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.

 

 

 

NCCAOM Updates and Links of Interest

The NCCAOM has responded to community concerns about changes to their testing procedures.

Here is an explanation of why they needed to change to limited testing windows and delays in providing preliminary results, along with a statement that they will delay this change to 2020. They will also work with the schools to set the testing windows to coordinate with graduation dates. Please do read it so you understand why these (temporary) changes will happen.

And here is the FAQ regarding the elimination of the Pre-graduation eligibility route. The date for this change is still September 1, 2018, and the FAQ isn’t quite so transparent. I do understand that the NCCAOM has to treat all applicants the same. Under the current system students of ACAOM-accredited schools can begin testing prior to graduation, while those in apprenticeship or foreign programs can’t. So, that’s not right. But some of the supposed benefits in the NCCAOM FAQ don’t seem all that beneficial. The answer to Q2 doesn’t actually answer Q2. And could they address the problem with less disruption? Allowing all students to sit all but one exam prior to graduation might address some of the problems mentioned by the NCCAOM without leaving new graduates in limbo for quite so long.

Here are some interesting links in no particular order. The issues may not be directly related to the acupuncture profession, but affect the bigger ecosystem.

A Dark Side of Chinese Medicine

Results of VT Medicaid Pilot Project using Acupuncture

The Value of the Doctor-Patient Relationship

For Fun if You are in New York City

Increasing Tuition at For-Profit Schools as GI Benefit Grows

Healthcare for those with Disabilities

Family Physicians on Nurse Practitioner Scope

Occupational Licensing for those with Criminal Records

The Acupuncture Observer’s Odds, Ends, and Action Items

I can’t keep up, so prepare for some less polished posts as I play catch up.

First, housekeeping —

I’ve been using the blog for essays and analysis and using The Acupuncture Observer and Acupuncture Regulation-US Facebook pages to share articles of interest. Follow those pages, and if the FB algorithm cooperates, you’ll get important background and stay on top of current events.

I kind of hate Facebook and may give it up one of these days. Subscribe (if you haven’t already) to The Acupuncture Observer blog by entering your email address in the box in the upper right (under the banner photo) of the home page. Don’t count on Mark Zuckerberg to show you what’s important.

I’m considering a weekly (or so) blog post with links to a selection of the articles I’ve been posting to FB. Good idea?

Regarding The Acupuncture Observer —

I am not a journalist. I am an acupuncturist with experience on the board of state and national associations and the state regulatory agency. I am also a news junkie.

I have a point of view.

That point of view is informed by my experience, research, insider reports, news, transcripts of meetings, etc. I link to supporting information. My opinions are not based on hearsay or one individual’s report.

If I am wrong, let me know. That’s what the comments are for. I moderate to exclude spam and to reduce unnecessary rudeness, not to shut down differences of opinion. Reach out if you’d like to run a guest post.

If the position of you or your organization is already widely known, and especially if you have ready access to Acupuncture Today or widely distributed organizational newsletters, don’t expect equal time here. You already have a forum for your positions.

I’ll issue a correction if you can show me that I’ve got faulty information. But just telling me that I’m wrong or stupid or “clearly don’t understand” isn’t helpful. Show me the evidence.

And, an Action Item —

The NCCAOM has recently announced changes to their testing procedures.

1)      As of this September, people will no longer be able to sit the exams before they graduate.

2)      As of 2019, the exams will only be offered during four 12-day windows. There will be two testing windows for foreign language exams and reinstatement exams.

3)      People will no longer get preliminary results immediately after taking the exams and will need to wait eight weeks to find out whether they passed. That will give people a week, at best, to register for and re-take any exams in the next testing window.

See page 11 –  http://www.nccaom.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/2018%20NCCAOM%20Spring%20Update%20to%20CCAOM.pdf

Unlike some changes at the NCCAOM, I don’t blame a profit motive. Each change, in and of itself, has a reasonable explanation. But, the sum total of the changes will have a negative impact on the ability of recent graduates to obtain state licenses in a timely manner. Enrollment in ACAOM schools dropped 18% between 2014 and 2018. Meanwhile, the demand for acupuncture is growing. It’s a terrible time to drag out the licensure process.

I hope you will sign the petition. (The petition language incorrectly refers to regulatory changes. The changes are to NCCAOM policy and procedures.)

 

 

 

Eight mini-Posts for Eight Nights! First Night – Acupuncturists, Weigh In!

