Tag Archives: TPDN

Dry Needling – Winning, and Losing.

Posted on by

The Battle of Cold Harbor, in May – June 1864, was one of the last victories for the Confederates in the Civil War. (Or, as it was referred to in the South, the War for Southern Independence.) The victory did not change the outcome of the war.

In January, a state judge ruled that Dry Needling is not within scope for Physical Therapists in Florida. This ruling was proclaimed a great victory and widely celebrated on Facebook and here, in Acupuncture Today.

FSOMA won in Florida, because, as appears in the ruling, “A simple reading of the physical therapy scope of practice statute, section 486.021(11), in light of the definition of “acupuncture” in section 457.102(1), makes plain that dry needling is not within the statutory scope of practice for PTs in the State of Florida. The Board had no basis for moving forward with the Proposed Rule.”

FSOMA did not win because the FDA limits the use of filiform needles to LAcs, there aren’t standards for the practice of dry needling, the physical therapists aren’t adequately trained, dry needling would harm patients, dry needling is “cultural misappropriation,” or any of the other many arguments made in Florida and elsewhere.

This ruling sets no precedent for any other state because it is based on the definition of Acupuncture and the scope of PT practice as found in Florida law. If state level rulings did set a precedent in other jurisdictions, FSOMA would likely have lost. We’ve lost in more states than we’ve won.

Of course, you wouldn’t know any of this from that Acupuncture Today article, or all those celebratory posts on Facebook.

Meanwhile, we’ve lost a significant and costly battle. One which should never have been fought. This loss hasn’t yet made the news.

The North Carolina Physical Therapy Association recently announced a settlement agreement, in which the North Carolina Acupuncture Licensing Board would pay the NCPTA a six-figure settlement and agree that all current and future members would stop sending cease-and-desist letters to physical therapists who offer dry needling, and would honor the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision that dry needling is within the scope of practice of physical therapy.

This loss should surprise no one. The NCALB incurred significant legal debt persisting in a battle that no one outside of the profession thought they could win. And they attracted negative attention from lawmakers in the process. Why, oh why, did they do this?

I’ve stopped hoping that yet another blog post will change our behavior. Will a six-figure settlement? How will the NCALB continue to function without resources?

Even the few battles we’ve won could later be lost. Scopes of health professions can change via legislation. Physical Therapists outnumber us in every state. The trend is away from scope “monopolies” – understandable when we need to improve access to services and reduce health care spending. (Consider the history of scope and Advanced Practice Nurses, Optometrists, Social Workers, and Dental Therapists.)

Both the Acupuncturists and the Physical Therapists might refer to this multi-year hostility as The War of Defending the Profession, or The War of Protecting our Patients. Undoubtedly, each side has been motivated by the belief that they were doing what was right. But, war is costly. And, as the smaller and poorer profession, we have suffered greatly for our few victories.

In the past few years we’ve done a good job increasing the demand or and interest in acupuncture. But the number of people entering the acupuncture profession is dropping. In the vast majority of the country we don’t have enough practitioners to meet the need. Meanwhile, qualified and experienced practitioners can’t practice because of regulatory loopholes that seem to benefit only the NCCAOM. The NCCAOM is looking for a new Executive Director, and it’s critical that we be involved in the selection process. Acupuncturists can’t pay off their student loans while others argue for additional educational requirements. Our schools are closing. We’re increasingly participating in the insurance system, increasingly concerned that the system doesn’t support our work, and increasingly, getting into insurance-related legal trouble.

It’s past time to give up the war. There is no one person who can proclaim the end to hostilities. General Lee could only surrender the Army of Northern Virginia on April 9, 1965 1865.* Other Generals continued to fight. I’m sure some state association somewhere will continue to beat the drums of war, insisting that we fight on. What a shame.

We have far better things we could be doing with our time and our money. Let’s.

(Yes, I’m so tired of writing about dry needling I studied up on some Civil War history to spice things up.)

