Control

Who determines your professional future? First, read An Example of one person, wearing two hats, limiting opportunities for LAcs. (He’s received honors for the work he’s done.)

We have one week to comment on the NCCAOM’s “proposed” policy changes. Do that here. Some of us think these changes are wise, some of us wouldn’t be personally impacted. We all should participate in the conversation. Ask your professional communities to comment. (You can see the NCCAOM’s response to my initial comments here.)

My follow-up comments are below. The NCCAOM is the most powerful organization in our profession. I have seen them, with our help, control regulation (or essentially subvert it) and legislation. Our interests may overlap, but don’t think your future is their primary concern.

Dear NCCAOM and Ms. Basore,

Thank you for your response regarding the proposed policy changes.  Here are some additional questions and comments.

  1. You wrote “The Criminal Background Screening Program for new applicants will not take effect until January 2014.” Has the final decision to implement these policies been made?
  2. The Criminal Background Check and language requirements go beyond your mission as a “national organization that validates entry-level competency.” These policies usurp the role of state regulatory boards. (For example, Virginia exempts those serving certain communities from our language requirements.)
  3. Many states use the NCCAOM exams but do not require the NCCAOM credential. Establishing background checks and language requirements as part of the testing application circumvents those states’ specific desire to maintain an independent credentialing process.
  4. How many students responded to the assessment regarding the foreign language exams and what were their responses? Please define the demand “sufficient to offer a psychometrically valid defensible examination.”
  5. Is it significant to an applicant if the background check fee goes to the NCCAOM or to a third party? Could NCCAOM staff involvement ultimately increase exam costs?
  6. Can you describe the criminal background check appeals process? Would the NCCAOM risk legal liability if applicants were allowed to sit the exam upon appeal?
  7. Is there any documented case of harm from practitioners who had a criminal history at the time of sitting the exams?
  8. If public protection is the justification for requiring the background check prior to examination, should it be required prior to school admittance? This would protect individuals from making a huge investment in a career they will ultimately be unable to practice.
  9. Could the recertification process be simplified by trusting Diplomates to use their best judgment regarding continuing education?  Has there been any documented patient harm as a result of unreviewed or unmonitored continuing education?

 

I believe that for much of the past twenty years the NCCAOM has provided a net benefit to the profession while honoring its commitment to the public welfare.  More recently the NCCAOM has repeatedly acted out of self-interest, choosing control over the profession and the attendant financial rewards ahead of either the profession or the public. Your push for the full OM credential as a requirement for licensure in DE is a prime example of action that served the NCCAOM at the expense of all others. The stakeholder comment you request is routinely disregarded.

Re-consider these proposals. Acupuncture practitioners have an incredible record of safety. The imposition of additional de facto regulation is unnecessary and burdensome.

Sincerely,

Elaine Wolf Komarow, LAc (VA)

NCCAOM Diplomate (Ac)

A Very Important Question

Dear NCCAOM,

Will feedback received influence your proposed(?) policy changes?  Ms. Basore’s comments to my previous post indicate the changes are a done deal. Please let the readers of The Acupuncture Observer know so that we can effectively use our qi.

Thank You.

Dear Readers,

I’ll send my many questions and comments about the policy changes to the NCCAOM (and post them here) if our input matters.  In the meantime, please  —

  • Contact NCCAOM via Facebook to weigh in on the proposed(?) changes. (Are they listening?)
  • Contact AAAOM via Facebook to share your thoughts on the NCCAOM’s proposed(?) changes.
  • Respond to the AAAOM’s latest Call for Comments (deadline September 19th), and let them know if you think they should be focusing on the proposed(?) changes.
  • Contact your state professional association to point out that the proposed(?) changes interfere with the state regulation of acupuncture and ask them to get involved.
  • Ask your state association to raise this topic with the Council of State Associations. (There doesn’t seem to be any way for the average professional to contact that group directly.)

That’s a good start while we wait to hear back from the NCCAOM. Oh, and spread the word!

P.S.:  Here’s a story about background checks.  Keep in mind, in the NCCAOM’s proposal, the poor applicant wouldn’t even be allowed to sit the exams.

If I Had 3 Million Dollars

I would buy you all a boat.

Just kidding.

I would —

  • Compile and make available a list of the specific requirements necessary to obtain an acupuncture license in each state, making sure to highlight current and oncoming obstacles. (For example, as of October 1, 2014, Florida will require passage of the NCCAOM Oriental Medicine Module for licensure. Although the Florida rules will continue to show that those enrolled in school prior to August 1, 2007 need complete only a two-year course of study which does not need to include herbs, the new examination requirement means that no one with only the two-year education will be able to obtain a Florida license.)
  • Compile data on the professional success of acupuncture graduates of every US school. The data would be available to all.
  • Explore why those who aren’t practicing have left the profession and whether there are different rates of success among graduates of different schools. If there is a difference in graduate success, are there factors common to the more successful schools?
  • Gather data on the safety record of acupuncturists in various states. Does it matter if the state requires NCCAOM exams or credentials? In acupuncture? In herbs? If the states require graduation from ACAOM schools?
  • Use the data to identify the lowest common denominator. Identify the least restrictive education/credentialing necessary to ensure public safety and prepare practitioners for success.
  • Show how uniform and non-burdensome state standards are a critical step in providing acupuncture to the 313.9 million people in the US. Build consensus for reasonable minimum standards, and work for their adoption in all states.
  • Establish a team of public policy professionals with expertise in regulation and legislation to help develop a set of attainable and effective strategic initiatives.

Where would I get my 3 million dollars? Not by yet another “now is the time, we must submit legislation that mandates access to the federal healthcare system” fundraising effort. We’ve heard this before. We should know by now that submitting legislation is guaranteed to suck up resources, it is passing laws that can make a difference – if we’re prepared for the consequences of success.