The NCCAOM is looking for feedback on a possible Safe Compounding and Dispensing certificate program. I don’t work with herbs so I’m not considered a stakeholder, but please reply if you are eligible. My questions/concerns —

  1. Will the certificate be available to anyone or just those with an NCCAOM herbal credential? Practitioners often delegate herbal preparation to office staff, so staff might benefit the most from the training. Additionally, some excellent and well-trained practitioners aren’t able to sit the NCCAOM herbal exam due to the nature of their herbal education. Could they still obtain this certificate?
  2. Will this certificate result in restrictions on the practices of those without it? The NCCAOM has previously developed credentials promoted as optional, which have, in short order, become requirements.

There are many areas of practice in where some of us could use more knowledge and training. It’s nice to have a way to show that you’ve got some special training or skills. At the same time, we’ve got enough battles with other professions and within the profession, and too often new credentials lead to new fault lines and new tensions.

Share your thoughts with the NCCAOM if you’re a stakeholder. Let’s help them serve our needs and understand our concerns.

 

 

 

Dry Needling Updates for LAcs

Not again! Yes, again.

[If nothing else, read: NC AG Opinion, NC Order and Opinion, Henry v NCALB, and TX AG Opinion. If you have an opinion on dry needling, and you want it to be an informed opinion, these documents are necessary reading.]

North Carolina has been a major DN battlefield. It’s been a rallying cry for strong action elsewhere. How’s it going?

Not well.

Some history –

In 2011, the North Carolina Acupuncture Licensing Board (NCALB) requested an opinion from the NC Attorney General regarding the North Carolina Board of Physical Therapy Examiners’ (NCPTE) decision that Dry Needling was within the PT scope of practice. The AG opinion was that the NCPTE could make this determination if it conducted appropriate rule-making.

Subsequent to that decision, but before the NCPTE concluded the rule-making process, the NCALB sent “cease-and-desist” letters to PT’s practicing dry needling, accusing them of illegal activity. And, in 2015, the NCALB filed a complaint, demanding a ruling that DN was the unlawful practice of acupuncture, and insisting that the PT Board inform its licensees that DN was not within the scope of practice of PT’s.

Given the AG opinion it’s no surprise that the NCPTE (and individual PT’s who had received the cease-and-desist letters) weren’t ready to roll over for the NCALB.

On August 2nd, the Court issued this NC Order and Opinion affirming the NCPTE’s decision that dry needling is within scope for PT’s, and that it is distinct from acupuncture.

(Again, please read the documents. They are critical to understanding why our arguments aren’t leading to more wins.)

In January the court ruled that Henry v NCALB could proceed. This is not good news for the NCALB and its members, who may be found (subsequent to the NC Board of Dental Examiners Supreme Court ruling) guilty of antitrust violations.

My top takeaways —

  • Don’t request an AG opinion if you won’t accept the answer. (A colleague recently wrote that he’s gearing up to “CRUSH dry needling” in Texas. Here’s the Texas AG opinion.)
  • If it’s determined that a PT Board has the power to pursue rulemaking on dry needling, we should make a good faith effort to offer respectful input. We should focus on minimizing risk to the public, while accepting that we don’t get to call the shots. Obstructing the regulatory process or making unrealistic demands puts the public at greater risk. (Also, we should make well-informed arguments. Insisting that dry needling is outside of PT scope after it’s been ruled otherwise, for example, doesn’t help our case.)
  • Don’t use dud ammunition. NCASI and others still argue, for example, that it’s illegal for anyone other than acupuncturists to possess acupuncture needles. The court wrote (highlighting mine)

¶¶ 16–20.) In particular, the Acupuncture Board contends that the needles used in dry needling “must carry a specific FDA warning as required under 21 CFR §880.109(b)(1), stating ‘Caution: Federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a [qualified practitioner of acupuncture licensed by the law of the State in which he practices to use or order the use of the device.]’” (Petition ¶ 19) (brackets
and emphasis in original).
50. The Petition takes glaring liberties with the cited regulation, however. The full text of the regulation requires medical devices, such as the solid filament needles at issue here, to include a label bearing: The symbol statement “RX only” or “℞ only” or the statement “Caution: Federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a ____”, the blank to be filled with the word “physician”, “dentist”, “veterinarian”, or with the descriptive designation of any other practitioner licensed by the law of the State in which the practitioner practices to use or order the use of the device[.]
21 C.F.R. § 801.109(b)(1). As such, the cited regulation does not support the Acupuncture Board’s argument that the needles used in dry needling are “medical devices” only for use by acupuncturists.

