Third Night – Lowering Standards!?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the Acupuncture Revisions Proposal with an open mind.

Our banner should be more meaningful than a number.

 

 

Second Night – Census Time!

How many Acupuncturists are there?

As we strive to increase opportunities for acupuncturists, we should know if we have the workforce to fill the demand we’re trying create. If we don’t have the workforce available, others will step up to fill the need. That may still be a win for the population able to receive acupuncture from other providers, but it won’t be the win the profession has been working for.

The new Standard Occupational Code with the BLS may, eventually, give us a good sense of our numbers. In the meantime, different sources give wildly different numbers of our strength. The NCCAOM, relying on state figures and their active Diplomate data gives a count of under 20K. Others who have gathered date from all of the states (no easy task) have been presenting a figure of almost 35K (Fan AY, Faggert S. Number of Licensed Acupuncturists and Educational Institutions in the United States in Early of 2015. J Integrat Med. 2017 September; Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1016/S2095-4964(17)60371-6).

I’ve historically used the numbers provided by Acupuncture Today. They’ve had the resources to purchase mailing lists and the financial incentive, at least in the days of paper publications, not to send multiple copies to the same practitioner, even if they were licensed in multiple states. I’m not sure their numbers are as accurate in the days of their digital edition, but they are currently showing about 28K LAcs.

In my experience a significant number of practitioners are licensed in multiple states, and a not insignificant number keep an active license when they are rarely or never treating. When getting a license is complicated and expensive, we don’t let them go lightly. For instance, if there were actually 25,000 practitioners, and 20% are licensed in two states, 5% in 3, and 2% in 4, there would be 34,000 state issued licenses.

(To put the numbers in perspective, there are 456,389 primary care physicians in the US. And a lot of patient care is still provided by nurses, PA’s, and other providers.)

Whether there are 20,000 of us or 34,000, it’s a small number to serve the population we hope to serve. And if we’ve got inaccurate numbers we may be writing checks with our ego that our bodies can’t cash.

The Hanukkah story celebrates a miracle – one night’s worth of oil lasted for eight nights. Maybe we’ll have a workforce miracle too. But it would be better if we knew how much “oil” we were starting with. And if we used that information when deciding where to focus our limited resources.

 

 

Accomplishments of the Acupuncture Profession

We know acupuncture can treat pain and chronic illness, assist with recovery from addiction, increase fertility, and help people manage stress (just to start). Acupuncturists know it would be good if more people could get more acupuncture.

Many dedicated individuals have devoted significant qi to increase insurance coverage, to add acupuncture to Medicare covered services, and to bring acupuncture to hospitals and clinics. All with the hope of increasing access.

Other practitioners are committed to gaining mainstream respect and acceptance to further the goal of greater access. They’ve published research, increased training and credentialing requirements, and fought to keep others from using acupuncture techniques without that training and credentialing.

Our “return on investment” has not been great.

We’re still a lot of money and many years away from Medicare inclusion. How much time and energy gets taken from clients to deal with insurance? How many potential patients have meaningful coverage, and how long will that last? Increased training and credentialing and variations in requirements from state to state slows entry into the field and increases expenses, further diminishing our political strength. In areas with few LAcs, efforts to block other professionals from utilizing pain-relieving acupuncture techniques leaves the public with no access at all.

We’re not using our qi efficiently. Our efforts haven’t done much to shorten the path between most practitioners who want to treat, and most people who want treatment.

It’s motivating, helpful, and informative to read a book illustrating the power of a direct path between practitioner and patient. Acupuncture Points are Holes, is a great read.

It’s several books in one: a captivating personal story, an exploration of the process of establishing an acupuncture practice, and an analysis of some common limitations in acupuncture training. It examines the focus required to keep the path between practitioner and patient clear. The book and appendices contain lots of direct, straightforward, easy-to-read help for you and your business, whether it’s a POCA clinic or not.

The author’s decision to directly address the impediments that keep people in need from accessing acupuncture led to: adoption of a practice model which was then shared with others, establishment of a Co-op to support the system and interested practitioners, and, as of 2014 , an affordable acupuncture school to train future POCA practitioners. The 158 POCA clinics that answered a 2016 survey provided 880,596 treatments. One three-location group sees over 8000 unique patients each year. So far, POCA Tech students have a 100% pass rate on NCCAOM Exam Modules.

All this in less than twenty years.That’s a lot of accomplishments.

Getting the book will be an excellent return on investment. Get the e-book here, the paperback here or here. All proceeds go to POCA Tech.

 

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.)

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.)

Herbal Regulation and the Acupuncture Profession – A Better Way.