* When I first published this I goofed and wrote 1965. When it was pointed out (thanks astute reader!) I quickly corrected it. But I’ve been thinking. The consequences of the Civil War are still very much with us. Freedom Summer was in 1963, for example. When I see suppliers marketing that they don’t sell needles to PT’s, and LAcs boycotting suppliers who don’t make that promise, well, it’s heartbreaking. The sooner we reconcile the better. And, yup, some LAcs see me as a Profession Traitor for saying this.

Safety: Dry Needling and Acupuncture

Posted on by

We worry about the public’s well-being.

The excellent safety record of Licensed Acupuncturists is part of our “brand” and has been a focus in the fight against the use of filiform needles by those without our extensive training.

Are we walking our talk?

At a recent professional gathering a representative of a malpractice insurance company recited a terrifying list of problems that turned into insurance claims against acupuncturists: a double pneumothorax, infections from needles manufactured in unsterile conditions, broken bones from tui na, burns from heat lamps. The message – Buy Malpractice Insurance!

On Facebook, Acupuncturists regularly look for support after a patient reports a post-treatment issue.The equivocations quickly pour in: Is that really where you needled? Are they on medication? It’s a healing reaction. Did you have them sign a waiver? There is such a thing as a spontaneous pneumothorax….

Yes. Malpractice insurance is a good idea. And sometimes post-treatment issues aren’t treatment related. But the lack of concern about the problems, and the lack of interest in how they might be avoided, calls into question our supposed devotion to public safety. Not only are we advised to never admit responsibility to our patients, we’re encouraged to never admit it to ourselves.

In 1999 The Institute of Medicine released a report, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System.

“The committee’s approach was to emphasize that “error” that resulted in patient harm was not a property of health care professionals’ competence, good intentions, or hard work. Rather, the safety of care—defined as “freedom from accidental injury” (p. 16)—is a property of a system of care, whether a hospital, primary care clinic, nursing home, retail pharmacy, or home care, in which specific attention is given to ensuring that well-designed processes of care prevent, recognize, and quickly recover from errors so that patients are not harmed.”

Lisa Rohleder writes –

“It’s impossible to effectively promote safety when we don’t know where WE are going wrong. An important part of developing a culture of safety is to establish, as much as possible, a compassionate, neutral, and curious attitude toward safety errors and adverse events. Nobody wants to make an error (either large or small) or have a patient suffer an adverse event — and yet anybody who practices acupuncture for long enough will experience those things. Acupuncture is a practice that involves humans on both ends of the needle, which means sometimes, unfortunately, things will go wrong.”

“Acupuncture legislation and regulation are not the same as creating a culture of safety. Training cannot ensure that the people who receive it will never play a role in an adverse event. A culture of safety requires an active, ongoing, self-reflective, cooperative process.”

An adverse event does not necessarily mean that a mistake was made. It means that something didn’t turn out as we would have liked. It can happen when a practitioner does everything right. The more we know about what happened, the more we can confront and minimize the risks involved in treatment.

But we can’t know what happened without collecting the data. And we can’t collect the data if 1) there is no mechanism to report adverse events and 2) people are afraid to share about and discuss adverse events.

Until recently, no acupuncture organizations have been interested in collecting such data. Alarmingly, in the name of acupuncture safety, one shadowy acupuncture group has created what it calls an Adverse Event Reporting system for the sole purpose of weaponizing reports of adverse events related to dry needling. The data are not anonymous. (The board of the group collecting the data is.) The goal is not to improve the safety of a practice, but to attack competitors. It makes it more difficult to develop a culture of safety.

Finally, we have the opportunity to participate in a voluntary and anonymous database for reporting adverse events in acupuncture, developed with the goal of promoting safety.

Some questions and answers from POCA’s materials about the AERD they created –

Why Should All LAcs Voluntarily Report Adverse Events and Errors?

POCA created this AERD for ourselves but it is designed to be used by anyone who provides acupuncture services and anyone who is a consumer of acupuncture services. We are hoping that many L.Acs will participate, and that other acupuncture school clinics will want to join us in collecting safety data.

Using a voluntary and anonymous AERD is a way for the acupuncture profession to encourage a culture of safety. AERDs are standard in other healthcare professions and it is notable that the acupuncture profession has not had one; that’s a problem that needs to be fixed, especially in light of acupuncturists’ practicing in integrative medical settings.