  • Our professions’ news sources are full of misleading, inaccurate, and incomplete information. This AT article, this NGAOM post, and this blog post, are inaccurate – repeating the false needle argument, misstating the finding of the NC rules review commission, and/or misrepresenting what the NCPTE told licensees. We need to do better.
  • Long-term, there may be a few states where PT’s are not permitted to do dry needling, just as there are a few states still not open to LAcs. There is already PT DN in most states. Making the argument that dry needling is acupuncture, as the NCCAOM did in their recent statement, is a terrible mistake. Do we want the PT next door to advertise “now offering acupuncture”? Our statements encourage them to do so. We need to adjust to the current reality.

In 2013 I wrote Imagine, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. I can still only imagine where we’d be if we had spent the last four years doing those 11 things, instead of what we’ve done (and continue to do). Let’s stop doing what we’ve done. We can get something better if we understand what’s gotten us here.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Acupuncture Organizations New and Old

We have a lot of organizations and associations for a small profession. Here’s some of what they’ve been up to.

AAAOM

Finally, communication from the AAAOM. According to their April mailing they’ve revamped their membership structure and are planning their first annual conference in over five years.

The new membership structure includes a free “Basic Membership” category. Does the basic membership give access to the annual report or permit the member to vote in BOD elections? If not, it isn’t a membership, it’s a mailing list. Calling it a membership gives the AAAOM cover to inflate their numbers (they’ve been throwing 7000 around) and mislead policy-makers about their strength.

ASA

The first Annual Meeting of the American Society of Acupuncturists was held March 4-5. You can read the full summary here. It includes updates on the activities of many other professional groups. Check it out, including the links.

CCAOM

I’ve only recently been alerted to significant problems in the 7th Edition of the CNT Manual released in July 2015.

One example – is wiping a point with alcohol prior to needling still required? In the position paper on their website and the July 2015 AT article CCAOM indicates that the skin does not necessarily need to be swabbed prior to insertion. Page 97 (or 73 in internal pagination) of the CNT manual puts swabbing with alcohol on the Critical (required) list, with the text “swabbing continues to be recommended.” Which is it, critical, or recommended?

The manual also contradicts itself regarding the cleaning of chairs and tables between patients. Must each table and chair be disinfected or cleaned? Between each patient, or only daily?

With our many traditions and practice styles it is difficult to define or describe a “standard of care” for many aspects of our medicine. This gives documents such as the CNT manual extra weight in the legal system.

This area of practice is outside my bailiwick. Is there an expert out there willing to do a thorough review and write a guest post? It is critical (not recommended) that we get this document right.

NCCAOM Academy of Diplomates

Yes, another new national organization. My feelings about it are as conflicted as my feelings about the NCCAOM.

On the one hand, NCCAOM Diplomates are a significant portion of the profession, and the NCCAOM has the money, power, and support staff to get things done. Earning a seat on the CPT committee (see the ASA report), for example.

On the other hand, an organization that promotes Diplomates only (and how can they vouch for anyone else) runs the risk of deepening a fault line in the profession. The NCCAOM’s history in the regulatory arena shows 1) they are persuasive and 2) their positions often benefit the NCCAOM and some subset of practitioners at the expense of the profession as a whole.

We don’t have a balance of power in the profession. The NCCAOM is in a weight class by itself and the Academy further tilts the scales in their direction.That concerns me. On the other hand, we’ve got no other group heavy enough to get in the ring with non-Acupuncture groups right now.

Let’s keep a close watch on the Academy.

NGAOM

The sparsely attended (30 practitioners?) February Town Hall covered why the NGAOM-affiliated malpractice insurance is such a bargain, how the OPEIU can help the NGAOM, and what’s happening in various states regarding dry needling and insurance reimbursements.

What I didn’t hear was further discussion of NGAOM’s baffling goal of mandating malpractice insurance for licensees in all states. Despite their claims, there is no evidence that lack of mandated coverage has had any impact on scope of practice issues or on how we are seen by other professions. Any insurance plan, landlord, wellness center, or employer can choose to require malpractice coverage. But if a self-employed or unemployed (by choice or circumstance) practitioner decides to bear the risk of working without malpractice insurance, they should be allowed to do so.

If this is the NGAOM’s idea of helping practitioners, we’re in trouble.

