Guest guest Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialties - marnaecrystal Friday, September 21, 2007 11:59 AM Specialty Board Conversation Let me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how you feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular board. Thank you. Marnae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Marnae, I'm glad the discussion is getting productive. CHA hasn't been as acrimonious as other Lists and certainly no one here is rude. As far as the suggestion that CHA or the other lists pass on comments to the AAAOM, that really won't be possible. We can't quote others here without their permission. I think if the AAAOM sets up its own site I think that should be sufficient. I would remind others not to quote CHA generated comments as well. Doug Marnae wrote " But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. , " marnaecrystal " <marnae wrote: > > Let me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the > recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general > and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with > differing views expressing them and letting the community know how > you feel. > > In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and > specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in > Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning > discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very > informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week, > the first phone conference among this group was held. The group > consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, > president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO > of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline > Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status > or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people > talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of > conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our > conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to > agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The > discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not > specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM > create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on > the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from > CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional > members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include: > Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty > board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification > definitions and more. > > I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an > official group, it is a group that came together because of the > amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent > weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the > conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or > thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While > I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to > ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive > position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear > what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all, > let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a > positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate. > If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I > suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the > conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward > in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near > future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation > about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators > of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the > appropriate time. > > Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad > in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come > out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week > occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able > to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general > opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine, > including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture > Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret > that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that > future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards, > rather than any particular board. > > Thank you. > > Marnae > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 To be honest, I stopped reading the posts on this topic a long time ago. It started to get like a religious or political debate, where neither side was listening to the other, and animosity grew larger by the day. My only comment for your discussion group: Make it a part of all specialty boards' charters a policy to not imply superior training or efficacy by members of the board. That will go a long way to deter attacks from people who do not want to be part of these specialty boards and feel that their practice is threatend by them. - Bill , " marnaecrystal " <marnae wrote: > > Let me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the > recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general > and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with > differing views expressing them and letting the community know how > you feel. > > In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and > specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in > Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning > discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very > informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week, > the first phone conference among this group was held. The group > consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, > president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO > of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline > Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status > or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people > talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of > conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our > conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to > agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The > discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not > specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM > create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on > the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from > CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional > members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include: > Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty > board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification > definitions and more. > > I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an > official group, it is a group that came together because of the > amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent > weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the > conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or > thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While > I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to > ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive > position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear > what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all, > let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a > positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate. > If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I > suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the > conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward > in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near > future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation > about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators > of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the > appropriate time. > > Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad > in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come > out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week > occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able > to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general > opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine, > including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture > Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret > that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that > future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards, > rather than any particular board. > > Thank you. > > Marnae > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 To clarify my post, I am a member of another TCM web group where the discussion has been MUCH more intense. In comparison, this group has shown more restraint. Many people post the same message to both groups, so I get to see the battles rage on two fronts! - Bill , " bill_schoenbart " <plantmed2 wrote: > > To be honest, I stopped reading the posts on this topic a long time > ago. It started to get like a religious or political debate, where > neither side was listening to the other, and animosity grew larger > by the day. My only comment for your discussion group: Make it a > part of all specialty boards' charters a policy to not imply > superior training or efficacy by members of the board. That will go > a long way to deter attacks from people who do not want to be part > of these specialty boards and feel that their practice is threatend > by them. > > - Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Let me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how you feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular board. Thank you. Marnae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialties - marnaecrystal Chinese Medicine Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 AM Specialty Board Conversation Let me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how you feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular board. Thank you. Marnae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are having this debate, also be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we might also be involved in learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as explain the what and why we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own meeting there is a danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to improve our profession, let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac : alonmarcus: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialtiesAlon Marcus DOMOakland CA 94609- marnaecrystal Chinese Medicine Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 AMSpecialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how you feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _______________ Capture your memories in an online journal! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Obsoletely the profession has to be included and that is one of the problems i have had with all the other so called boards - mike Bowser Chinese Traditional Medicine Friday, September 21, 2007 1:44 PM RE: Specialty Board Conversation I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are having this debate, also be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we might also be involved in learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as explain the what and why we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own meeting there is a danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to improve our profession, let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac : alonmarcus: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialtiesAlon Marcus DOMOakland CA 94609- marnaecrystal Chinese Medicine Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 AMSpecialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how you feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional members. Potential topi! cs for c ooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM a! nd ask t hat future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________ Capture your memories in an online journal! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably related to the concerns many others have making this a heated topic. In my case, I have a bachelor’s degree in sports medicine, a master’s in exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training career (prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did intercollegiate athletic training at big and small schools. I’ve been an acupuncturist now for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo-skeletal pain and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to advertise and claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury. My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me that, despite my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I am going to be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem necessary to do what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This bugs me big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my other graduate degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough? Are these specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone? On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal education in the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle and refer to themselves as “sports medicine” specialists. Based on what?? Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm…. Anyone else having this rub? barb _____ Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike Bowser Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM Chinese Traditional Medicine RE: Specialty Board Conversation I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are having this debate, also be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we might also be involved in learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as explain the what and why we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own meeting there is a danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to improve our profession, let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac HYPERLINK " Chinese Medicine%40From " Traditional_-Chin ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK " alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) -netFri, 21 Sep 2007 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialtiesAlon Marcus DOMOakland CA 94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original Message ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK " Chinese Medicine%40 " Traditional_-Chinese_ Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 AMSubject: Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how you feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_ Capture your memories in an online journal! HYPERLINK " http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us " http://www.reallive-moms. com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Are these specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone? >>>>> That is all they have been so far - " Barbara Beale " <bbeale <Chinese Medicine > Friday, September 21, 2007 2:03 PM RE: Specialty Board Conversation I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably related to the concerns many others have making this a heated topic. In my case, I have a bachelor's degree in sports medicine, a master's in exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training career (prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did intercollegiate athletic training at big and small schools. I've been an acupuncturist now for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo-skeletal pain and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to advertise and claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury. My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me that, despite my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I am going to be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem necessary to do what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This bugs me big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my other graduate degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough? Are these specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone? On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal education in the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle and refer to themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on what?? Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm.. Anyone else having this rub? barb _____ Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike Bowser Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM Chinese Traditional Medicine RE: Specialty Board Conversation I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are having this debate, also be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we might also be involved in learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as explain the what and why we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own meeting there is a danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to improve our profession, let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac HYPERLINK " Chinese Medicine%40From " Traditional_-Chin ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK " alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) -netFri, 21 Sep 2007 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialtiesAlon Marcus DOMOakland CA 94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original Message ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK " Chinese Medicine%40 " Traditional_-Chinese_ Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 AMSubject: Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how you feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_ Capture your memories in an online journal! HYPERLINK " http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us " http://www.reallive-moms. com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Barbara, Offering certification while also providing the education required to gain that certification is considered a conflict of interest and would disqualify the certifying agency from gaining National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) accreditation. ABORM has, thus far, avoided this conflict of interest. The other two self-proclaimed specialty boards have not. --Bill. -- Bill Mosca, LAc San Francisco CA mosca On Sep 21, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Barbara Beale wrote: > How much education is enough? Are these > specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 barbara: respectfully, you are as much in violation of hanging a shingle and calling yourself a sports medicine specialist, as others who you say have little training. no one has validated anyone's experience, credentials or edu. as a TCM sport's medicine specialty. that's the problem. using the word specialty in marketing is a loaded proposition because is insinuates something similar to a west. med. specialty, involving a board who oversees edu, clinical work and testing in the related area. we do not have that in our profession. a more honest description of your practice is that you treat exclusively sports medicine, and include your other western degrees in sports medicine. this avoids the problematic, loaded word:specialty, while still conveying your meaning. i would put forth that part of this discussion is whether we need specialty boards and certifications to show distinctions in our respective training. what are the pros and cons to this issue? as you say, when is enough, enough, and who is profiting? is it merely a marketing ploy. couldn't a patient/other health care practitioner decided for themselves after doing their homework: visiting websites, talking to practitioners, to see who seems knowledgeable and who maybe less so. what about asking to see a cv? certainly that would provided much info about a practitioner's edu background and experience. i'm just posing questions to explore pros and cons on the issue. secondly, i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at the table or why they would be an invited guest. third: if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would be of value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what kind of oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the current west model, or do we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice of TCM in the US? why or why not? forth: to those of you in other countries, how does it work in your countries. do you have specialties within the practice of TCM? how are practitioners calling themselves a specialist documented in terms of edu and experience? how well do you think the system in your country works? are tcm specialties in your country modeled after the western system? i think a rational discussion of these and other issues involved in setting up TCM specialties will prove provocative and enlightening. kath On 9/21/07, Barbara Beale <bbeale wrote: > > I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably related to > the > concerns many others have making this a heated topic. > > > > In my case, I have a bachelor's degree in sports medicine, a master's in > exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training career > (prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an > acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy, > physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did > intercollegiate > athletic training at big and small schools. I've been an acupuncturist > now > for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo-skeletal > pain > and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to advertise and > claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury. > > > > My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me that, > despite > my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I am going > to > be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem necessary to do > what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This bugs me > big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture > degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my other graduate > degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough? Are these > specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone? > > > > On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal education > in > the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle > and > refer to themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on what?? > Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm…. > > > > Anyone else having this rub? > > > > barb > > > > _____ > > Chinese Medicine > Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike > Bowser > Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM > Chinese Traditional Medicine > RE: Specialty Board Conversation > > > > I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are > having this debate, also > be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we > might > also be involved in > learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as > explain the what and why > we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own > meeting there is a > danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to > improve our profession, > let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > HYPERLINK > " Chinese Medicine%40From > " Traditional_-Chin > ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK > " alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) -netFri, 21 Sep > 2007 > 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation > > This would be the only legitimate process for creating board > specialtiesAlon > Marcus DOMOakland CA > 94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original > Message > ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK > " Chinese Medicine%40 > " Traditional_-Chinese_ > Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 > AMSubject: > Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who > has > participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty > boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many > people > with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how > you > feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and > specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in > Oriental > medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have > begun > among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing > different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this > group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of > AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory > Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and > Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official > status > or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking > about > an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the > discussions > on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. > However, > we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep > talking. > 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not > specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a > coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. > Members > of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the > insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for > cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the > profession > wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or > board > certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note > again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came > together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this > topic > in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the > conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or > thought > about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would > encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that > conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk > about > what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty > boards > in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about > moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or > inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, > I > suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the > conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a > direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the > AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty > boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups > to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you > recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture > Today > in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the > conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any > changes > to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be > a > more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental > medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture > Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that > the > ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future > discussion > focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular > board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > ____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_ > Capture your memories in an online journal! > HYPERLINK > " http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us " > http://www.reallive-moms. > com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Kath, Two things struck me as interesting and problematic about your post: 1) You said: " i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at the table or why they would be an invited guest. " First of all, I think they would be invited because one of the great fears about the establishment of specializations is that incurance would offer different coverage or pay different amounts based on whether one was or was not a " specialist " in a particular area. On another note, why would ANYBODY be an invited guest? I mean, at some point somebody is deciding who does and does not get a say. By what criteria will anybody be given a voice in the establishment of such regulations? People seem up in arms about the aribitrary establishment of boards, will those same people be up in arms about the arbitrary formation of committees to oversee boards? Will this make the boards themselves seem less arbitrary? 2) You said: " if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would be of value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what kind of oversight, etc? " A consensus of our profession does not seem like a very realistic propositon to me. Our 'profession' is a very abstract body composed of many diverging views and interests. Judging by the conversations that have taken place on this very board and the polarized viewpoints that are represented, it seems to me that consensus should be tossed out as an impractical goal. Maybe we should focus on what's practical rather than on what our 'profession' collectively agrees that we want. I realize that the formation of specialty boards is a controversial topic, and that there are people on both sides of the issue that have strong concerns and opinions. But, on a pragmatic level, is there realy anyone that can stop them? Opponents of specialty boards claim that such boards are illegitimate because they are not invested with the authority of a governing body. But, can't we make the same argument in favor of specialty boards? Namely, that there does not exist a governing body with the authority to stop them or regulate them? Whether you are for them or against them, do we all agree that in the current landscape, nobody has the right or the authority to stop specialty boards or to impose regulations upon them? This is my understanding. Does anyone have information to the contrary? Or are specialty acupuncture boards in America simply the expression of free enterprise? David Karchmer Chinese Medicine , " Kath Bartlett, MS, LAc " wrote: > > barbara: > > respectfully, you are as much in violation of hanging a shingle and calling > yourself a sports medicine specialist, as others who you say have little > training. no one has validated anyone's experience, credentials or edu. as > a TCM sport's medicine specialty. that's the problem. using the word > specialty in marketing is a loaded proposition because is insinuates > something similar to a west. med. specialty, involving a board who oversees > edu, clinical work and testing in the related area. we do not have that in > our profession. a more honest description of your practice is that you treat > exclusively sports medicine, and include your other western degrees in > sports medicine. this avoids the problematic, loaded word:specialty, while > still conveying your meaning. > > i would put forth that part of this discussion is whether we need specialty > boards and certifications to show distinctions in our respective training. > what are the pros and cons to this issue? as you say, when is enough, > enough, and who is profiting? is it merely a marketing ploy. couldn't a > patient/other health care practitioner decided for themselves after doing > their homework: visiting websites, talking to practitioners, to see who > seems knowledgeable and who maybe less so. what about asking to see a cv? > certainly that would provided much info about a practitioner's edu > background and experience. > > i'm just posing questions to explore pros and cons on the issue. > > secondly, i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about > insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at > the table or why they would be an invited guest. > > third: if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would be of > value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what kind of > oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the current west model, or do > we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice of TCM in the US? > why or why not? > > forth: to those of you in other countries, how does it work in your > countries. do you have specialties within the practice of TCM? how are > practitioners calling themselves a specialist documented in terms of edu and > experience? how well do you think the system in your country works? are > tcm specialties in your country modeled after the western system? > > i think a rational discussion of these and other issues involved in setting > up TCM specialties will prove provocative and enlightening. > > kath > > > On 9/21/07, Barbara Beale <bbeale wrote: > > > > I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably related to > > the > > concerns many others have making this a heated topic. > > > > > > > > In my case, I have a bachelor's degree in sports medicine, a master's in > > exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training career > > (prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an > > acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy, > > physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did > > intercollegiate > > athletic training at big and small schools. I've been an acupuncturist > > now > > for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo- skeletal > > pain > > and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to advertise and > > claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury. > > > > > > > > My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me that, > > despite > > my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I am going > > to > > be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem necessary to do > > what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This bugs me > > big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture > > degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my other graduate > > degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough? Are these > > specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone? > > > > > > > > On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal education > > in > > the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle > > and > > refer to themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on what?? > > Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm…. > > > > > > > > Anyone else having this rub? > > > > > > > > barb > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Chinese Medicine > > Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike > > Bowser > > Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM > > Chinese Traditional Medicine > > RE: Specialty Board Conversation > > > > > > > > I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are > > having this debate, also > > be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we > > might > > also be involved in > > learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as > > explain the what and why > > we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own > > meeting there is a > > danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to > > improve our profession, > > let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > HYPERLINK > > " Chinese Medicine%40From > > " Traditional_-Chin > > ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK > > " alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus: Fri, 21 Sep > > 2007 > > 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation > > > > This would be the only legitimate process for creating board > > specialtiesAlon > > Marcus DOMOakland CA > > 94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original > > Message > > ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK > > " Chinese Medicine%40 > > " Traditional_-Chinese_ > > Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 > > AMSubject: > > Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who > > has > > participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty > > boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many > > people > > with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how > > you > > feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and > > specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in > > Oriental > > medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have > > begun > > among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing > > different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this > > group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of > > AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory > > Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and > > Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official > > status > > or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking > > about > > an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the > > discussions > > on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. > > However, > > we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep > > talking. > > 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not > > specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a > > coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. > > Members > > of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the > > insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for > > cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the > > profession > > wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or > > board > > certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note > > again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came > > together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this > > topic > > in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the > > conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or > > thought > > about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would > > encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that > > conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk > > about > > what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty > > boards > > in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about > > moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or > > inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, > > I > > suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the > > conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a > > direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the > > AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty > > boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups > > to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you > > recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture > > Today > > in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the > > conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any > > changes > > to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be > > a > > more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental > > medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture > > Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that > > the > > ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future > > discussion > > focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular > > board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been > > removed] > > > > ____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_ > > Capture your memories in an online journal! > > HYPERLINK > > " http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us " > > http://www.reallive-moms. > > com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Hi David - Let me say 2 things 1. Again, this group is entirely unofficial. There will be discussions about this at the Portland meetings in October and perhaps an official group will be formed - no idea what the membership of that group will be. 2. Sorry I didn't introduce Caroline and myself. Caroline is the person who began this entire discussion when, after the ABORM ad came out, she contacted several of her colleagues to find out how we felt about specialty boards. She is a private practitioner in NYC and New Jersey who has been working with infertility patients for well over 10 years, has taught classes on infertility in NYC and has been a faculty member at PCOM NY and Mercy College. She is strongly opposed to the formation of specialty boards. I was one of the people that Caroline contacted. I am on the faculty at the School of AOM at NYCC, I have taught at New York College on Long Island, Touro College, PCOM NY and ACTCM. I currently teach a class for our program on infertility. A large percentage of my practice is also infertility patients. I, like Caroline, am stronly opposed to the formation of specialty boards. I am the one who originally posted the Open Letter of Oppostion on this site. I guess that Caroline and I were sort the voices of the opposition at this meeting, but again, this was an unofficial meeting of people with no mandate and it is quite possible that none of these people will be on the eventuall organizing committee. If you are interested in participating, please let the AAAOM and/or the NCCAOM know. Marnae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 MIke - I absolutely agree. If you would like to be involved, let the NCCAOM / AAAOM know. One of our goals was to get the AAAOM to house an e-group devoted to this discussion so that anyone who wanted to could participate. Obviously, organizing committees need to be smaller to get any work done, but then the consensus conference would be something that would have room for a greater number of people, representing different views to be present and voice their opinions and be involved in any further action. Marnae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Alon - I think it is important to remember that the members of the Boards of the AAAOM and the NCCAOM are members of the profession. They are mostly private practitioners who give of their time and energy to support these organizations. The best way to create change with these boards is to get on the boards. The AAAOM board is looking for new professional members this year and has put out a call for nominations. The NCCAOM board members are elected by the Diplomates who choose to vote. Some of the names of the board members may begin to look familiar, but that is because these are people who over and over again give of their time. They are members of the profession. Perhaps what needs to happen is simply that they need to find a way to hear the voice of the rest of the profession in a more efficient way. Marnae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Kath - Let me respond to some of your points: 1. You write: " i would put forth that part of this discussion is whether we need specialty boards and certifications to show distinctions in our respective training. what are the pros and cons to this issue? " ME: I absolutely agree that this is the first question that must be addressed. As I have said before, I do not think that we need specialty boards. I have done a great deal of study to gain more knowledge in a few specific areas, notably gynecology (including but not limited to infertility), dermatology and pediatrics, but I do not " specialize " in these areas in that I do not limit my practice to the treatment of these areas I do not wish to. While treating in specific areas is certainly the trend of practice in China, I think that we need to look very carefully at that model before we decide that we want to follow it. First of all, we already use CHinese medicine very differently in this country (in the West) than is done in China. We are not, for the most part, working in hospitals on a regular basis. We are not treating the same number of patients as are treated in China and so we do not have the same time restrictions -we do not need to see 30 - 60 patients in a day. If we did, then yes, we might need to specialize because we would not have time to do the work to effectively treat our patients. If others want to limit their practice to the treatment of one or another type of condition, then that is fine, they should do that, and let their experience and their success speak for them. While taking a specialty board exam is unlikely to ever be required in order to practice within that specialty, it does, in my mind, change the public perception of what Chinese medicine is, which, at its very root is a medicine whose strength is in its ability to take any patient, no matter what their biomedically diagnosed condition may be, assess their signs and symptoms, determine a pattern and treat the presenting pattern. Does this mean that there is not a need to know and understand the presenting condition. Absolutely not. Is there important information about any field that a generalist might not know. Absolutely. But, I would hope that we, as a profession, would know when we need more information, and when we are simply not qualified to treat and need to refer the patient on. But, I do not think that taking an exam to become a specialist is the way to identify who we should refer to and I for one, am unlikely to ever take any of these exams, should they come into existence. Kath said: secondly, i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at the table or why they would be an invited guest. The reason the insurance companies were included in the initial list is so that we, as a profession, can begin to get a very clear idea of how they determine risk and what the development of specialty boards would mean to the insurance company. There is a general feeling among many of us, myself included, that the malpractice companies would jump at the chance to require specialty exams in order to have continued coverage in particular areas. However, we do not know that this is true and we would like to hear what the malpractice companies have to say about this. At this time, there are basically only 2 companies that cover individual practitioners: AAC and Eastern Special Risk. We would like to know where they stand on the issue of specialty boards as it might have an influence on the profession in terms of deciding if specialty boards are actually a direction that we want to take. Kath said: " third: if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would be of value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what kind of oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the current west model, or do we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice of TCM in the US? " Absolutely - Unfortunately, I think that this question needs to be answered in relation to the first question about boards - do we even want them. Because, as it currently stands, there are already at least 3 boards in existence in our field and there is basically nothing we can do about them. They only way that they will cease to exist is if people cease to take their exams. But, as long as people take their exams, they will continue. So, since they are here, we need to figure out how we are going to use them to do what we want. My two cents. Marnae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Regarding point number two: I assume Marnae is referring to insurance companies that provide our liability coverage. They have an interest in these discussions because they may choose not to cover us for certain treatments unless we are " certified " in that particular " specialty. " All philosophical discussions aside, this is when it affects each one of us on a very real level (legally and financially). Does anyone have any information on liability insurance companies headed in this direction? Heidi Irwin, LAc Chinese Medicine , " Kath Bartlett, MS, LAc " wrote: > > barbara: > > respectfully, you are as much in violation of hanging a shingle and calling > yourself a sports medicine specialist, as others who you say have little > training. no one has validated anyone's experience, credentials or edu. as > a TCM sport's medicine specialty. that's the problem. using the word > specialty in marketing is a loaded proposition because is insinuates > something similar to a west. med. specialty, involving a board who oversees > edu, clinical work and testing in the related area. we do not have that in > our profession. a more honest description of your practice is that you treat > exclusively sports medicine, and include your other western degrees in > sports medicine. this avoids the problematic, loaded word:specialty, while > still conveying your meaning. > > i would put forth that part of this discussion is whether we need specialty > boards and certifications to show distinctions in our respective training. > what are the pros and cons to this issue? as you say, when is enough, > enough, and who is profiting? is it merely a marketing ploy. couldn't a > patient/other health care practitioner decided for themselves after doing > their homework: visiting websites, talking to practitioners, to see who > seems knowledgeable and who maybe less so. what about asking to see a cv? > certainly that would provided much info about a practitioner's edu > background and experience. > > i'm just posing questions to explore pros and cons on the issue. > > secondly, i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about > insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at > the table or why they would be an invited guest. > > third: if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would be of > value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what kind of > oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the current west model, or do > we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice of TCM in the US? > why or why not? > > forth: to those of you in other countries, how does it work in your > countries. do you have specialties within the practice of TCM? how are > practitioners calling themselves a specialist documented in terms of edu and > experience? how well do you think the system in your country works? are > tcm specialties in your country modeled after the western system? > > i think a rational discussion of these and other issues involved in setting > up TCM specialties will prove provocative and enlightening. > > kath > > > On 9/21/07, Barbara Beale <bbeale wrote: > > > > I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably related to > > the > > concerns many others have making this a heated topic. > > > > > > > > In my case, I have a bachelor's degree in sports medicine, a master's in > > exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training career > > (prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an > > acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy, > > physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did > > intercollegiate > > athletic training at big and small schools. I've been an acupuncturist > > now > > for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo- skeletal > > pain > > and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to advertise and > > claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury. > > > > > > > > My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me that, > > despite > > my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I am going > > to > > be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem necessary to do > > what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This bugs me > > big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture > > degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my other graduate > > degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough? Are these > > specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone? > > > > > > > > On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal education > > in > > the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle > > and > > refer to themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on what?? > > Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm…. > > > > > > > > Anyone else having this rub? > > > > > > > > barb > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Chinese Medicine > > Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike > > Bowser > > Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM > > Chinese Traditional Medicine > > RE: Specialty Board Conversation > > > > > > > > I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are > > having this debate, also > > be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we > > might > > also be involved in > > learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as > > explain the what and why > > we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own > > meeting there is a > > danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to > > improve our profession, > > let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > HYPERLINK > > " Chinese Medicine%40From > > " Traditional_-Chin > > ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK > > " alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus: Fri, 21 Sep > > 2007 > > 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation > > > > This would be the only legitimate process for creating board > > specialtiesAlon > > Marcus DOMOakland CA > > 94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original > > Message > > ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK > > " Chinese Medicine%40 > > " Traditional_-Chinese_ > > Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 > > AMSubject: > > Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who > > has > > participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty > > boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many > > people > > with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how > > you > > feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and > > specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in > > Oriental > > medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have > > begun > > among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing > > different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this > > group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of > > AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory > > Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and > > Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official > > status > > or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking > > about > > an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the > > discussions > > on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. > > However, > > we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep > > talking. > > 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not > > specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a > > coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. > > Members > > of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the > > insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for > > cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the > > profession > > wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or > > board > > certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note > > again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came > > together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this > > topic > > in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the > > conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or > > thought > > about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would > > encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that > > conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk > > about > > what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty > > boards > > in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about > > moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or > > inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, > > I > > suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the > > conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a > > direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the > > AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty > > boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups > > to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you > > recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture > > Today > > in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the > > conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any > > changes > > to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be > > a > > more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental > > medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture > > Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that > > the > > ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future > > discussion > > focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular > > board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been > > removed] > > > > ____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_ > > Capture your memories in an online journal! > > HYPERLINK > > " http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us " > > http://www.reallive-moms. > > com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 David, Offering a review course is not regarded (according to NCCA accreditation criteria) as a conflict of interest for certifying agencies unless the course is *required* for certification. My original post merely says that " ABORM has... avoided *THIS* conflict of interest. " (emphasis added) I wasn't speaking to and can't intelligently speak to any other potential conflicts. But there appear to be a host of other apparent deficiencies (governance, exam development, policy-making, etc) relative to the NCCA accreditation criteria as an earlier post outlined. --Bill. On Sep 23, 2007, at 9:20 AM, flyingstarsfengshui wrote: > Hi Bill: > > Since that is what has been stated, lets look at what is occurring. > > ABORM gives the exam and certification, income source. > ABORM advisory committe member hosts a review course, income source. > ABORM member who is an AAAOM executive supports certification. > Former AAAOM president suports certification and hosts exam location, > income for event. > > It seems there is a web of interaction and revenue stream from the > partites involved, which is fine but lets not present it does not > exist. > > regards, > david > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 You are right Bill something that has compromised all of the present specialty boards - Bill Mosca Chinese Medicine Friday, September 21, 2007 4:49 PM Re: Specialty Board Conversation Barbara, Offering certification while also providing the education required to gain that certification is considered a conflict of interest and would disqualify the certifying agency from gaining National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) accreditation. ABORM has, thus far, avoided this conflict of interest. The other two self-proclaimed specialty boards have not. --Bill. -- Bill Mosca, LAc San Francisco CA mosca On Sep 21, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Barbara Beale wrote: > How much education is enough? Are these > specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Marnae I agree and know because i have been there. I was active in a specialty board sponsored by the AAOM where i tried to push for high ethics, complete transparency, inclusion of the entire profession and all stake holders. Unfortunately political expediency, conflict of interest, and power fighting won. I argued very strongly against having the same institutions offer teaching and board certificates or examinations, an obvious conflict of interest, and the first test that was offered via that so-called board was a joke. In the end it turned into a completely privately owned money making enterprise that had nothing to do with high or rigorous training or expectations. I also agree with you that we need to be careful regarding malpractice companies trying to define any scope of practice. They also have a conflict of interest. - marnae ergil Chinese Medicine Saturday, September 22, 2007 6:04 AM Re: Specialty Board Conversation Alon - I think it is important to remember that the members of the Boards of the AAAOM and the NCCAOM are members of the profession. They are mostly private practitioners who give of their time and energy to support these organizations. The best way to create change with these boards is to get on the boards. The AAAOM board is looking for new professional members this year and has put out a call for nominations. The NCCAOM board members are elected by the Diplomates who choose to vote. Some of the names of the board members may begin to look familiar, but that is because these are people who over and over again give of their time. They are members of the profession. Perhaps what needs to happen is simply that they need to find a way to hear the voice of the rest of the profession in a more efficient way. Marnae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 David states, " Whether you are for them or against them, do we all agree that in the current landscape, nobody has the right or the authority to stop specialty boards or to impose regulations upon them? " This is a problem as the medical usage of boards has the blessing of the profession, while you are simply stating anyone go ahead w/o any regulations as no one can stop you. That belief is the problem and shows that you are for a more personal vs professional interest. The profession does have the right to censure or fail to give their approval. The profession did so with the NOMAA and some diploma mill PhD programs. Neither of these has been able to overcome it. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac : acuprof: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 05:14:14 +0000Re: Specialty Board Conversation Kath,Two things struck me as interesting and problematic about your post:1) You said: " i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at the table or why they would be an invited guest. " First of all, I think they would be invited because one of the great fears about the establishment of specializations is that incurance would offer different coverage or pay different amounts based on whether one was or was not a " specialist " in a particular area.On another note, why would ANYBODY be an invited guest? I mean, at some point somebody is deciding who does and does not get a say. By what criteria will anybody be given a voice in the establishment of such regulations? People seem up in arms about the aribitrary establishment of boards, will those same people be up in arms about the arbitrary formation of committees to oversee boards? Will this make the boards themselves seem less arbitrary? 2) You said: " if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would be of value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what kind of oversight, etc? " A consensus of our profession does not seem like a very realistic propositon to me. Our 'profession' is a very abstract body composed of many diverging views and interests. Judging by the conversations that have taken place on this very board and the polarized viewpoints that are represented, it seems to me that consensus should be tossed out as an impractical goal. Maybe we should focus on what's practical rather than on what our 'profession' collectively agrees that we want.I realize that the formation of specialty boards is a controversial topic, and that there are people on both sides of the issue that have strong concerns and opinions. But, on a pragmatic level, is there realy anyone that can stop them? Opponents of specialty boards claim that such boards are illegitimate because they are not invested with the authority of a governing body. But, can't we make the same argument in favor of specialty boards? Namely, that there does not exist a governing body with the authority to stop them or regulate them?Whether you are for them or against them, do we all agree that in the current landscape, nobody has the right or the authority to stop specialty boards or to impose regulations upon them?This is my understanding. Does anyone have information to the contrary? Or are specialty acupuncture boards in America simply the expression of free enterprise?David Karchmer--- In Chinese Medicine , " " wrote:>> barbara:> > respectfully, you are as much in violation of hanging a shingle and calling> yourself a sports medicine specialist, as others who you say have little> training. no one has validated anyone's experience, credentials or edu. as> a TCM sport's medicine specialty. that's the problem. using the word> specialty in marketing is a loaded proposition because is insinuates> something similar to a west. med. specialty, involving a board who oversees> edu, clinical work and testing in the related area. we do not have that in> our profession. a more honest description of your practice is that you treat> exclusively sports medicine, and include your other western degrees in> sports medicine. this avoids the problematic, loaded word:specialty, while> still conveying your meaning.