. Malpractice insurance is a significant expense, and a needless one for licensees not in active practice.This new requirement doesn’t seem to benefit anyone other than insurance companies and the NGAOM (which gains members through discounted coverage) despite the NGAOM’s pro arguments.

Delaware:

Regular readers know that the DE Acupuncture Advisory Council has generally refused to use their waiver power to license practitioners lacking the full NCCAOM herbal credential. The BOM knows that depriving the public of qualified practitioners is not a public service and is proceeding with draft legislation (text not yet available) that would establish tiered licensure. While it’s not the best solution, it’s an improvement. New Council members are taking their seats in the next few months. Let’s hope we can all work together to grow the profession in Delaware.

Nevada:

The Nevada Board continues to push for an increase in educational requirements far beyond the Masters level. Having again ignored the advice of Nevada’s Deputy Attorney General they are now moving to hire their own counsel, perhaps explaining why Nevada’s fees are the highest in the country.

 

Acupuncture Today didn’t just miss these important news items, history shows AT is willing to selectively hide some developments within the profession.

After a series of well-received columns in 2007 author Lisa Rohleder received a letter from Executive Editor Crownfield — “After several conversations with my publisher and others, we are concerned about continuing your column under its current “theme”, for lack of a better word. While the concept of social entrepreneurship, particularly the “pay according to what you can afford” aspect, is admirable, it has dangerous potential from the perspective of professional advancement.” Yes, AT considered affordable acupuncture dangerous. (The ideas did have potential. The ideas Lisa presented developed into POCA. POCA has established a school, helped clinics provide millions of treatments, helped practitioners establish successful businesses, and provided free CEU’s and many other benefits, to members.)

The Acupuncture Observer may change a bit over the next few months. But until the profession develops a reliable source for news delivered in a timely fashion, TAO will do what it can to keep you in the know. Let’s keep each other informed. Are you aware of news of importance to Acupuncturists? Is there regulation that could keep Acupuncturists from practicing in your state? Is a group pushing for change that seems detrimental to the practice environment?  Email editor@theacupunctureobserver.com with your news. Let me know if you’d like to write a guest post. And subscribe to TAO (box on the upper right of the home page, your address will not be shared or sold) for news updates.

 

 

9 Reasons why Acupuncture Regulations There Matter Here!

Changes in acupuncture regulation in any state matter to each of us individually, and to the profession as a whole.

Here are 9 reasons why —

  • We don’t know what the future holds. Unexpected moves happen.
  • You may need to hire practitioners or sell your practice. Can interested parties easily move to your state?
  • Your patients might move and want a practitioner just like you. Will one be available?
  • Growth in the profession is not keeping up with demand. Regulatory uncertainty diminishes the appeal of the profession.
  • High educational and credentialing costs interfere with business growth. If the requirements vary from state to state, the impact is multiplied. (See this report on Occupational Licensing.)
  • Regulatory differences lead to divisions within the profession. With fewer than 25k acupuncturists in the US unity is critical.
  • What happens in one state impacts every state. States look at what has happened elsewhere when considering regulatory changes.
  • Changes in one state can lead to changes for everyone. When CA increased required educational hours every school and ACAOM soon changed as well.
  • Different regulations, training requirements, and titles make it difficult to educate the public about our qualifications, draw contrasts with other professionals, or advocate for our profession as a whole.

Staying informed is not easy. Neither is getting involved. We are all busy, we don’t always know how to assess the pros and cons of a possible change, and things can get heated and unpleasant when there are differences of opinion.

And, the future of our profession and our businesses is greatly impacted by regulatory changes – even those happening across the country.

Please, stay involved.

Forgive two posts in quick succession, but regulatory changes are on the way. You’ll hear from me again soon.

(Note — I advocate for standardizing and simplifying the regulatory process for acupuncture licensure. I am not advocating for standardizing the medicine itself. Our diversity is powerful indeed.)

How we Grow – The Acupuncture Profession in 2015

One Physician per 371 non-institutionalized civilians was the US average in 2012.

One Acupuncturist per 20,000 non-institutionalized civilians was the US average in 2014.

NCCAOM’s 2014 Annual Report is an important read for anyone who cares about Acupuncture in the US. From it we learn:

  • Applications for certifications dropped from 1744 in 2013 to 1494 in 2014.
  • The number of new certifications dropped from 1144 in 2013 to 972 in 2014.
  • 532 of those new certifications were in Oriental Medicine. Another 16 were for Chinese Herbology (likely existing LAcs choosing or being required to add the Herb certification).

I don’t know how many practitioners are leaving the profession, but many of my peers who were licensed 20+ years ago are stepping back from active practice.