 Why Did the POCA Cooperative Create an AERD?

POCA loves data, and collecting our own safety data has been a topic of discussion in the co-op for years. Having POCA Tech as a resource to manage an Adverse Events Reporting Database, along with getting support from Dr. Suzanne Morrissey (medical anthropologist and professor of anthropology at Whitman College), allowed us to make an AERD a reality.

Why Voluntary and Anonymous?

Research suggests that it’s possible to collect better safety data, and thus do a better job of improving safety practices, when reporting adverse events and errors is voluntary and anonymous. Nonconfidential and mandatory reporting systems may discourage practitioners from disclosing adverse events and errors.

The goal is to focus on safety practices and systems, not on errors made by individuals.

Here’s the place to report adverse events.

Additionally, membership in POCA provides many excellent perks, whether you provide community acupuncture or not. I encourage you to check it out. Thank you, POCA, for establishing the AERD, and Lisa Rohleder, for starting this discussion. This post borrows heavily from her writing. Any errors, however, are mine alone.

 

 

Dry Needling Updates for LAcs

Posted on by

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.

 

 

 

Dry Needling and Acupuncture 2015 – The State of the Profession

Posted on by

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

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

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

Even our wins have been temporary. For example –

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

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

We say the PT’s:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

November ’15 Acupuncture News Update, Chapter 1

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Acupuncture Safety, and, a Matter of Fairness

Posted on by

Protecting the public safety is a good reason for regulation.

People have been injured by PT’s or Chiropractors doing dry needling.  When we see a story about that we share it. So I understand the comments on the previous post.

And, there were two recent threads on Facebook that caught my attention.

An LAc posted a question about whether it was possible to cause an infection by needling CO4. He’d treated a patient who later developed redness at the area. The patient visited an MD and was prescribed an antibiotic. I was surprised at the practitioner’s question, and surprised and mortified at the responses.  Which included: The MD is just trying to cover his ass, they just like to prescribe antibiotics, not if you used sterile needles, not if you used an alcohol swab on the area first, people freak out all the time, etc. A day or two later, the initial questioner reported that the patient was now hospitalized with a staph infection.

Another LAc wrote that a patient reported she’d had a pneumothorax from a treatment and was now asking for financial compensation for a portion of the medical expenses and several weeks of missed work. What should the practitioner do? Of course, getting some documentation makes sense, but the responses also included: if it really happened why doesn’t the patient have a lawyer, if you’d given her a pneumothorax you would have known it immediately, she must have had some sort of underlying medical condition so you aren’t responsible, etc.

Personally, I know some amazing practitioners who have firsthand experience with pneumothorax(i?) on both ends of the needle.

I don’t believe we have sufficient record keeping to know the relative safety records.  Dry Needling does involve a deep and aggressive needle technique and so is more likely to do damage.  That’s true even with an LAc holding the needle.

When a story comes out that involves harm done by an LAc, we make all sorts of excuses and focus on our generally good safety record. When we find out about damage done by a PT or DC, we trumpet the news, and make smug and superior comments.

When it comes to fairness, most of the things I hear LAcs complaining about are either self-inflicted or, sometimes, imagined.  The length of our training — we’ve been behind the increase. The differing insurance reimbursement — is that insurance thing working out for anyone?

This post is mostly blogger’s prerogative to give what is really a comment on the previous thread a higher visibility.  I won’t make a habit of it.  But hwds’ are one of my pet peeves — that’s hypocrites with double standards, and when our response to what happens at the pointy end of the needle seems to vary so much depending on who is at the handle, I think that term applies.

 

 

Court Ruling will Impact Acupuncture Boards

Posted on by

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners violated federal law when it tried to prevent non-dentists from offering teeth whitening services.

What does this have to do with acupuncture?

The ruling has the potential to impact all professional regulatory boards.  I’m travelling and don’t have time or an internet connection sufficient to do a thorough report. I encourage you to click through and read the links below — I think most of you will be able to come up with a few areas where LAcs have been sounding an awful lot like those NC dentists….