Please, respond to the AAAOM’s call for comments by August 31st. With, at best, 30,000 acupuncturists available to 313.9 million people, is submitting legislation which has a snowball’s chance in hell of passage really the best use of 3 million dollars?

And, if you really want to do something that will improve access, ten minutes and two stamps will do it – here’s how.

Making a Difference, in ten steps.

  1. Write a letter to the Delaware Acupuncture Advisory Council, and mail it by this Friday, August 23rd. Here is a new, improved template!  Do this now! (Please cc Gayle MacAfee at the board and send a copy to de@theacupunctureobserver.com. Thanks!)
  2. Share this post on facebook.
  3. Tune in. Subscribing to this blog is a good start but I can’t keep track of everything. Check in at websites for the AAAOM, NCCAOM, ACAOM, your state association, POCA, etc.  A few current issues (which I’ll be posting more about soon) — AAAOM is calling for public comment by August 31st on draft legislation, NCCAOM wants public comment on proposed changes by September 30th, ASVA (Acupuncture Society of Virginia) is having a town hall October 19th to discuss possible changes to scope, and the IHPC wants us to stay involved regarding implementation of section 2706 of the Affordable Care Act. Any one of these issues could impact your ability to practice.
  4. Question Authority. Is X really the biggest problem facing the profession? Is the public better off in a state that requires the OM certification rather than the AC certification? Is an independent board better for acupuncturists? Will an FPD degree lead to greater respect? Does scope mean what you think?
  5. Know the system. For example, boards can only regulate their own licensees. And the executive branch doesn’t determine what Medicare covers, regardless of how many signatures are on a petition.
  6. Avoid us/them thinking. In Our Worst Enemy I wrote about the practitioners in focused on increasing standards as a “them.” That was a mistake.
  7. Remember, we are all in this together. What happens in another state or a change that seems to impact only new students or new licensees might end up affecting you in unforeseen ways.
  8. Assume good intentions. Assuming bad intentions (the PT’s want to do dry needling to make money, for example) doesn’t lead to productive dialogue.
  9. Be consistent. Do we support the right of people to choose their healthcare provider? Are herbs safe? Is acupuncture safe? When we change our answers to these questions based on the circumstances we create a negative impression.
  10. Learn from history. Has participation in  health insurance been good or bad for healthcare? For providers? Has a standardized system of Chinese Medicine led to greater effectiveness?

In the short run it is easier to ignore the big issues, to figure you’ll be okay, or to decide you can’t really make a difference. Staying involved takes time and energy you’d rather use to see clients or spend time with your family or learn that new technique. Do it anyway. Tune in, question, participate. The future you save may be your own.

Imagine, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Trigger Point Dry Needling — develop a way to harvest Liver Yang rising, bring the topic up in a crowd of acupuncturists, and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I’ll save my full critique of our current response for another day. Today I will paint a picture of what could have been, and could still be, if we were to respond to this issue with healthy Wood.

Imagine, if the community’s response to the topic of dry needling went like this —

  1. Similar to Mark Seems’ response, described in his 1993 book A New American Acupuncture, we recognized that the independent identification of types of physical dysfunction by different modalities can provide fruitful opportunities for integrated medicine.
  2. We made sure that all acupuncture students and practitioners had the opportunity to develop expertise in the needle techniques, point identification, and point selection that is necessary to effectively release stagnation at A Shi points.
  3. Our discussions with Physical Therapists and other professionals were respectful, making clear that we understood their interest in serving their clients. (Just as ours is when we explore our own scope of practice, right?)
  4. We had, in advance of hearings and public statements, carefully explored the consequences of insisting that this technique be described as acupuncture. Might it be easier for the public to understand differences in techniques and training if PT’s and others were encouraged to use distinct terminology? Could our insistence that it be called acupuncture actually set the stage for the slippery slope that we fear?
  5. We honestly and forthrightly identified the amount and type of training we considered sufficient to use this technique.  (For instance, if we practice in a state that allows medical extenders, and if we had a spouse who was also a PT assisting in our office, what would be need to teach them before we felt they could use this technique?  How long would it take?)
  6. We were consistent in our arguments — for instance, expressing concern over the pain this technique can cause, while later suggesting that we could accept a situation in which the PT’s used a syringe to stimulate the point is not consistent.  Likewise, arguing that we already do this technique undercuts the discomfort argument.  Another example — we have often argued that patients should have the right to choose their providers, yet here we have argued that patients must be protected from the risk of a poor choice.
  7. We proactively educated the public about our training and experience.  (No need to denigrate the training of others in the process.)
  8. We explored employment opportunities at PT offices — illustrating how the hiring of LAcs would enable the PT to avoid altering their practice flow or having to deal with related insurance and paperwork hassles.  This would provide employment opportunities for acupuncturists and give clients convenient access to TPDN and full acupuncture treatments.
  9. All providers of TPDN knew the location of LAcs in the area and referral relationships were encouraged as appropriate.
  10. We offered appropriate training to PT’s, DC’s, and others interested and legally able to use this technique in our jurisdiction, building relationships of mutual respect while addressing our concerns about existing training, and, adding a source of revenue for our schools and teachers.
  11. We educated ourselves about the regulatory process, making sure that every LAc understands that our regulatory boards regulate people (LAcs) not techniques, and not the activities of other professions.

This list could be longer, but I bet you get the point.  Without resorting to the old canard about the Chinese character for crisis, I will say that this whole TPDN “situation” had (and in some cases still has) the potential to be a huge opportunity for us.  Instead, it continues to suck up a lot of time and energy and burn rather than build bridges.  What a shame.  We have indeed turned potential opportunity into a dangerous crisis.