 

A few months ago I mentioned that change might be coming to The Acupuncture Observer. I haven’t yet resolved the tension between sharing breaking news and saving my limited time to explore the broader philosophical and strategic issues facing the profession. Would any of you like to be a breaking news blogger? (ASA, would you like a state update column every now and then?) For now, I’ve added a Facebook feed to the home page of the blog. Checking there (or liking The Acupuncture Observer on Facebook) should help you stay informed between posts.

 

 

Acupuncture Organizations 2015 – State of the Profession

The 40ish days between January 1st and the Lunar New Year are perfect for reviewing the past year and preparing for the next year. What worked, what didn’t? What direction will we go in when the days warm, the yang rises, and we spring forward?

There is much to consider when evaluating our practices and our profession. To understand how it all fits together we need to dive into the weeds. It’s going to take a few posts, but it will be shorter than the tax code!

Associations/Organizations/Guilds —

AAAOM (The American Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine): Historically, our national professional association. And, historically may be all. The website shows no action items since 3/13/14, and no President’s blog post since 10/9/14. Is there anybody there? Is the AAAOM still alive?

ACAOM (The Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine: Graduation from ACAOM-accredited schools is a requirement in many states. 2015 ended with an announcement of a Degree Titles and Designation Project. This should be interesting – there are already graduates of and students in the existing range of programs and there are widely varying state rules. Better late than never? (Wouldn’t it be easier for the public if we were all Acupuncturists?)

ANF(Acupuncture Now Foundation): Finally, there is an international charitable organization dedicated to educating the public, other health care providers, and those who work in health care policy. For too long we’ve relied on piecemeal efforts to educate others.The ANF is just getting started and needs our support to provide a visible, accessible and positive message about who we are and what we do.

ASA(American Society of Acupuncturists): This non-profit collaboration of state associations launched in 2015. The ASA has potential, and challenges. One challenge – “six degrees of separation” between individual practitioners and the group. A planned website should help bridge the gap. Of greater concern – at the state level, the ASA defers to the preferences of the state association. If an ASA-member state association supports a law or regulation that serves its current members to the detriment of all other LAcs, too bad, so sad for the profession as a whole. There are good people involved with this group so I remain cautiously optimistic. I hope that, before too long, the member groups will see that a victory that disadvantages other Acupuncturists isn’t a win.

CCAOM (Council of College of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine): The membership association for schools and colleges of AOM with ACAOM accredition or candidate status. They administer the NCCAOM required CNT course, and released an updated (available free!) CNT manual this month.

IHPC (Integrative Health Policy Consortium): The IHPC “advocates for an integrative healthcare system with equal access to the full range of health-oriented, person-centered, regulated healthcare professionals” and has been working to build enforcement of Section 2706 of the ACA to end insurer discrimination against classes of licensed health professionals working within their scope. I don’t know of any LAc that doesn’t support this group’s mission, so it is odd that many LAcs support legislation that would create this sort of discrimination.

NCASI (National Center for Acupuncture Safety and Integrity): One individual? Silent for many months now.

NCCAOM (National Commission for the Certification of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine): The NCCAOM “validates entry-level competency in the practice of AOM through professional certification.” Their vision is that AOM “provided by NCCAOM credentialed practitioners will be integral to healthcare and accessible to all members of the public.” They are powerful, organized, effective, and better funded than any other acupuncture group. They have had a major role in the path to licensure in many states. However, if you are not an NCCAOM diplomate, feel that the credentialing process is out of hand, and/or if you value traditions other than TCM, the NCCAOM is probably working against your interests.

NGAOM (The National Guild of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine): A professional medical society organized as a guild under the OPEIU, affiliated with the AFL-CIO. The NGAOM list of 13 VP’s includes the VP, Immediate Past President,Treasurer and one additional board member of the AAAOM and following in that tradition there is significant mystery around their membership and their decision-making process. They want the profession of acupuncture to be more like other health professions. Many LAcs affected by their work aren’t pleased with the consequences. You’ll learn more in upcoming posts.

POCA (The People’s Organization of Community Acupuncture): Mission — “to work cooperatively to increase accessibility to and availability of affordable group acupuncture treatments.” 708 Punk (Acupuncturist) members, 138 clinic memberships, and 1348 patient members. Minutes of meetings posted in their forums, 8 free CEU’s for practitioner members, loads of member support, and a school (POCA Tech) working towards ACAOM accreditation and currently accepting applications for the third cohort of students. This is a successful acupuncture organization.

State regulatory boards are not professional organizations or associations. Their mission is to protect the public, not promote licensees.

An exploration of acupuncture education, events in the states, legislation and regulation, and other items of interest, including more about these organizations, will be coming soon.