No anti-trust immunity for Professional Licensing Boards

Unfair Competition

Dentists can’t decide who whitens your teeth

State Licensing Boards not Protected

Board Prevented from Limiting Competition

As Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said

“state boards composed mostly of active market participants run the risk of self-dealing.

“This conclusion does not question the good faith of state officers but rather is an assessment of the structural risk of market participants’ confusing their own interests with the state’s policy goals,” he said.

 

Many LAcs insist the only reason they want to stop PT’s and DC’s from doing Dry Needling is concern for the public. Could they be confused?

 

 

NCCAOM/Dry Needling/A Young Profession

Posted on by

A survey about the possibility of a new NCCAOM certificate in Facial Rejuvenation showed up a few days ago. The online conversations were a reminder that many of us are confused about the NCCAOM — what their role is, what we want their role to be , what their role “should” be.  The topic deserves its own post, but, in short, the NCCAOM is a credentialing agency. They design, administer, and maintain the process by which most of us are able to be licensed.  There are loads of consequences of their power within our profession, especially because we have not had, for some time, a truly effective or well-functioning national professional association.

There were many complaints that the NCCAOM hadn’t done more to “stop dry needling.” That, combined with yesterday’s urgent petition regarding legislation on the Governor’s desk in Delaware, made we think I’ve got to try, one more time, to explain where we are with the issue and why what we’ve been doing won’t work. My post to my alumni group is out of context, but I hope still worth sharing (somewhat edited for clarity) —

Since Dry Needling is the issue that keeps coming up as a major focus for the profession, I wanted to give a little more info about the “court rulings” in our favor.

The one that received the most notice and attention was the case in Oregon regarding Chiropractors and Dry Needling.  The outcome of the case was widely misrepresented within the acupuncture community. Various stories indicated that the courts said that dry needling was acupuncture or that it had been determined that the training programs were insufficient.  This was not the case.  You can read a fuller explanation of the outcome of the case here – https://theacupunctureobserver.com/a-practical-next-step/. The gist of the ruling is that dry needling does not meet the implied definition of physiotherapy within the Oregon code.

Other states have also had rulings (usually informal) from the Attorneys General stating that dry needling is not within PT scope.  These rulings have typically been much celebrated within the acupuncture community, but we haven’t been hearing what happens next.  For instance, some time ago Utah was celebrating such a ruling.  Since that time, legislation added dry needling to the scope of physical therapists.  Similar legislation passed in Arizona.  When the AG recently ruled that dry needling was not within PT scope in Tennessee, the ruling included phrasing that basically said, PT’s will need to address this legislatively, as was done in Utah.  (You can get the link to the ruling here — https://theacupunctureobserver.com/late-july-acupuncture-news/).  Illinois is another state where the AG’s latest opinion agreed with the argument that dry needling was not within PT scope, but where the PT groups are already preparing legislation for the next session.

There will probably be states where the acupuncture community is large enough and well-connected enough (and Maryland might well be one) where similar legislation would not be successful, but if you look at the numbers in most states, the PT’s (who also often have business connections with the medical establishment) are likely to prevail.

Today I received a notice of a petition regarding DE HB 359, adding dry needling to the scope of PT’s in Delaware.  HB 359 passed by overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate and needs only the Governor’s signature.  Among the “gems” in the petition – “Accordingly, HB 359 will potentially place the general public in significant danger of injury and harm due to unsafe and unqualified needle practices.”  There are about 800 PT’s in DE, and even more PT Assistants.  There are 45 LAcs.  The odds of the Governor exercising his veto are slim, the odds of pissing off 800 PT’s?  Pretty good, considering we’ve just stated they are putting the public in significant danger.  Interestingly, one of the authors of this petition is the same person who pushed for the requirement of the NCCAOM OM credential in DE, putting practice off limits to about 70% of US acupuncturists.  Isn’t it ironic that the profession’s self-imposed restrictions on licensure in Delaware have left the LAcs scrambling to block action by an overwhelmingly larger group?