> > i would put forth that part of this discussion is whether we need specialty> boards and certifications to show distinctions in our respective training.> what are the pros and cons to this issue? as you say, when is enough,> enough, and who is profiting? is it merely a marketing ploy. couldn't a> patient/other health care practitioner decided for themselves after doing> their homework: visiting websites, talking to practitioners, to see who> seems knowledgeable and who maybe less so. what about asking to see a cv?> certainly that would provided much info about a practitioner's edu> background and experience.> > i'm just posing questions to explore pros and cons on the issue.> > secondly, i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about> insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at> the table or why they would be an invited guest.> > third: if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would be of> value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what kind of> oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the current west model, or do> we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice of TCM in the US?> why or why not?> > forth: to those of you in other countries, how does it work in your> countries. do you have specialties within the practice of TCM? how are> practitioners calling themselves a specialist documented in terms of edu and> experience? how well do you think the system in your country works? are> tcm specialties in your country modeled after the western system?> > i think a rational discussion of these and other issues involved in setting> up TCM specialties will prove provocative and enlightening.> > kath> > > On 9/21/07, Barbara Beale <bbeale wrote:> >> > I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably related to> > the> > concerns many others have making this a heated topic.> >> >> >> > In my case, I have a bachelor's degree in sports medicine, a master's in> > exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training career> > (prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an> > acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy,> > physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did> > intercollegiate> > athletic training at big and small schools. I've been an acupuncturist> > now> > for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo-skeletal> > pain> > and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to advertise and> > claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury.> >> >> >> > My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me that,> > despite> > my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I am going> > to> > be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem necessary to do> > what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This bugs me> > big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture> > degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my other graduate> > degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough? Are these> > specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone?> >> >> >> > On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal education> > in> > the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle> > and> > refer to themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on what??> > Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm….> >> >> >> > Anyone else having this rub?> >> >> >> > barb> >> >> >> > _____> >> > Chinese Medicine > > Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike> > Bowser> > Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM> > To: Chinese Traditional Medicine > > RE: Specialty Board Conversation> >> >> >> > I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are> > having this debate, also> > be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we> > might> > also be involved in> > learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as> > explain the what and why> > we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own> > meeting there is a> > danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to> > improve our profession,> > let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac> >> > HYPERLINK> > " Chinese Medicine%40From> > " Traditional_-Chin> > ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK> > " alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus: Fri, 21 Sep> > 2007> > 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation> >> > This would be the only legitimate process for creating board> > specialtiesAlon> > Marcus DOMOakland CA> > 94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original> > Message> > ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK> > " Chinese Medicine%40> > " Traditional_-Chinese_> > Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57> > AMSubject:> > Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who> > has> > participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty> > boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many> > people> > with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how> > you> > feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and> > specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in> > Oriental> > medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have> > begun> > among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing> > different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this> > group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of> > AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory> > Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and> > Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official> > status> > or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking> > about> > an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the> > discussions> > on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times.> > However,> > we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep> > talking.> > 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not> > specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a> > coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic.> > Members> > of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the> > insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for> > cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the> > profession> > wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or> > board> > certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note> > again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came> > together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this> > topic> > in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the> > conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or> > thought> > about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would> > encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that> > conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk> > about> > what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty> > boards> > in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about> > moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or> > inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then,> > I> > suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the> > conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a> > direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the> > AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty> > boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups> > to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you> > recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture> > Today> > in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the> > conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any> > changes> > to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be> > a> > more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental> > medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture> > Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that> > the> > ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future> > discussion> > focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular> > board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been> > removed]> >> > ____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_> > Capture your memories in an online journal!> > HYPERLINK> > " http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us " > > http://www.reallive-moms.> > com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]> >> >> >> >> > No virus found in this incoming message.> > > > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date:> > 9/21/2007> > 2:02 PM> >> >> >> > > > > > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date:> > 9/21/2007> > 2:02 PM> >> >> >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Mike, You can look at the issue in one of two ways: On the one hand you could argue that anyone has the right to establish a board and start selling 'Certification' without any oversight or regulation by the profession. But, on the other hand, if such boards are not established then individual practitioners are tacitly endowned with similar freedoms (i.e. the ability to represent themselves as specialists in a particular area without any regulation or oversight). With respect to the establishment of specialty boards, you said that I am " simply stating anyone go ahead w/o any regulations as no one can stop you. " What I am saying to you is that without any oversight or quality control from such specialty boards, you are in effect saying the same thing to individual practitioners: Go ahead acupuncturists, call yourself a 'specialist.' (I think Heidi raised this concern earlier) You don't need any kind of oversight or quality control of any kind, as there are no regulations and no one can stop you. Secondly, I am confused Mike about people who keep referring to " the profession " as a decision making body. I know that in my state there are laws and regulations established by the state board of medical examiners that dictate things like scope of practice, and marketing and the like. But I do not know of any kind of governing body run by this abstraction called " the profession " that has any such powers. Can you (or anybody else for that matter) clarify exactly what you mean when you say things like, " The profession does have the right to censure or fail to give their approval. " Just who is this " profession, " and what is the exact process by which such decisions are made? Do we have some kind of profession-wide representative government that I am not aware of? And finally Mike, on a more personal note: So far in this conversation you have asked me why I am trying to hurt our profession. And more recently you state that my statments and inquiries " show that [i am] for a more personal vs professional interest. " I realize that this is your interpretation of my motives, to which you are of course entitiled. But I ask you this: Do you think that such speculation about my personal motives, or posting these kinds of indictments is productively furthering this dialogue? In light of all of the hostility and invective rhetoric surrounding these topics in recent weeks, I respectfully ask that you refrain from the use of personal attacks and accusations, and that we keep our opinions focused on the merits of the ideas being advanced rather than speculating about the character of the people who introduce these ideas. David Karchmer -------------------------------- raditional_Chinese_Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > David states, > " Whether you are for them or against them, do we all agree that in the current landscape, nobody has the right or the authority to stop specialty boards or to impose regulations upon them? " > This is a problem as the medical usage of boards has the blessing of > the profession, while you are simply stating anyone go ahead w/o > any regulations as no one can stop you. That belief is the problem > and shows that you are for a more personal vs professional interest. > > The profession does have the right to censure or fail to give their > approval. The profession did so with the NOMAA and some diploma > mill PhD programs. Neither of these has been able to overcome it. > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > : acuprof: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 05:14:14 +0000Re: Specialty Board Conversation > > > > > Kath,Two things struck me as interesting and problematic about your post:1) You said: " i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at the table or why they would be an invited guest. " First of all, I think they would be invited because one of the great fears about the establishment of specializations is that incurance would offer different coverage or pay different amounts based on whether one was or was not a " specialist " in a particular area.On another note, why would ANYBODY be an invited guest? I mean, at some point somebody is deciding who does and does not get a say. By what criteria will anybody be given a voice in the establishment of such regulations? People seem up in arms about the aribitrary establishment of boards, will those same people be up in arms about the arbitrary formation of committees to oversee boards? Will this make the boards themselves seem less arbitrary? 