Several current initiatives, including HR 3849 and state-level efforts to mandate insurance coverage of acupuncture would increase demand for acupuncture. (There are 49,435,610 Medicare beneficiaries in the US and 5.5 million Gulf War Vets.) If fully trained Acupuncturists aren’t able to meet the demand, who will provide those services?

At this rate, how long will it take to grow the profession to even one Acupuncturist per 2000 people?

Shouldn’t we focus on that?

I’m baffled. We’ve sued, signed petitions, and marched in the street, all to try to stop the “greatest threat to our profession” – other professions wanting to use the acupuncture needle.

But there’s been silence, or even approval, when Florida (with one DOM for every 17,760 people) changed their regulations in 2014 to require all 4 NCCAOM exams for licensure. Ditto in NJ where new practitioners will need the NCCAOM herb exam to use herbs in their practice. (How many citizens had been harmed by use of herbs by practitioners without the herbal credential? Was regulation needed?) In Nevada (approximately 1 Acupuncturist for every 47,000 citizens) the Board of Oriental Medicine is moving to require a DAOM of all licensees. Meanwhile, many insurance plans are limiting their provider pool to those with active NCCAOM certification, even in states that don’t require that credential. (After all, the vision of the NCCAOM is that “Acupuncture and Oriental medicine provided by NCCAOM credentialed practitioners [emphasis mine] will be integral to healthcare….”)

If we want the public to obtain services from well-trained Acupuncturists we need to make sure providers are available. One thousand new practitioners a year and growing self-inflicted restrictions on where and how we can practice aren’t going to do it.

The greatest threat to our future is an Acupuncture workforce insufficient to meet demand or effectively advocate for ourselves. Allowing or supporting credential creep, educational bloat, and practice restrictions are sowing the seeds of our demise.

Can we please focus on growing our profession?

 

Demographic Information From:

Acupuncture Today Density Map

Physician Data

Population Data

Medicare Data

Veteran Data

November ’15 Acupuncture News Update, Chapter 1

It isn’t easy keeping up with Acupuncture News. Now and then a “clear the decks” post (or two, or three) is needed. Here goes:

HR 3849: Representative Judy Chu (CA) introduced “The Heroes and Seniors Act ” which would add acupuncturist services to Medicare and would increase the availability of acupuncture to members of the military and Veterans. The bill has a long list of endorsing organizations. Supporters should share their analysis of what would happen in the twenty states with fewer than 100 LAcs*. In a business with competitors, creating demand for a service without the ability to provide it is a bad move.  I’d be more worried if I didn’t agree with govtrack.us – there is a 0% chance of the bill being enacted.

Dry Needling: In late September the North Carolina Acupuncture Licensing Board filed a complaint in the General Court of Justice against the North Carolina Board of Physical Therapy Examiners, asking the court, among other things, to declare dry needling the unlawful practice of acupuncture. In early October the North Carolina Board of Physical Therapy filed their counter suit in US District Court seeking triple damages for the NCALB’s illegal and anticompetitive acts. Not surprisingly the same LAcs who cheered on the NCALB suit were outraged that the NCPTE would return fire. Given the SCOTUS ruling from this past year I believe the acupuncture community is in a risky place. If the PT’s prevail it will be a game changer nationwide. Did the AG’s office (which had previously ruled that Dry Needling could be within PT scope) advise the NCALB on their complaint? Are all North Carolina Licensees picking up the legal tab for what looks like outside counsel?

In other news the acupuncture community has been touting the revised AAMA Policy on Dry Needling. The Middle Eastern saying “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” comes to mind. It’s a strategy that can win battles, and can create more of them. I don’t think of Medical Acupuncturists or PT’s as enemies. I do remember our insistence that the 200 (or 300?) hour training of the MD Acupuncturists is insufficient. And I wonder whether the PT’s could increase their training to 200 (or 300?) hours and then argue that all of acupuncture is open to them.

Nevada: The minutes of the November 5th Nevada Board of Oriental Medicine haven’t yet been posted, but I understand from attendees that the Board is planning to hire legal counsel, the cost of which will fall on existing licensees. Why does the Board need to hire legal counsel? Because they continue to pursue actions that go against existing code and legislation, rejecting the counsel of the Attorney General’s office. The news from Nevada is a reminder that having an independent acupuncture board isn’t necessarily great for the public or the profession.

Looks like there will be at least one more “Clear the Decks” post. Coming soon  – news about: acupuncture and insurance, NCCAOM’s annual report and more, ACAOM’s hot news, regulation in the District of Columbia, Lamar Odom and the future of herbal regulation, and what’s happening in the AAAOM.

 

* I use LAc to refer to all professionals holding the proper government license to provide primarily acupuncture and TCM services. Having no clear way to refer to, define, or describe this group of individuals is representative of our challenges!