Had LAcs been more willing to work with the PT’s from the start, I suspect that in many jurisdictions we’d have come out ahead.  We’d have built relationships and understanding and had some influence, perhaps, on how this modality is practiced.  By sending PT’s to the legislative fix (that’s what “we” said right from the beginning – if they want to do this they should do it legislatively) we’ve taken ourselves out of the process.  As they succeed with changing the law we’ve lost any influence on the procedure.

Of course, trying to work together might not have changed anything.  Professions (including our own) are universally unhappy about outsiders coming in to tell them what they should do and how they should do it.

I will add three things in response to the previous post.  1) While I appreciate the frustration felt by LAcs when dry needling and acupuncture are spoken about as being equivalent, hasn’t it been our insistence that dry needling IS acupuncture that led to this? Wouldn’t we be better served by clarifying the distinction between the two? (Of course, that would undermine our argument that we have a right to regulate the procedure.)  2) There are many cases of patients not wanting to report harm suffered at the hands of providers.  This happens among acupuncture patients too. Even LAcs can cause a pneumothorax.  3) The cease and desist orders can’t help but remind me of the stories from decades ago of acupuncturists being threatened with arrest for practicing medicine without a license.

It hasn’t taken long for us to go from being the scrappy upstarts just wanting to help people with a simple technique, and frustrated by the establishment that was trying to shut us down, to acting like the establishment.  We’ve got our ever-increasing credentials, and maybe specialties soon, and are increasingly able to participate in the bureaucratic system of figuring out which set of codes gets us a reimbursement we can live with. Now, in Maryland, LAcs can interfere with a citizen’s ability to choose what treatments they get from which providers, and can throw their weight around in the provider community.

PT’s will outnumber us for a long time to come.  It’s a shame we’ve pissed in that particular well.

 

Licensure News

Posted on by

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.

Five Important Dry Needling Developments

Posted on by

Yes, more on dry needling.  More about education will have to wait.

Five things to know —

  1. The Oregon Ruling did not (despite the Acupuncture Today headline) determine that “Dry Needling is Acupuncture.”  For a full exploration of the case, read this post. In summary, the ruling of the court was that Dry Needling is not physiotherapy.
  2. On April 1st Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB 367, legislatively adding Dry Needling to the scope of Physical Therapists.
  3. On April 24th Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1154, legislatively adding Dry Needling to the scope of Physical Therapists.*
  4. On March 25th Massachusetts HB 3972 advanced. This redraft of acupuncture bills HB 2051 and SB 1107 was necessary because the bill could not advance with the language that “dry needling is acupuncture.”
  5. At the end of April the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation issued an informal ruling that dry needling was not within the scope of practice for Physical Therapists “as the acts are currently written.”  That last phrase is important. From what I can tell there are about 550 LAcs in IL and over 9,000 PT’s.  The PT’s aren’t ready to call it quits. Time will tell if the victory for the LAcs is a lasting one. The PT’s could well look to Arizona and Utah and work for a legislative change.

(A colleague practicing in Delaware recently told me of the urgent phone calls and emails she’s been receiving — she must get involved in the fight against PT Dry Needling! Delaware is a state in which a few LAcs on the Advisory Board refuse to grant licenses to qualified acupuncturists. There are so few LAcs (less than 40) that they can’t maintain an association and citizens are far more likely to get acupuncture from a DC or an MD than an LAc. Now the profession wants to take on the PT’s? If there’s an urgent need for action from the LAcs of DE, perhaps it should be action to bring LAcs to the state?)

For those who insist we must do something about this serious risk to our profession, here are some suggestions. They would do far more to benefit our profession than this ongoing battle with the PT’s.

* One of the acupuncture profession’s strategies from the start of the Dry Needling issue was to argue, as the AAAOM wrote in their 2013 position paper,– “the addition of TPDN to physical therapy practice is being determined by physical therapy regulatory boards, deleteriously circumventing transparency and public health safety protections provided by standard legislative process.”  This was a mistake. Given the relative political strength of the PT profession and their MD supporters legislative victories are likely. Had we been willing to work with our health-care colleagues in the regulatory arena we might well have had input and influence in the use of this procedure.