2) You said: " if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would be of value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what kind of oversight, etc? " A consensus of our profession does not seem like a very realistic propositon to me. Our 'profession' is a very abstract body composed of many diverging views and interests. Judging by the conversations that have taken place on this very board and the polarized viewpoints that are represented, it seems to me that consensus should be tossed out as an impractical goal. Maybe we should focus on what's practical rather than on what our 'profession' collectively agrees that we want.I realize that the formation of specialty boards is a controversial topic, and that there are people on both sides of the issue that have strong concerns and opinions. But, on a pragmatic level, is there realy anyone that can stop them? Opponents of specialty boards claim that such boards are illegitimate because they are not invested with the authority of a governing body. But, can't we make the same argument in favor of specialty boards? Namely, that there does not exist a governing body with the authority to stop them or regulate them? Whether you are for them or against them, do we all agree that in the current landscape, nobody has the right or the authority to stop specialty boards or to impose regulations upon them?This is my understanding. Does anyone have information to the contrary? Or are specialty acupuncture boards in America simply the expression of free enterprise?David Karchmer--- In Chinese Medicine , " Kath Bartlett, MS, LAc " <acukath@> wrote:>> barbara:> > respectfully, you are as much in violation of hanging a shingle and calling> yourself a sports medicine specialist, as others who you say have little> training. no one has validated anyone's experience, credentials or edu. as> a TCM sport's medicine specialty. that's the problem. using the word> specialty in marketing is a loaded proposition because is insinuates> something similar to a west. med. specialty, involving a board who oversees> edu, clinical work and testing in the related area. we do not have that in> our profession. a more honest description of your practice is that you treat> exclusively sports medicine, and include your other western degrees in> sports medicine. this avoids the problematic, loaded word:specialty, while> still conveying your meaning.> > i would put forth that part of this discussion is whether we need specialty> boards and certifications to show distinctions in our respective training.> what are the pros and cons to this issue? as you say, when is enough,> enough, and who is profiting? is it merely a marketing ploy. couldn't a> patient/other health care practitioner decided for themselves after doing> their homework: visiting websites, talking to practitioners, to see who> seems knowledgeable and who maybe less so. what about asking to see a cv?> certainly that would provided much info about a practitioner's edu> background and experience.> > i'm just posing questions to explore pros and cons on the issue.> > secondly, i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about> insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at> the table or why they would be an invited guest.> > third: if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would be of> value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what kind of> oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the current west model, or do> we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice of TCM in the US?> why or why not?> > forth: to those of you in other countries, how does it work in your> countries. do you have specialties within the practice of TCM? how are> practitioners calling themselves a specialist documented in terms of edu and> experience? how well do you think the system in your country works? are> tcm specialties in your country modeled after the western system?> > i think a rational discussion of these and other issues involved in setting> up TCM specialties will prove provocative and enlightening.> > kath> > > On 9/21/07, Barbara Beale <bbeale@> wrote:> >> > I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably related to> > the> > concerns many others have making this a heated topic.> >> >> >> > In my case, I have a bachelor's degree in sports medicine, a master's in> > exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training career> > (prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an> > acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy,> > physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did> > intercollegiate> > athletic training at big and small schools. I've been an acupuncturist> > now> > for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo-skeletal> > pain> > and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to advertise and> > claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury.> >> >> >> > My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me that,> > despite> > my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I am going> > to> > be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem necessary to do> > what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This bugs me> > big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture> > degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my other graduate> > degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough? Are these> > specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone?> >> >> >> > On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal education> > in> > the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle> > and> > refer to themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on what??> > Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm….> >> >> >> > Anyone else having this rub?> >> >> >> > barb> >> >> >> > _____> >> > Chinese Medicine > > Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike> > Bowser> > Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM> > To: Chinese Traditional Medicine > > RE: TCM - Specialty Board Conversation> >> >> >> > I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are> > having this debate, also> > be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we> > might> > also be involved in> > learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as> > explain the what and why> > we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own> > meeting there is a> > danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to> > improve our profession,> > let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac> >> > HYPERLINK> > " Chinese Medicine% 40From> > " Traditional_-Chin> > ese_Medicine- @.-comHYPERLINK> > " alonmarcus% 40wans.netDate " alonmarcus@: Fri, 21 Sep> > 2007> > 12:50:53 - 0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation> >> > This would be the only legitimate process for creating board> > specialtiesAlon> > Marcus DOMOakland CA> > 94609510- 452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original> > Message> > ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK> > " Chinese Medicine%40> > " Traditional_-Chinese_> > Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57> > AMSubject:> > Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who> > has> > participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty> > boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many> > people> > with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how> > you> > feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and> > specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in> > Oriental> > medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have> > begun> > among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing> > different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this> > group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of> > AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory> > Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and> > Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official> > status> > or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking> > about> > an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the> > discussions> > on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times.> > However,> > we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep> > talking.> > 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not> > specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a> > coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic.> > Members> > of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the> > insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for> > cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the> > profession> > wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or> > board> > certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note> > again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came> > together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this> > topic> > in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the> > conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or> > thought> > about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would> > encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that> > conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk> > about> > what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty> > boards> > in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about> > moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or> > inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then,> > I> > suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the> > conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a> > direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the> > AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty> > boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups> > to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you> > recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture> > Today> > in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the> > conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any> > changes> > to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be> > a> > more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental> > medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture> > Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that> > the> > ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future> > discussion> > focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular> > board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been> > removed]> >> > ____________-_________-_________-_________- _________-_________-_> > Capture your memories in an online journal! > > HYPERLINK> > " http://www.reallivemoms.com? ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us " > > http://www.reallive-moms.> > com?- ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]> >> >> >> >> > No virus found in this incoming message.> > > > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date:> > 9/21/2007> > 2:02 PM> >> >> >> > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.> > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date:> > 9/21/2007> > 2:02 PM> >> >> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]> >> >> >> > Subscribe to the fee online journal for TCM at Times> > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com> >> > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine> > and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia> >> > To change your email delivery settings, click,> > and adjust> > accordingly.> >> > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group> > requires prior permission from the author.> >> > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely> > necessary.