Here’s the Qi-Unity newsletter with the story of the Delaware Acupuncture Law, containing this critical bit
— “AAAOM alternate public member Michael Taromina, a lawyer with the NY acupuncture group as well as the NCCAOM Ethics Council, was kind enough to advise us that having the OM requirement, along with including herbs in our scope, would have many benefits over having a 2-tiered system including:
- giving us the best security from the FDA regarding herbs;
- taking away current obstacles for acupuncturists working in hospital or clinical settings;
- helping with malpractice coverage for herbology practice; and
- protecting from future domain infringement from other professions.”
In reality —
- The AAAOM should fight for access for all trained acupuncturists. The NCCAOM is interested in requiring more exams. There is a clear conflict of interest.
- Adding the OM requirement has no impact on FDA regulation of herbs. The FDA does not regulate professions. The damage done by herbs is primarily due to non-LAcs having access — something that this bill expressly allows.
- How does the OM requirement impact LAcs working in hospital or clinical settings? Are any DE LAcs currently working in these settings?
- There isn’t an issue with malpractice insurance unless the state scope specifically excludes herbs.
- The OM requirement does nothing to protect the profession from domain infringement. Non-LAcs in DE are expressly allowed to recommend herbs in this legislation.
The majority of LAcs in the U.S. do not have the OM credential. The lawyer has ties to the professional organization (the AAAOM). His position restricts professional opportunity for LAcs but profits the NCCAOM. His arguments do not hold up to scrutiny. And we pay the price.
© Elaine Wolf Komarow and The Acupuncture Observer, 2013-2033. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express written permission from Elaine Wolf Komarow is prohibited. Excerpts and links are encouraged, provided that full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content.
I’m so glad that I now practice very occassionally and no longer rely on this trade for income.
It would seem the NCCAOM and the CCAOM have most of the political power, while the AAAOM sits idly neutered, except when they need money: then they begin to sound like the infamous Oral Roberts.
These are important observations. I would be interested in a response from Michael Taromina to each of these points. Has this been shared with him?
I have not shared this post with him. I’ve tried to have the conversation with him in the past and been met with a stony silence and no direct eye contact. He has many fans in the acupuncture community. Perhaps someone who has a good connection with him could ask that he participate?