We’ve got competition. PT’s, MD’s, and DC’s are excited about filiform needles and LAcs are freaking out.

While our energy has been focused on that competition (our training and skills are superior, right?) we haven’t been paying attention to increasing restrictions on our ability to practice the fullness of our medicine. Adding insult to injury, the restrictions on practice are “coming from inside the house.”

I’m talking about restrictions on our use of herbs.

Yes, herbal medicine is powerful and complex and carries both potential risk and potential benefit. Yes, it takes many thousands of hours to come close to mastery of this branch of our medicine. Yes, people have been harmed by the improper use of herbs and supplements. And, yes, at some point the damage done by the misuse of herbs may result in stricter regulation. We may indeed lose access to more herbs.

It’s good that we want to be proactive, protecting the public and the profession from harm. It’s not so good if our actions don’t have the desired result. And not good at all if our actions increase risk to the public and the profession.

Let’s consider the terrain —

  • What portion of harm from herbs/supplements is the result of poor practice by Acupuncturists?
  • What portion of harm from herbs is from the use of raw herbs, what portion is from pre-made herbal formulas?
  • Does preventing certain LAcs from recommending herbs or supplements limit public access to these products?
  • Is the average LAc, even without herbal training, likely to have a positive or negative impact on client’s proper use of herbs and supplements?
  • Which are better tailored to the individualized treatment that is a hallmark of Chinese Medicine — pre-made/patent formulas or raw herbs?
  • Which are more likely to be contaminated with banned substances or prescription medicine – patent formulas or raw herbs?
  • Is it possible to draw a bright line between dietary therapy and herbal therapy?
  • Does limiting LAc recommendation of herbs interfere with the ability of other health care providers or salespeople to recommend or sell herbs or supplements?

See where I am going with this?

Anyone can get Chinese herbs, even dangerous ones. Increasing the regulatory burden on Acupuncturists would make sense if it would protect the public or our access to the full pharmacopoeia on an ongoing basis. It would make sense if LAcs were routinely endangering the public through unregulated use of herbs.

It doesn’t make sense for a subset of our profession to become the only group of health professionals not able to recommend herbs to their clients.

If the only groups weighing in are the schools and NCCAOM, formal (and expensive) training and credentialing will be increasingly required.

Let’s stand united against unnecessary restrictions. LAcs have an excellent safety record. Stay tuned for real-time developments and your opportunity to weigh in on the regulation of herbal medicine for Acupuncturists.

 

Acupuncture Licensing and Regulation – The Future

Imagine that your acupuncture license meant you could easily practice in every state.

Imagine that licensure exams focused on the skills and knowledge needed to practice safely.

Imagine that acupuncture schools used the time spent teaching things “you won’t need in practice but they’ll be on the exam” to teach things that you really will need in practice, including all that business stuff.

Imagine that acupuncture boards, associations, and organizations worked to make it easier and less expensive for practitioners to obtain and maintain licenses and practice within their skill set.

I wish I could say “it’s easy if you try” – but for most of us it isn’t. (Unless you look to other professions.)

The Florida Acupuncture Board now requires all new practitioners to spend thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars on additional education and testing to become Board-certified in herbs. Even though there was no evidence of public harm under the previous rules, and even for those who won’t use herbs in practice.

The Nevada Board is trying to change the regulations to require a DOM or DAOM of all applicants (about 40K on top of an 80K MAOM). Not because there is evidence of public harm, but because that’s the way it is in China. And never mind that the entire state is served by fewer than 50 acupuncturists.

In July 2015 the White House released Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policymakers. While acknowledging that licensing can provide health and safety protections to consumers and benefits to workers, it concludes,

“State legislators and policymakers should adopt institutional reforms that promote a more careful and individualized approach to occupational regulation that takes into account its costs and benefits, and harmonizes requirements across States. If they are successful, the collective effect of their efforts could be substantial: making it easier for qualified workers to find jobs and move where they choose, increasing access to essential goods and services, and lessening heavy burdens on certain populations….”

Acupuncturists are the policymakers in our profession. Wouldn’t it be great to determine what’s truly needed for public safety and to adjust educational and licensing requirements accordingly? Rather than blaming others for our difficulties, wouldn’t it be more productive to direct our energy to changing the things we can control? We can demand that the insurance companies pay us more because our education cost so much, or we can make our education less costly. We can sue the PT Boards to try and protect our turf, or we can make sure that anyone who wants acupuncture is able to access convenient and affordable services from an acupuncturist.

I’ll be sharing actions you can take to change our practice environment for the better. Like the Acupuncture Regulation US page on Facebook and stay tuned in here, at The Acupuncture Observer, for updates.