> > Groups Links> >> >> >> >> > > -- > > Oriental Medicine> Experienced, Dedicated, Effective> > Asheville Center For > 70 Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two> Asheville, NC 28801 828.258.2777> kbartlett@> www.AcupunctureAsheville.com> > > [Non- text portions of this message have been removed]> _______________ > Can you find the hidden words? Take a break and play Seekadoo! > http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 David, I am sorry if I offended you but you seem to be misinterpretting my wording. It is not meant to be a judgement but many of the players that are for creating the ABORM and other boards may not be looking for it to benefit the profession, as a primary goal. Many are looking to set themselves apart. There has been much to do on here about the money and if we really even need to have a specialty, at least at this time in our evolution. I happen to think we need to be spending our time getting ourselves stronger and consolidation of our institutions, making better laws in all states, doctoral degrees and doctoral-degreed faculty and then we should be thinking about possible specialty boards. That could be many decades from now as we do not yet have either of the others done. The concept of our profession is similar, I guess, to other professions in that we are the ones who got legislation passed and to some extent participate in a constant monitoring of it. Many states have laws that usually mention a self-policing regulation designed for us to report practitioners who violate the law. On a similar note, there was am exchange printed in Acupuncture Today between the NOMAA and the AAAOM (formerly AAOM) and how our professional representatives basically squelched them. They have yet to get anything going and the one school they choose has now come under ACAOM suspension for violation for changes to its program. Are you aware that an informal group of AAAOM reps has or will be discussing the issue of specialty boards and whether or not they are rellevent to our profession? The maverick mentality is one that worked for our profession a long time ago but will no longer. Creating these so called certification programs without public and practitioner input will seek to divide us and put a lot of questions into the minds of the patients, the legislators, malpractice insurance companies and ourselves. I understand your desire to want to learn to help patients, collaborate with others and be recognized. These are things we all share in common. Set your self apart with your experiences and successes. Please remember that there are still some groups out there that teach acupuncture in seminars, often without any supervised clinical training. If we take our eye off the ball, then we will lose a lot more then our ego. Our privilege to practice came from the " profession " that started schools, organizations, etc. Mike W. Bowser, LAc _______________ Can you find the hidden words? Take a break and play Seekadoo! http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 Mike, It seems like you are saying that the formation of specialty boards for OM before we have stronger academic programs and regulating agencies is placing the proverbial cart before the horse. If I am understanding you correctly, you believe that Specialty Boards should be formed ONLY after our profession has a stronger infrastructure, including things like doctoral programs, clinical residencies, and proper oversight organizations. I think this is a very common perception, but it is not one that I happen to agree with. The principle reason that I do not agree with such an approach is that I believe that in the case of Reproductive Acupuncture, there is an immediate need. I have written extensively about this need in previous posts, so I will not go into detail here. Anyone interested can listen to the interview I gave on the subject at: http://www.chinesemedicinetools.com/audio-podcasts/specialty- certification-debate-the-aborm-others-sp/david-karchmer-aborm-debate The second reason that I do not buy into the 'cart before the horse' argument is my belief that processes like this one are organic in nature. Chutzpah and initiative get balls rolling, and once they are in motion, regulation and oversight naturally follow. Trying to Bureaucratically plan for every conceivable contigency, and plan everything in advance before taking action is a) Usually ineffective and b) Is usually an obstacle to anything meaningful actually getting done. What's the military saying? " The best battle plan only lasts until the first shot is fired. " And finally, to illustrate that oversight usually follows initiative (and not the other way around), I rely on precedent. Within our field, there is the precedent of the NCCAOM, which formed at the time of its earliest inception out of a perceived need, at a time when there was no regulation or oversight, and despite a tremendous amount of profession-wide resistance. Within the field of western medicine, we can look to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) for precedent. The stated purpose of this organization is " to establish and maintain high standards for the delivery of safe, quality medical care by certified physician specialists. " But here is the interesting thing about the ABMS: It first formed in 1933. The first specialty board for western medicine formed in 1916, a full SEVENTEEN YEARS BEFORE the formation of the board that would eventually provide regulation and oversight. By the time the ABMS formed, there were a total of 4 operational specialty boards in existence. And this was at a time when specialized residencies were not widespread. In other words, the Cart comes Before the Horse. First comes initiative and oversight follows. In Western Medicine, specialty boards were established and operational BEFORE a full spectrum of regulations and oversight organizations were in place. Because the practice of acupuncture and OM in America is young, it seems natural that we would follow the precedent set by Western Medicine and the ABMS, which in 1916 was probably remarkably similar to the field of American Acupuncture in 2007. This approach is not self-interested or mercenary. Nor does it seek to send the profession backwards, or try to undo hard won progress. It is a time-tested approach that has resulted in stronger and better medical care in western medicine, and so it can do for the practice of American OM. Here is a full excerpt from the ABMS website: Our History ABMS can trace its roots to the rise and growth of the medical specialty board movement in the early 1900s. This movement has been associated directly with many significant advancements in medical science and the resulting improvements made in medical care delivery. During this period of growth, however, there was no system to assure the public that a physician claiming to be a specialist was indeed qualified. Until the development of the specialty board movement, each physician was the sole assessor of his or her own qualifications to practice a given specialty. The advent of specialty societies and medical education institutions brought a more organized and rigorous approach. These bodies encouraged and assisted in the development of boards to define specialty qualifications and to issue credentials that would assure the public of the specialist's qualifications. As the original boards and societies matured, it was natural that they coalesce and organize a national system to provide recognition of qualified physician specialists. The concept of a specialty board was first proposed in 1908, though it was not until 1916 that the first specialty board, the American Board for Ophthalmic Examinations, was formed. In 1917 the board was officially incorporated, and in 1933 its name was changed to the American Board of Ophthalmology. This board established the guidelines for training and evaluating candidates desiring certification to practice ophthalmology. The second specialty board, the American Board of Otolaryngology, was founded and incorporated in 1924; the third and fourth boards, The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American Board of Dermatology and Syphilology, were established in 1930 and 1932, respectively. These boards developed along the same path as their predecessor and shared the common objectives to: Elevate the standards of their respective specialties Familiarize the public with their aims and ideals Protect the public against irresponsible and unqualified practitioners Authorize educational resources Set requirements for test candidates Oversee the examination program Issue certificates of qualification At a 1933 professional conference, representatives from these four pioneering specialty boards and the American Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Medical Education and Hospitals and the National Board of Medical Examiners agreed that the examination and certification of specialists would best be carried out by the National Boards (specialty boards). They also concluded that the efficacy of these boards would be maximized by the formation of an advisory committee or council created by two delegated representatives from the official specialty boards currently in existence or in the process of formation. Formal organization of the Advisory Board occurred that same year, and in 1934 the Constitution and Bylaws were adopted. The purposes of the newly formed Advisory Board were: To furnish an opportunity for the discussion of problems common to the various specialty examining boards in medicine and surgery To act in an advisory capacity to these boards To coordinate their work as far as possible Assume jurisdiction over those policies and problems common to all of the Boards which are expressly delegated to it by the component boards To avoid interfering with the autonomy of any represented examining board To stimulate improvement in postgraduate medical education Though broadened since then, these purposes and goals remain much the same today. Since 1933, official recognition of specialty boards in medicine has been achieved by the collaborative efforts of the Advisory Board for Medical Specialties, its successor, the American Board of Medical Specialties, and the AMA Council on Medical Education. In 1948 these efforts were formalized through the establishment of the Liaison Committee for Specialty Boards (LCSB). A jointly approved publication, " Essentials for Approval of Examining Boards in Medicine Specialties, " established standards. This document has undergone several revisions through the years and remains the standard for recognition of new specialty boards. David Karchmer -- In Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > > David, > > I am sorry if I offended you but you seem to be misinterpretting my wording. It is not meant to be a judgement but many of the players that are for creating the ABORM and other boards may not be looking for > it to benefit the profession, as a primary goal. Many are looking to set themselves apart. There has been much to do on here about the money and if we really even need to have a specialty, at least at this time in our evolution. I happen to think we need to be spending our time getting ourselves stronger and consolidation of our institutions, making better laws in all states, doctoral degrees and doctoral-degreed faculty and then we should be thinking about possible specialty boards. That could be many decades from now as we do not yet have either of the others done. > > The concept of our profession is similar, I guess, to other professions in that we are the ones who got legislation passed and to some extent participate in a constant monitoring of it. Many states have laws that usually mention a self-policing regulation designed for us to report practitioners who violate the law. > > On a similar note, there was am exchange printed in Acupuncture Today between the NOMAA and the AAAOM (formerly AAOM) and how our professional representatives basically squelched them. They have yet to get anything going and the one school they choose has now come under ACAOM suspension for violation for changes to its program. Are you aware that an informal group of AAAOM reps has or will be discussing the issue of specialty boards and whether or not they are rellevent to our profession? > > The maverick mentality is one that worked for our profession a long time ago but will no longer. Creating these so called certification programs without public and practitioner input will seek to divide us and put a lot of questions into the minds of the patients, the legislators, malpractice insurance companies and ourselves. I understand your desire to want to learn to help patients, collaborate with others and be recognized. These are things we all share in common. Set your self apart with your experiences and successes. > > Please remember that there are still some groups out there that teach acupuncture in seminars, often without any supervised clinical training. If we take our eye off the ball, then we will lose a lot more then our ego. Our privilege to practice came from the " profession " that started schools, organizations, etc. > > Mike W. Bowser, LAc > _______________ > Can you find the hidden words? Take a break and play Seekadoo! > http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.