 

 

 

17 Foundational Beliefs of The Acupuncture Observer

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

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

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

Gainful Employment and Strategic Errors

The Gainful Employment final regulations have been announced. Forgive my commenting prior to a complete and thorough analysis of the 941 page document. (You can see some analysis here.) The gist is that for-profit schools (which includes half of US acupuncture programs) will soon have to show that graduates’ student loan payments are manageable with the profession’s available employment (not taking IBR into account). If they can’t, federally guaranteed student loans will no longer be available.

Why should taxpayers continue to provide loans for educations that history shows aren’t worth the investment? Imagine tuition rates and post-graduate employment assistance if the schools provided and guaranteed loans, and took the hit if they weren’t paid back in a timely fashion.

It is no surprise that for-profit schools are displeased about the impending end of the gravy train. Many for-profit schools, and their related organizations, did everything they could to block the regulations. And, just under the wire, the acu-educational establishment contributed comments (see ACAOM gainful employment word).

(The more expensive FPD, and pressure away from “acupuncture-only” degrees now carry a significant downside for the schools.)

Did ACAOM think their letter might exempt them from the rules or impact the final regulations? It seems unlikely that this little community would shift the tide. It was an unforced error for ACAOM to write a letter that reveals such little concern for graduates and such a strong desire to dodge responsibility. (Some of the more significant issues in ACAOM’s letter are discussed here.)

But our own strategic errors have allowed ACAOM and other other alphabets to disregard our well-being.

The petition that asked the alphabets to stop denying their role in our circumstances received 227 signatures. Petitions to stop dry needling often receive thousands of signatures. Which is more likely to limit professional success — a school that leaves students with extensive debt, poor business skills, and no job placement or alumni support, or a little competition? If we can’t survive the competition from those “untrained” professionals our education is surely lacking.

The Feds and the taxpayers pay a price when schools sell an education for far more than it is worth. We graduates pay a far more personal price. It’s too late for us, but at least the Feds are willing to look out for the interests of those who will follow in our footsteps.

Licensure News

Finally! At the May 6th Delaware Board of Medicine meeting two experienced and NCCAOM-credentialed acupuncturists were granted Delaware licenses, bringing the number of the LAcs in the state to just under forty. This is good news for the people of Delaware. It is also good news for the profession as whole. And hopeful news for the practitioners who are now commuting to Maryland, or not practicing, because they were unable to obtain a Delaware license.

Why did it take action from the MD’s on the BOM to get these practitioners licensed?

These LAcs had appeared before the Acupuncture Advisory Board four times since applying for licensure in late 2012/early 2013. At several of these appearances the Acupuncture Advisory Board members acknowledged the applicants’ excellent qualifications but refused to grant licenses despite having the authority to do so.

For decades one of our “sacred cows” has been that we need our own boards. Then we’ll have the power to control our destiny. Sadly, when given the chance, some of us prefer to control our destiny right down the tubes.

Consider the history of the independent California Acupuncture Board, with its unique accreditation and exam process, and its ongoing problems. Or Nevada, with an independent board, 53 LAcs, a $1000 application fee and $700 per year renewal fee.  If Delaware had an independent board my colleagues would have had to go to the courts to present the argument (made by a public member of the Board of Medicine) that requiring an herbal education and exam for individuals who do not want to use herbs in their practice, in a state in which anyone can sell and recommend herbs, is restraint of trade.

It isn’t the M.D.’s and “the system” that is limiting the growth of our profession these days. It is other acupuncturists. I’ve asked and asked, but I have yet to find anyone who can explain why the Florida (independent) Acupuncture board is increasing the education and testing requirements for licensure. Have patients been harmed? If a change is needed are there options that would be less burdensome for the profession?

I’ll be interested to see the full minutes of the May 6th DE BOM meeting. In a classic conjunction of issues, a practitioner instrumental in drafting the restrictive Delaware law, and a current Acupuncture Board member who had voted against granting licenses to the two qualified acupuncturists, appeared before the BOM to ask them to do something to stop PT’s from doing dry needling.

Did either of these practitioners consider that their previous actions that limit the number of LAcs in Delaware increase the odds that citizens will seek treatment from non-LAcs? Or that our political power is limited by our small numbers? Did the BOM wonder what’s up with this profession — they don’t want anyone to use a needle, even other LAcs?  (FWIW, the BOM doesn’t regulate PT’s.)

You’d think that our own self-interest would prevent the credential and educational creep that costs us so much. But it hasn’t. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics states “A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.” Restrictive laws and rules that limit access to qualified acupuncturists are contrary to the best interests of patients. Let’s work for change – for the people who need acupuncture and the qualified individuals who want to provide acupuncture. Credential creep hurts us all.