Guest guest Posted April 20, 2010 Report Share Posted April 20, 2010 Bingo. Thanks for clarifying my point. It is a much simpler administrative bill cleanup, as in the PT example, as opposed to going before the legislature and needing a majority vote to designate changes in our licensing legislation. It would make little sense to keep in law provisions of education that no longer apply. When you open up the legislation to scrutiny by the many lobbyists (AMA, insurance co, chiro, etc), you will get quite a fight. Doctor usage is still a big issue (implies the highest levels of education, ability and is a leg up in marketing), keep in mind the recent AMA attempt to eliminate the many CAM providers (DC, ND, DN, OMD) that have this in usage. Things have changed and things do not usually get passed without a fight these days. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > Chinese Traditional Medicine > don83407 > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:01:45 -0500 > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is still PT. > > > > I hope I got it. > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > Chinese Medicine > hobbs.valeriehobbs > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:48:29 +0000 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > MIke, I'm really sorry, I haven't missed a thing. You are stating something that is your opinion that is not fact. You aren't correct it: the entry level for education in state PT laws did not change when the DPT was introduced. This isn't my opinion or yours, this is fact. > > I just don't agree with you that the picture you paint of one eventual degree makes everything simple. Simplicity has many meanings, and I do not think that there is a compelling reason to make all acupuncturists fit into one mold -- whose mold should that be? Should they just do herbs, should they do 5E? should they spend 3 years in training? 4? 5? Moving forward does not have to mean that everyone has to be lock step in an upgraded degree. The insistence that this be so split this profession once. There is no need (my opinion for sure) for that to happen again. > > We are not the only profession that has multiple educational entries into licensure. Please at least, say it's your opinion that we are when you make that statement as fact, because there are a lot of nurses out there that have different levels of education, PTs, OTs, etc. I think it's important that you state this as your vision for the profession, it is not an eventual conclusion. > > Look, I'm in favor of producing a FPD degree. I have been at the table for 11 years on this issue. I've read the state laws and talked to the state departments of education. I think the FPD answers many of the demands of the profession. > > However, it is not fact, and it isn't my opinion at this time that the Master's level should be retired any time after a FPD becomes a solid standard. FPD trained acupuncturists cannot meet all the public health needs in this country for acupuncture, because patients can't pay for it. We have a compelling active force in our profession with Community Acupuncture and they are showing us daily that we need excellence, rigor and sustainability. I would never suggest that the acupuncture doc working in a cancer ward cannot have a route to appropriate doctoral level education. In attaining that, please don't make the public health acupuncturist fit an educational degree that won't work for them or their patients. > > Now, more than any other time in our professional development, has come the time to embrace more than a one-size fits all model. > > Valerie Hobbs LAc > > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > > > > > Valerie, > > > > Yes you have missed it again. It comes down to simplicity. Matching up of one's education with licensing designation should be important. You can think of this as identifying who we are or lessening public confusion. The public is confused, and many do not know who or what we perform. Nor do they know what a LAc does and how this is different from anyone else doing acupuncture. We appear to be the only healthcare profession where this does not occur. I think this is important. > > > > The issue of the FPD, if allowed, would most likely resemble the PT. Educational change voluntarily preceded legislative change. The FPD would open us up to this process. I am sorry if you took it as an absolute, it was meant as allowing this to happen much easier. Many of the professional issues we have are do to a lack of leadership, communication and courage to act. > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > hobbs.valeriehobbs > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:38:59 +0000 > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying Mike, but I don't think I've missed your point. I disagree with your conclusions, and I interpret your conclusions as coming from your opinion, and not any legal precedent that I have been able to find. > > > > > > > > There is no public health reason to make the entry to practice at a doctorate level, and when all other professions changed education levels from Master's to Doctorate, they did not change licensing levels. > > > > > > > > I disagree that it is simple clean compact or even necessary to change all licensing laws to one big higher standard. What I have observed is that the patchwork of differing laws and the overbloating of our Master's education has been a direct result of professionals through state associations attempting in their state to create some kind of legislative doctorate. The idea that such a move would create one big happy family has not panned out so well so far, and I think we have to learn from that. It is not sustainable, and it is not what other professions have done. If you can find any evidence to the contrary, I would be very interested in seeing it and learning from it. > > > > > > > > When you paint the picture that a legislative change in licensing is a forgone conclusion and an advantage about the FPD, it really is your opinion only. The reason I rise to the debate here, even though I don't think I'll change your thinking, is that this kind of opinionating scares people and fans an inaccurate debate. > > > > > > > > Valerie Hobbs, L Ac > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valerie, > > > > > > > > > > You misunderstand my point on this issue. What I am saying is that our current licensing in most states (LAc) is not a match for our educational degree and therefore we see two sets of letters after someone's name (MSTOM, LAc). A FPD would more easily allow for states to change our designation to say, OMD, that would be simple, clean and compact. Having a doctorate in our education would then make it harder to argue for no change in state licensing designation. That would be a state by state issue and not an ACAOM issue. It is not ACAOM's authority to make or change licensing laws, it is up to the states with the help of our state associations. > > > > > > > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > > > > hobbs.valeriehobbs@ > > > > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:48:30 +0000 > > > > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, Mike, but every time you bring this up, I will be here to let you know that there is NO discussion of changing licensure levels. At the most recent meeting of the CCAOM, it was in fact discussed that there is NO NEED to change the level of licensure and that a change in licensure is not at this time the eventual outcome of bringing forward a higher educational degree. > > > > > > > > > > You and I have gone back and forth a couple of times on this issue, and I just want Kim and any others reading this to know that the CCAOM at least, is most definitely not a proponent of changing licensure levels. The original motion, brought in 2003, to investigate possible changes in entry level degrees, endorsed the Master's as entry level. Even with the 2009 motion to move forward on the development of the FPD, there has been no discussion to move away from the Master's as the entry level into licensure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The CCAOM is now engaged in gathering information from other professions who have multiple levels of academic degree, some of whom adopted a strategy to eventually eliminate a Master's as they developed a doctorate, and some who did not. There is no foregone conclusion about licensing changing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valerie Hobbs L. Ac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Kim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The FPD will do several things that are vital for our survival: > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Combine education and licensure. We currently have several differing labels. The most common designation we use is LAc, which is a technician and not descriptive of who or what we represent. > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Provide a doctorate as entrance, which we should have done long ago. The master's was an attempt to allow many of our programs to exist that could not otherwise remain in business. We have come a long way. > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Most importantly, provide us with more theoretical and clinical internship hours. We often elevate those trained in SE Asia with their knowledge base, as they are the ones that have a deeper theoretical, expanded clinical and greater integrative understanding. It is time we raise our own standards and stop shooting for the lowest bar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > > The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. > > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID28326::\ T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2010 Report Share Posted April 20, 2010 Respectfully, this " confusion " among patients and the solution to bring everyone to a higher educational degree is still your opinion. There are other medical professions that have achieved doctoral status other than MD and chiropractic. Your opinion that we should follow the chiropractic model is only one way, not at this time THE way. The times we live in demand this too. It is not a fact that when all other health profession moved to a doctorate that the minimum education in licensing standards changed. For many, yes, they changed. For all, they did not. I would just request if when you promote a shift in licensure as a result of the FPD, that you do so as your opinion or even your best outcome, and not as a fait accompli. It's way too early to talk about legislative outcome. Valerie Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > > Valerie, > > The simple reason for all this is public understanding of who and what we are. When you confuse them with all these different titles, they struggle to find accurate information. The public is confused and it takes awhile to market the message to them. The times we live in demand this. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > Chinese Medicine > hobbs.valeriehobbs > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. > > > > As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing. > > > > All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. > > > > Valerie > > > > Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is still PT. > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope I got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________ > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2010 Report Share Posted April 20, 2010 MD and DC are not the only titles at the doctorate level. The premise on which you base your opinion is not correct and my concern is that it keeps us from seeking and creating alternatives that work for the diversity of our profession. Valerie Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > > Because MD and DC happen to be the highest and only educational titles. If and when the FPD becomes the only title. All state licensure boards should title us the same as everyone else. > > > > Don Snow > > > > Chinese Medicine > hobbs.valeriehobbs > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. > > As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing. > > All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. > > Valerie > > Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: > > > > > > I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is still PT. > > > > > > > > I hope I got it. > > > > > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2010 Report Share Posted April 20, 2010 Joe was looking for rational discourse but couldn't find it here Joe sez: The license should match the degree The degree should mean something and be based on higher standards the higher standards should be required of the schools and teachers = better classes - many classes leave much to be desired the higher standards should be required of the students = better students - many have no business being in grad school, many don't study as aspiring doctors (so how could they be called this?) More mediocre classes? not sure More is not better, better is better What is missing from education? standards language Residency programs are needed - not more lectures Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2010 Report Share Posted April 20, 2010 Valerie, Don did not indicate that MD or DC were the only titles at the doctorate level. It appears that you are struggling with this thread. I would suggest you re-read the posts. If you have anymore questions about my posts, feel free to email me and I will do my best to explain. I think that the point of legislative change is important. If we are to go through all the work and education to bring us up to doctorate, then we should be able to use the title. It makes sense when our degree and licensing designation match, this should be common sense. There is also a marketing angle on this as well. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine hobbs.valeriehobbs Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:29:52 +0000 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD MD and DC are not the only titles at the doctorate level. The premise on which you base your opinion is not correct and my concern is that it keeps us from seeking and creating alternatives that work for the diversity of our profession. Valerie Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > > Because MD and DC happen to be the highest and only educational titles. If and when the FPD becomes the only title. All state licensure boards should title us the same as everyone else. > > > > Don Snow > > > > Chinese Medicine > hobbs.valeriehobbs > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. > > As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing. > > All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. > > Valerie > > Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: > > > > > > I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is still PT. > > > > > > > > I hope I got it. > > > > > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2010 Report Share Posted April 20, 2010 Joe, More clinical internship hours in specialties is what is currently part of the DAOM experience. I have heard from several graduates that felt this really helped with their practices. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine joe.messey Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:59:10 -0800 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Joe was looking for rational discourse but couldn't find it here Joe sez: The license should match the degree The degree should mean something and be based on higher standards the higher standards should be required of the schools and teachers = better classes - many classes leave much to be desired the higher standards should be required of the students = better students - many have no business being in grad school, many don't study as aspiring doctors (so how could they be called this?) More mediocre classes? not sure More is not better, better is better What is missing from education? standards language Residency programs are needed - not more lectures Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2010 Report Share Posted April 20, 2010 Valerie, You still do not appear to understand what I and Don have posted. I would suggest, you contact me with your questions about my posts in order to avoid further misinterpretation. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine hobbs.valeriehobbs Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:25:17 +0000 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Respectfully, this " confusion " among patients and the solution to bring everyone to a higher educational degree is still your opinion. There are other medical professions that have achieved doctoral status other than MD and chiropractic. Your opinion that we should follow the chiropractic model is only one way, not at this time THE way. The times we live in demand this too. It is not a fact that when all other health profession moved to a doctorate that the minimum education in licensing standards changed. For many, yes, they changed. For all, they did not. I would just request if when you promote a shift in licensure as a result of the FPD, that you do so as your opinion or even your best outcome, and not as a fait accompli. It's way too early to talk about legislative outcome. Valerie Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > > Valerie, > > The simple reason for all this is public understanding of who and what we are. When you confuse them with all these different titles, they struggle to find accurate information. The public is confused and it takes awhile to market the message to them. The times we live in demand this. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > Chinese Medicine > hobbs.valeriehobbs > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. > > > > As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing. > > > > All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. > > > > Valerie > > > > Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is still PT. > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope I got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Mercurius: > What more is there to teach us, specifically? Joe Sez: That's hilarious!! [?] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 This is what I was wondering. What more is there to teach us, specifically? It was my understanding that the doctorate was mainly based on a scientific research emphasis. Like doing meta-analysis from science journals or something. - " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 <Chinese Traditional Medicine > Tuesday, April 20, 2010 12:44 PM RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > Joe, > > More clinical internship hours in specialties is what is currently part of > the DAOM experience. I have heard from several graduates that felt this > really helped with their practices. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > Chinese Medicine > joe.messey > Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:59:10 -0800 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joe was looking for rational discourse but couldn't find it here > > > > Joe sez: > > The license should match the degree > > The degree should mean something and be based on higher standards > > the higher standards should be required of the schools and teachers = > better > > classes - many classes leave much to be desired > > the higher standards should be required of the students = better > students - > > many have no business being in grad school, many don't study as aspiring > > doctors (so how could they be called this?) > > > > More mediocre classes? not sure > > More is not better, better is better > > > > What is missing from education? > > standards > > language > > > > Residency programs are needed - not more lectures > > > > Joe > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Do you really think you know it all? I certainly don't know it all. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. Chinese Medicine joe.messey Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:19:49 -0700 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Mercurius: > What more is there to teach us, specifically? Joe Sez: That's hilarious!! [?] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 My guess is that it would include: classical Chinese medical texts (covered superficially in master's degree) in both acupuncture, moxa and herbs , better usage of treatment modalities, specialties, hopefully development of better needling technique, western medical understanding, etc. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > Chinese Traditional Medicine > don83407 > Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:15:21 -0500 > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > Do you really think you know it all? I certainly don't know it all. > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > Chinese Medicine > joe.messey > Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:19:49 -0700 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > Mercurius: > > > What more is there to teach us, specifically? > > Joe Sez: > That's hilarious!! [?] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 This will be my last public post on this thread for a while. Mike, I enjoy your posts on all kinds of subjects. I offer what I am in complete respect for you. I haven't misunderstood, I disagreed with you. I've also been trying to keep my answers short (out of respect for others on the list) and based on fact, not opinion. So maybe I haven't given you enough examples so that you know I'm not misunderstanding. Here are some examples of statute change and no statute change as degree titles changed: MD --education doctorate DC - education doctorate PT - doctorate available, Master's available -- education level is not mandated in statutes. Professional plans through national association and accreditation, community of colleges to voluntarily go to all DPT education by 2020 have not included a change in accreditation or statue. Audiology - went to doctorate in 2007 - changed statutes Nursing - tried to require Bachelors of all RN's -- failed. Have not changed statutes even with Masters, doctorate, and specialty education degrees OT - Both Master's & Doctorate are available- did not change statutes.Even when Master's & doctorate degrees were developed in 2006, most statutes simply state that a graduate must be from an " approved " or " accredited " program. I understand that you and others in our profession believe that if we all have one degree at the doctorate level that this will create branding and will better serve our profession. I recognize that there are other opinions on this subject, and a real public health need (much like there was in nursing) to keep a Master's level degree to provide affordable care while we also offer a doctorate. I can live with a educationally tiered profession. There are many examples (see above) that suggest that scopes of practice do not need to change to allow multiple levels of education to lead to practice --and-- people with a doctorate do use the " Dr. " title and work in positions that require that level of skill. I have some experience in this area, and have been active in formative discussions in higher education since 1999. If you have any questions you want to ask me offline, feel free. Valerie Hobbs. L.Ac Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > > Valerie, > > You still do not appear to understand what I and Don have posted. I would suggest, you contact me with your questions about my posts in order to avoid further misinterpretation. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > Chinese Medicine > hobbs.valeriehobbs > Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:25:17 +0000 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respectfully, this " confusion " among patients and the solution to bring everyone to a higher educational degree is still your opinion. > > > > There are other medical professions that have achieved doctoral status other than MD and chiropractic. Your opinion that we should follow the chiropractic model is only one way, not at this time THE way. The times we live in demand this too. > > > > It is not a fact that when all other health profession moved to a doctorate that the minimum education in licensing standards changed. For many, yes, they changed. For all, they did not. > > > > I would just request if when you promote a shift in licensure as a result of the FPD, that you do so as your opinion or even your best outcome, and not as a fait accompli. It's way too early to talk about legislative outcome. > > > > Valerie > > > > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Valerie, > > > > > > The simple reason for all this is public understanding of who and what we are. When you confuse them with all these different titles, they struggle to find accurate information. The public is confused and it takes awhile to market the message to them. The times we live in demand this. > > > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > > hobbs.valeriehobbs@ > > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 > > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. > > > > > > > > > > > > As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing. > > > > > > > > > > > > All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Valerie > > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is still PT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope I got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > > > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. > > > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 It should be noted that PTs, OTs, and nurses are support personnel. They are not legally permitted to dx and tx without an MDs or DOs supervision. In other words, they are seen as highly specialized technicians. I am not a technician and neither are Master's degree AOM practitioners, we are stand alone practitioners, not support personnel. This is the point of Dr. Bowser's thread. If we do not want to be seen as a tech, then we need the FPD and title. Dr. Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. Chinese Medicine hobbs.valeriehobbs Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:04 +0000 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD This will be my last public post on this thread for a while. Mike, I enjoy your posts on all kinds of subjects. I offer what I am in complete respect for you. I haven't misunderstood, I disagreed with you. I've also been trying to keep my answers short (out of respect for others on the list) and based on fact, not opinion. So maybe I haven't given you enough examples so that you know I'm not misunderstanding. Here are some examples of statute change and no statute change as degree titles changed: MD --education doctorate DC - education doctorate PT - doctorate available, Master's available -- education level is not mandated in statutes. Professional plans through national association and accreditation, community of colleges to voluntarily go to all DPT education by 2020 have not included a change in accreditation or statue. Audiology - went to doctorate in 2007 - changed statutes Nursing - tried to require Bachelors of all RN's -- failed. Have not changed statutes even with Masters, doctorate, and specialty education degrees OT - Both Master's & Doctorate are available- did not change statutes.Even when Master's & doctorate degrees were developed in 2006, most statutes simply state that a graduate must be from an " approved " or " accredited " program. I understand that you and others in our profession believe that if we all have one degree at the doctorate level that this will create branding and will better serve our profession. I recognize that there are other opinions on this subject, and a real public health need (much like there was in nursing) to keep a Master's level degree to provide affordable care while we also offer a doctorate. I can live with a educationally tiered profession. There are many examples (see above) that suggest that scopes of practice do not need to change to allow multiple levels of education to lead to practice --and-- people with a doctorate do use the " Dr. " title and work in positions that require that level of skill. I have some experience in this area, and have been active in formative discussions in higher education since 1999. If you have any questions you want to ask me offline, feel free. Valerie Hobbs. L.Ac Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > > Valerie, > > You still do not appear to understand what I and Don have posted. I would suggest, you contact me with your questions about my posts in order to avoid further misinterpretation. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > Chinese Medicine > hobbs.valeriehobbs > Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:25:17 +0000 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respectfully, this " confusion " among patients and the solution to bring everyone to a higher educational degree is still your opinion. > > > > There are other medical professions that have achieved doctoral status other than MD and chiropractic. Your opinion that we should follow the chiropractic model is only one way, not at this time THE way. The times we live in demand this too. > > > > It is not a fact that when all other health profession moved to a doctorate that the minimum education in licensing standards changed. For many, yes, they changed. For all, they did not. > > > > I would just request if when you promote a shift in licensure as a result of the FPD, that you do so as your opinion or even your best outcome, and not as a fait accompli. It's way too early to talk about legislative outcome. > > > > Valerie > > > > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Valerie, > > > > > > The simple reason for all this is public understanding of who and what we are. When you confuse them with all these different titles, they struggle to find accurate information. The public is confused and it takes awhile to market the message to them. The times we live in demand this. > > > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > > hobbs.valeriehobbs@ > > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 > > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. > > > > > > > > > > > > As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing. > > > > > > > > > > > > All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Valerie > > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is still PT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope I got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > > > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. > > > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 A very good point, one which I addressed in my recent article, " The Technician and the Scholar Physician " . We need to choose whether we want to be independent, autonomous primary health care providers, or technicians working in physicians' offices who simply carry out instructions based on the physician's diagnosis. On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Donald Snow wrote: > > It should be noted that PTs, OTs, and nurses are support personnel. They are not legally permitted to dx and tx without an MDs or DOs supervision. In other words, they are seen as highly specialized technicians. I am not a technician and neither are Master's degree AOM practitioners, we are stand alone practitioners, not support personnel. This is the point of Dr. Bowser's thread. If we do not want to be seen as a tech, then we need the FPD and title. > > > > Dr. Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > Chinese Medicine > hobbs.valeriehobbs > Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:04 +0000 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > This will be my last public post on this thread for a while. > > Mike, I enjoy your posts on all kinds of subjects. I offer what I am in complete respect for you. > > I haven't misunderstood, I disagreed with you. > > I've also been trying to keep my answers short (out of respect for others on the list) and based on fact, not opinion. So maybe I haven't given you enough examples so that you know I'm not misunderstanding. > > Here are some examples of statute change and no statute change as degree titles changed: > > MD --education doctorate > DC - education doctorate > PT - doctorate available, Master's available -- education level is not mandated in statutes. Professional plans through national association and accreditation, community of colleges to voluntarily go to all DPT education by 2020 have not included a change in accreditation or statue. > Audiology - went to doctorate in 2007 - changed statutes > Nursing - tried to require Bachelors of all RN's -- failed. Have not changed statutes even with Masters, doctorate, and specialty education degrees > OT - Both Master's & Doctorate are available- did not change statutes.Even when Master's & doctorate degrees were developed in 2006, most statutes simply state that a graduate must be from an " approved " or " accredited " program. > > I understand that you and others in our profession believe that if we all have one degree at the doctorate level that this will create branding and will better serve our profession. > > I recognize that there are other opinions on this subject, and a real public health need (much like there was in nursing) to keep a Master's level degree to provide affordable care while we also offer a doctorate. I can live with a educationally tiered profession. There are many examples (see above) that suggest that scopes of practice do not need to change to allow multiple levels of education to lead to practice --and-- people with a doctorate do use the " Dr. " title and work in positions that require that level of skill. > > I have some experience in this area, and have been active in formative discussions in higher education since 1999. If you have any questions you want to ask me offline, feel free. > > Valerie Hobbs. L.Ac > > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: >> >> >> Valerie, >> >> You still do not appear to understand what I and Don have posted. I would suggest, you contact me with your questions about my posts in order to avoid further misinterpretation. >> >> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc >> >> >> Chinese Medicine >> hobbs.valeriehobbs >> Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:25:17 +0000 >> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Respectfully, this " confusion " among patients and the solution to bring everyone to a higher educational degree is still your opinion. >> >> >> >> There are other medical professions that have achieved doctoral status other than MD and chiropractic. Your opinion that we should follow the chiropractic model is only one way, not at this time THE way. The times we live in demand this too. >> >> >> >> It is not a fact that when all other health profession moved to a doctorate that the minimum education in licensing standards changed. For many, yes, they changed. For all, they did not. >> >> >> >> I would just request if when you promote a shift in licensure as a result of the FPD, that you do so as your opinion or even your best outcome, and not as a fait accompli. It's way too early to talk about legislative outcome. >> >> >> >> Valerie >> >> >> >> Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1@> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Valerie, >> >>> >> >>> The simple reason for all this is public understanding of who and what we are. When you confuse them with all these different titles, they struggle to find accurate information. The public is confused and it takes awhile to market the message to them. The times we live in demand this. >> >>> >> >>> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Chinese Medicine >> >>> hobbs.valeriehobbs@ >> >>> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 >> >>> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Valerie >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is still PT. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> I hope I got it. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ________ >> >>> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. >> >>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:042010_2 >> >>> >> >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Valerie, I appreciate your opinions on this but for sake of clarity it is much easier to change a title or educational requirement after the profession has already acted. This is a simple housecleaning that does not need legislative approval. I, also worked with my state acupuncture association legislative sub-committee and our attorney. It makes sense to create some uniformity otherwise the public gets confused as is observable in the master's as entry but a LAc " technician designation " for licensing. We have varying levels of education, and to some extent licensing. We also have practitioners that are simply paying a licensing fee to call themselves doctor even if they never practice in that state. Is it legal? It appears so. Is it ethical? I would say it appears to be a gray area as there are no provisions preventing this. In many ways, this is dishonest. I would hope that we can agree that the public deserves better. The time has come for some normality in the profession. We can do this together or keep wandering around confused by other professions gaining more ground with using acupuncture. No one has stated that we cannot continue with a master's as entry level but many schools/students want to begin to offer a FPD. Do we tell them no or do we allow them a choice? There appears to be a lot of misinformation on the FPD issue and from the similarity of the subjects, these talking points have little basis in reality, other then they are an opinion. I would agree that we need discourse on working through these concerns but at some point in time, we need to move on. The issue should be on the process and the timing of these changes to minimize shock on our current practitioners. States will move much later, if ever, to change their licensing laws. This process will most likely take several decades and many of us will have left practice. Let us leave the future generations a more positive professional legacy. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine hobbs.valeriehobbs Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:04 +0000 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD This will be my last public post on this thread for a while. Mike, I enjoy your posts on all kinds of subjects. I offer what I am in complete respect for you. I haven't misunderstood, I disagreed with you. I've also been trying to keep my answers short (out of respect for others on the list) and based on fact, not opinion. So maybe I haven't given you enough examples so that you know I'm not misunderstanding. Here are some examples of statute change and no statute change as degree titles changed: MD --education doctorate DC - education doctorate PT - doctorate available, Master's available -- education level is not mandated in statutes. Professional plans through national association and accreditation, community of colleges to voluntarily go to all DPT education by 2020 have not included a change in accreditation or statue. Audiology - went to doctorate in 2007 - changed statutes Nursing - tried to require Bachelors of all RN's -- failed. Have not changed statutes even with Masters, doctorate, and specialty education degrees OT - Both Master's & Doctorate are available- did not change statutes.Even when Master's & doctorate degrees were developed in 2006, most statutes simply state that a graduate must be from an " approved " or " accredited " program. I understand that you and others in our profession believe that if we all have one degree at the doctorate level that this will create branding and will better serve our profession. I recognize that there are other opinions on this subject, and a real public health need (much like there was in nursing) to keep a Master's level degree to provide affordable care while we also offer a doctorate. I can live with a educationally tiered profession. There are many examples (see above) that suggest that scopes of practice do not need to change to allow multiple levels of education to lead to practice --and-- people with a doctorate do use the " Dr. " title and work in positions that require that level of skill. I have some experience in this area, and have been active in formative discussions in higher education since 1999. If you have any questions you want to ask me offline, feel free. Valerie Hobbs. L.Ac Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > > Valerie, > > You still do not appear to understand what I and Don have posted. I would suggest, you contact me with your questions about my posts in order to avoid further misinterpretation. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > Chinese Medicine > hobbs.valeriehobbs > Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:25:17 +0000 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respectfully, this " confusion " among patients and the solution to bring everyone to a higher educational degree is still your opinion. > > > > There are other medical professions that have achieved doctoral status other than MD and chiropractic. Your opinion that we should follow the chiropractic model is only one way, not at this time THE way. The times we live in demand this too. > > > > It is not a fact that when all other health profession moved to a doctorate that the minimum education in licensing standards changed. For many, yes, they changed. For all, they did not. > > > > I would just request if when you promote a shift in licensure as a result of the FPD, that you do so as your opinion or even your best outcome, and not as a fait accompli. It's way too early to talk about legislative outcome. > > > > Valerie > > > > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Valerie, > > > > > > The simple reason for all this is public understanding of who and what we are. When you confuse them with all these different titles, they struggle to find accurate information. The public is confused and it takes awhile to market the message to them. The times we live in demand this. > > > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > > hobbs.valeriehobbs@ > > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 > > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. > > > > > > > > > > > > As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing. > > > > > > > > > > > > All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Valerie > > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is still PT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope I got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > > > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. > > > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Zev, Well said. " Doctors " diagnose. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine zrosenbe Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:19:14 -0700 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD A very good point, one which I addressed in my recent article, " The Technician and the Scholar Physician " . We need to choose whether we want to be independent, autonomous primary health care providers, or technicians working in physicians' offices who simply carry out instructions based on the physician's diagnosis. On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Donald Snow wrote: > > It should be noted that PTs, OTs, and nurses are support personnel. They are not legally permitted to dx and tx without an MDs or DOs supervision. In other words, they are seen as highly specialized technicians. I am not a technician and neither are Master's degree AOM practitioners, we are stand alone practitioners, not support personnel. This is the point of Dr. Bowser's thread. If we do not want to be seen as a tech, then we need the FPD and title. > > > > Dr. Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > Chinese Medicine > hobbs.valeriehobbs > Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:04 +0000 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > This will be my last public post on this thread for a while. > > Mike, I enjoy your posts on all kinds of subjects. I offer what I am in complete respect for you. > > I haven't misunderstood, I disagreed with you. > > I've also been trying to keep my answers short (out of respect for others on the list) and based on fact, not opinion. So maybe I haven't given you enough examples so that you know I'm not misunderstanding. > > Here are some examples of statute change and no statute change as degree titles changed: > > MD --education doctorate > DC - education doctorate > PT - doctorate available, Master's available -- education level is not mandated in statutes. Professional plans through national association and accreditation, community of colleges to voluntarily go to all DPT education by 2020 have not included a change in accreditation or statue. > Audiology - went to doctorate in 2007 - changed statutes > Nursing - tried to require Bachelors of all RN's -- failed. Have not changed statutes even with Masters, doctorate, and specialty education degrees > OT - Both Master's & Doctorate are available- did not change statutes.Even when Master's & doctorate degrees were developed in 2006, most statutes simply state that a graduate must be from an " approved " or " accredited " program. > > I understand that you and others in our profession believe that if we all have one degree at the doctorate level that this will create branding and will better serve our profession. > > I recognize that there are other opinions on this subject, and a real public health need (much like there was in nursing) to keep a Master's level degree to provide affordable care while we also offer a doctorate. I can live with a educationally tiered profession. There are many examples (see above) that suggest that scopes of practice do not need to change to allow multiple levels of education to lead to practice --and-- people with a doctorate do use the " Dr. " title and work in positions that require that level of skill. > > I have some experience in this area, and have been active in formative discussions in higher education since 1999. If you have any questions you want to ask me offline, feel free. > > Valerie Hobbs. L.Ac > > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: >> >> >> Valerie, >> >> You still do not appear to understand what I and Don have posted. I would suggest, you contact me with your questions about my posts in order to avoid further misinterpretation. >> >> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc >> >> >> Chinese Medicine >> hobbs.valeriehobbs >> Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:25:17 +0000 >> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Respectfully, this " confusion " among patients and the solution to bring everyone to a higher educational degree is still your opinion. >> >> >> >> There are other medical professions that have achieved doctoral status other than MD and chiropractic. Your opinion that we should follow the chiropractic model is only one way, not at this time THE way. The times we live in demand this too. >> >> >> >> It is not a fact that when all other health profession moved to a doctorate that the minimum education in licensing standards changed. For many, yes, they changed. For all, they did not. >> >> >> >> I would just request if when you promote a shift in licensure as a result of the FPD, that you do so as your opinion or even your best outcome, and not as a fait accompli. It's way too early to talk about legislative outcome. >> >> >> >> Valerie >> >> >> >> Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1@> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Valerie, >> >>> >> >>> The simple reason for all this is public understanding of who and what we are. When you confuse them with all these different titles, they struggle to find accurate information. The public is confused and it takes awhile to market the message to them. The times we live in demand this. >> >>> >> >>> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Chinese Medicine >> >>> hobbs.valeriehobbs@ >> >>> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 >> >>> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Valerie >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is still PT. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> I hope I got it. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ________ >> >>> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. >> >>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:042010_2 >> >>> >> >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 I second the motion. Don Snow > Chinese Traditional Medicine > naturaldoc1 > Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:25:06 +0000 > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > Valerie, > > I appreciate your opinions on this but for sake of clarity it is much easier to change a title or educational requirement after the profession has already acted. This is a simple housecleaning that does not need legislative approval. > > I, also worked with my state acupuncture association legislative sub-committee and our attorney. It makes sense to create some uniformity otherwise the public gets confused as is observable in the master's as entry but a LAc " technician designation " for licensing. We have varying levels of education, and to some extent licensing. We also have practitioners that are simply paying a licensing fee to call themselves doctor even if they never practice in that state. Is it legal? It appears so. Is it ethical? I would say it appears to be a gray area as there are no provisions preventing this. In many ways, this is dishonest. I would hope that we can agree that the public deserves better. > > The time has come for some normality in the profession. We can do this together or keep wandering around confused by other professions gaining more ground with using acupuncture. No one has stated that we cannot continue with a master's as entry level but many schools/students want to begin to offer a FPD. Do we tell them no or do we allow them a choice? There appears to be a lot of misinformation on the FPD issue and from the similarity of the subjects, these talking points have little basis in reality, other then they are an opinion. I would agree that we need discourse on working through these concerns but at some point in time, we need to move on. The issue should be on the process and the timing of these changes to minimize shock on our current practitioners. States will move much later, if ever, to change their licensing laws. This process will most likely take several decades and many of us will have left practice. Let us leave the future generations a more positive professional legacy. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > Chinese Medicine > hobbs.valeriehobbs > Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:04 +0000 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will be my last public post on this thread for a while. > > > > Mike, I enjoy your posts on all kinds of subjects. I offer what I am in complete respect for you. > > > > I haven't misunderstood, I disagreed with you. > > > > I've also been trying to keep my answers short (out of respect for others on the list) and based on fact, not opinion. So maybe I haven't given you enough examples so that you know I'm not misunderstanding. > > > > Here are some examples of statute change and no statute change as degree titles changed: > > > > MD --education doctorate > > DC - education doctorate > > PT - doctorate available, Master's available -- education level is not mandated in statutes. Professional plans through national association and accreditation, community of colleges to voluntarily go to all DPT education by 2020 have not included a change in accreditation or statue. > > Audiology - went to doctorate in 2007 - changed statutes > > Nursing - tried to require Bachelors of all RN's -- failed. Have not changed statutes even with Masters, doctorate, and specialty education degrees > > OT - Both Master's & Doctorate are available- did not change statutes.Even when Master's & doctorate degrees were developed in 2006, most statutes simply state that a graduate must be from an " approved " or " accredited " program. > > > > I understand that you and others in our profession believe that if we all have one degree at the doctorate level that this will create branding and will better serve our profession. > > > > I recognize that there are other opinions on this subject, and a real public health need (much like there was in nursing) to keep a Master's level degree to provide affordable care while we also offer a doctorate. I can live with a educationally tiered profession. There are many examples (see above) that suggest that scopes of practice do not need to change to allow multiple levels of education to lead to practice --and-- people with a doctorate do use the " Dr. " title and work in positions that require that level of skill. > > > > I have some experience in this area, and have been active in formative discussions in higher education since 1999. If you have any questions you want to ask me offline, feel free. > > > > Valerie Hobbs. L.Ac > > > > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > > > > > > > > Valerie, > > > > > > You still do not appear to understand what I and Don have posted. I would suggest, you contact me with your questions about my posts in order to avoid further misinterpretation. > > > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > > hobbs.valeriehobbs > > > Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:25:17 +0000 > > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respectfully, this " confusion " among patients and the solution to bring everyone to a higher educational degree is still your opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are other medical professions that have achieved doctoral status other than MD and chiropractic. Your opinion that we should follow the chiropractic model is only one way, not at this time THE way. The times we live in demand this too. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not a fact that when all other health profession moved to a doctorate that the minimum education in licensing standards changed. For many, yes, they changed. For all, they did not. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would just request if when you promote a shift in licensure as a result of the FPD, that you do so as your opinion or even your best outcome, and not as a fait accompli. It's way too early to talk about legislative outcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > Valerie > > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser <naturaldoc1@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valerie, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The simple reason for all this is public understanding of who and what we are. When you confuse them with all these different titles, they struggle to find accurate information. The public is confused and it takes awhile to market the message to them. The times we live in demand this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > > > > > > hobbs.valeriehobbs@ > > > > > > > Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 > > > > > > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for nursing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valerie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the PTs go, their title is still PT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope I got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > > > > > > > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. > > > > > > > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Kim Nationals? What nationals? The ones we commonly know and love......they are all TIED to each other way too tightly. And yes...you are right.....the national(s) apparently do absolutely nothing nor ever have in regard to your excellent common sense point. Even David M in his current AT article speaks to simple events the " national " used to sponsor to expose legislators to acupuncture .......but no more. Richard In a message dated 4/21/2010 4:01:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kuangguiyu writes: If we end up as technicians laboring under MDs it won't be because we lack > the FPD. As far as I know, and I don't admittedly know everything, there is > no concerted national effort by our leadership to stop the many other > practice modalities from doing acupuncture. I would much rather see efforts > made to that end rather than focusing on adding a new degree - which could > very well add to people's confusion about who we are, not, as some have > implied, clear up said confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Double dare you to attend an advanced practice nurse (MSN or DSN) convention or a DPT convention and call these independent practitioners technicians. ;-) We're in a good place with the debate. Valerie Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > > It should be noted that PTs, OTs, and nurses are support personnel. They are not legally permitted to dx and tx without an MDs or DOs supervision. In other words, they are seen as highly specialized technicians. I am not a technician and neither are Master's degree AOM practitioners, we are stand alone practitioners, not support personnel. This is the point of Dr. Bowser's thread. If we do not want to be seen as a tech, then we need the FPD and title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Zev It's never too late to correct the current state of affairs. You Ken and a number of others who know what's needed can still influence a badly needed correction from this funky-night-trade-school-Masters to a much better entry level degree that should not cost even the $50,000 plus that it does right now. The current program can be greatly reduced and appropriate courses added. Richard In a message dated 4/21/2010 4:09:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zrosenbe writes: I support the FPD, but not necessarily the present or proposed content of programs. I think there is a way to keep down costs to students, and produce a core cirriculum that is weighted towards in-depth Chinese medicine, and there is much room for improvement with proposed models. Z'ev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Valerie, I did find your comment humorous and it reminded me that a marine's tend to get upset when you show them their checks come from the US Navy. One of the big fears that the AMA has with PT's changing designations is that they are also wanting the ability to diagnose. The servants want to become their own masters. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine hobbs.valeriehobbs Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:11:03 +0000 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Double dare you to attend an advanced practice nurse (MSN or DSN) convention or a DPT convention and call these independent practitioners technicians. ;-) We're in a good place with the debate. Valerie Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > > It should be noted that PTs, OTs, and nurses are support personnel. They are not legally permitted to dx and tx without an MDs or DOs supervision. In other words, they are seen as highly specialized technicians. I am not a technician and neither are Master's degree AOM practitioners, we are stand alone practitioners, not support personnel. This is the point of Dr. Bowser's thread. If we do not want to be seen as a tech, then we need the FPD and title. _______________ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID28326::\ T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 They are what they are. They cannot see and bill a patient without a referral. That is a technician. I myself was a physician's assistant for 22 years before I came to the other side. They now have doctorates for PAs, but they are still seen as technicians. You can argue til the cows come home, and people can take umbrage all they want, but facts are facts. These folks are not stand-alone practitioners and always defer to the MD/DO. I am sincerely, Dr. Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. Chinese Medicine hobbs.valeriehobbs Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:11:03 +0000 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Double dare you to attend an advanced practice nurse (MSN or DSN) convention or a DPT convention and call these independent practitioners technicians. ;-) We're in a good place with the debate. Valerie Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407 wrote: > > > It should be noted that PTs, OTs, and nurses are support personnel. They are not legally permitted to dx and tx without an MDs or DOs supervision. In other words, they are seen as highly specialized technicians. I am not a technician and neither are Master's degree AOM practitioners, we are stand alone practitioners, not support personnel. This is the point of Dr. Bowser's thread. If we do not want to be seen as a tech, then we need the FPD and title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Z'ev - If we end up as technicians laboring under MDs it won't be because we lack the FPD. As far as I know, and I don't admittedly know everything, there is no concerted national effort by our leadership to stop the many other practice modalities from doing acupuncture. I would much rather see efforts made to that end rather than focusing on adding a new degree - which could very well add to people's confusion about who we are, not, as some have implied, clear up said confusion. I am currently independent and autonomous and consider myself somewhere comfortably in between technician and 'scholar physician'. Adding the appropriate alphabet soup to my name showing that I am a doctor would not, IMO, change my overall circumstances one whit. I don't personally buy into the conceit that being doctors will earn us more respect or some sort of parity with western practitioners. In my experience, the great majority of western medical practitioners are almost totally in the dark about what we do; to them it might as well be voodoo. The idea that they will be more impressed or open to a Doctor of Voodoo than they would to a Voodoo Doctor's Assistant just doesn't hold up for me. Chiropractors are doctors and I haven't noticed a huge outpouring of respect or parity for them from most other western practitioners. Sorry, but this just doesn't come close to making the case for the necessity of the FPD for me. Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:19 AM, <zrosenbe wrote: > > > A very good point, one which I addressed in my recent article, " The > Technician and the Scholar Physician " . We need to choose whether we want to > be independent, autonomous primary health care providers, or technicians > working in physicians' offices who simply carry out instructions based on > the physician's diagnosis. > > > On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Donald Snow wrote: > > > > > It should be noted that PTs, OTs, and nurses are support personnel. They > are not legally permitted to dx and tx without an MDs or DOs supervision. In > other words, they are seen as highly specialized technicians. I am not a > technician and neither are Master's degree AOM practitioners, we are stand > alone practitioners, not support personnel. This is the point of Dr. > Bowser's thread. If we do not want to be seen as a tech, then we need the > FPD and title. > > > > > > > > Dr. Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > > > > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > > hobbs.valeriehobbs <hobbs.valeriehobbs%40gmail.com> > > Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:04 +0000 > > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > This will be my last public post on this thread for a while. > > > > Mike, I enjoy your posts on all kinds of subjects. I offer what I am in > complete respect for you. > > > > I haven't misunderstood, I disagreed with you. > > > > I've also been trying to keep my answers short (out of respect for others > on the list) and based on fact, not opinion. So maybe I haven't given you > enough examples so that you know I'm not misunderstanding. > > > > Here are some examples of statute change and no statute change as degree > titles changed: > > > > MD --education doctorate > > DC - education doctorate > > PT - doctorate available, Master's available -- education level is not > mandated in statutes. Professional plans through national association and > accreditation, community of colleges to voluntarily go to all DPT education > by 2020 have not included a change in accreditation or statue. > > Audiology - went to doctorate in 2007 - changed statutes > > Nursing - tried to require Bachelors of all RN's -- failed. Have not > changed statutes even with Masters, doctorate, and specialty education > degrees > > OT - Both Master's & Doctorate are available- did not change > statutes.Even when Master's & doctorate degrees were developed in 2006, most > statutes simply state that a graduate must be from an " approved " or > " accredited " program. > > > > I understand that you and others in our profession believe that if we all > have one degree at the doctorate level that this will create branding and > will better serve our profession. > > > > I recognize that there are other opinions on this subject, and a real > public health need (much like there was in nursing) to keep a Master's level > degree to provide affordable care while we also offer a doctorate. I can > live with a educationally tiered profession. There are many examples (see > above) that suggest that scopes of practice do not need to change to allow > multiple levels of education to lead to practice --and-- people with a > doctorate do use the " Dr. " title and work in positions that require that > level of skill. > > > > I have some experience in this area, and have been active in formative > discussions in higher education since 1999. If you have any questions you > want to ask me offline, feel free. > > > > Valerie Hobbs. L.Ac > > > > --- In Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com>, > mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: > >> > >> > >> Valerie, > >> > >> You still do not appear to understand what I and Don have posted. I > would suggest, you contact me with your questions about my posts in order to > avoid further misinterpretation. > >> > >> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > >> > >> > >> To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > >> hobbs.valeriehobbs > >> Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:25:17 +0000 > > >> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Respectfully, this " confusion " among patients and the solution to bring > everyone to a higher educational degree is still your opinion. > >> > >> > >> > >> There are other medical professions that have achieved doctoral status > other than MD and chiropractic. Your opinion that we should follow the > chiropractic model is only one way, not at this time THE way. The times we > live in demand this too. > >> > >> > >> > >> It is not a fact that when all other health profession moved to a > doctorate that the minimum education in licensing standards changed. For > many, yes, they changed. For all, they did not. > >> > >> > >> > >> I would just request if when you promote a shift in licensure as a > result of the FPD, that you do so as your opinion or even your best outcome, > and not as a fait accompli. It's way too early to talk about legislative > outcome. > >> > >> > >> > >> Valerie > >> > >> > >> > >> --- In Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com>, > mike Bowser <naturaldoc1@> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Valerie, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> The simple reason for all this is public understanding of who and what > we are. When you confuse them with all these different titles, they struggle > to find accurate information. The public is confused and it takes awhile to > market the message to them. The times we live in demand this. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > >> > >>> hobbs.valeriehobbs@ > >> > >>> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 > > >> > >>> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the > highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The > MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an > MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we > work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate > all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't > meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for > nursing. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different > scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Valerie > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> --- In Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com>, > Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure > titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing > educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD > degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the > PTs go, their title is still PT. > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> I hope I got it. > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> ________ > >> > >>> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from > your inbox. > >> > >>> > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Kim, Good points. I don't think this issue is as much the degree as how we view ourselves as practitioners. If we base ourselves on the theoretical and clinical model of Chinese medicine, including herbal/internal medicine, then we have our foundation for being autonomous practitioners. I support the FPD, but not necessarily the present or proposed content of programs. I think there is a way to keep down costs to students, and produce a core cirriculum that is weighted towards in-depth Chinese medicine, and there is much room for improvement with proposed models. Z'ev On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Kim Blankenship wrote: > Z'ev - > > If we end up as technicians laboring under MDs it won't be because we lack > the FPD. As far as I know, and I don't admittedly know everything, there is > no concerted national effort by our leadership to stop the many other > practice modalities from doing acupuncture. I would much rather see efforts > made to that end rather than focusing on adding a new degree - which could > very well add to people's confusion about who we are, not, as some have > implied, clear up said confusion. > > I am currently independent and autonomous and consider myself somewhere > comfortably in between technician and 'scholar physician'. Adding the > appropriate alphabet soup to my name showing that I am a doctor would not, > IMO, change my overall circumstances one whit. > > I don't personally buy into the conceit that being doctors will earn us more > respect or some sort of parity with western practitioners. In my > experience, the great majority of western medical practitioners are almost > totally in the dark about what we do; to them it might as well be voodoo. > The idea that they will be more impressed or open to a Doctor of Voodoo > than they would to a Voodoo Doctor's Assistant just doesn't hold up for me. > Chiropractors are doctors and I haven't noticed a huge outpouring of > respect or parity for them from most other western practitioners. Sorry, > but this just doesn't come close to making the case for the necessity of the > FPD for me. > > Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:19 AM, <zrosenbe wrote: > >> >> >> A very good point, one which I addressed in my recent article, " The >> Technician and the Scholar Physician " . We need to choose whether we want to >> be independent, autonomous primary health care providers, or technicians >> working in physicians' offices who simply carry out instructions based on >> the physician's diagnosis. >> >> >> On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Donald Snow wrote: >> >>> >>> I Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Kim, Good points but the FPD could be many things to many people and the future profession. Some practitioners in the DAOM's have felt that they have received more respect as a result of their experiences in the DAOM programs. I think we all want our programs to allow us the most professional options. The FPD can help. Our national leadership should be able to work on many issues simultaneously. One problem about loss of acupuncture, is that the profession passed often times poor legislation w/o foresight. We must all look at ourselves for giving it up just to pass a bill. This is a state-by-state issue that affects many nationally. Some practitioners do not qualify for licensing in other states. Having a FPD would make moving to another state a possibility for some in the future. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > Chinese Medicine > kuangguiyu > Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:01:00 -0700 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > Z'ev - > > If we end up as technicians laboring under MDs it won't be because we lack > the FPD. As far as I know, and I don't admittedly know everything, there is > no concerted national effort by our leadership to stop the many other > practice modalities from doing acupuncture. I would much rather see efforts > made to that end rather than focusing on adding a new degree - which could > very well add to people's confusion about who we are, not, as some have > implied, clear up said confusion. > > I am currently independent and autonomous and consider myself somewhere > comfortably in between technician and 'scholar physician'. Adding the > appropriate alphabet soup to my name showing that I am a doctor would not, > IMO, change my overall circumstances one whit. > > I don't personally buy into the conceit that being doctors will earn us more > respect or some sort of parity with western practitioners. In my > experience, the great majority of western medical practitioners are almost > totally in the dark about what we do; to them it might as well be voodoo. > The idea that they will be more impressed or open to a Doctor of Voodoo > than they would to a Voodoo Doctor's Assistant just doesn't hold up for me. > Chiropractors are doctors and I haven't noticed a huge outpouring of > respect or parity for them from most other western practitioners. Sorry, > but this just doesn't come close to making the case for the necessity of the > FPD for me. > > Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:19 AM, <zrosenbe wrote: > > > > > > > A very good point, one which I addressed in my recent article, " The > > Technician and the Scholar Physician " . We need to choose whether we want to > > be independent, autonomous primary health care providers, or technicians > > working in physicians' offices who simply carry out instructions based on > > the physician's diagnosis. > > > > > > On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Donald Snow wrote: > > > > > > > > It should be noted that PTs, OTs, and nurses are support personnel. They > > are not legally permitted to dx and tx without an MDs or DOs supervision. In > > other words, they are seen as highly specialized technicians. I am not a > > technician and neither are Master's degree AOM practitioners, we are stand > > alone practitioners, not support personnel. This is the point of Dr. > > Bowser's thread. If we do not want to be seen as a tech, then we need the > > FPD and title. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > > > hobbs.valeriehobbs <hobbs.valeriehobbs%40gmail.com> > > > Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:04 +0000 > > > > > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will be my last public post on this thread for a while. > > > > > > Mike, I enjoy your posts on all kinds of subjects. I offer what I am in > > complete respect for you. > > > > > > I haven't misunderstood, I disagreed with you. > > > > > > I've also been trying to keep my answers short (out of respect for others > > on the list) and based on fact, not opinion. So maybe I haven't given you > > enough examples so that you know I'm not misunderstanding. > > > > > > Here are some examples of statute change and no statute change as degree > > titles changed: > > > > > > MD --education doctorate > > > DC - education doctorate > > > PT - doctorate available, Master's available -- education level is not > > mandated in statutes. Professional plans through national association and > > accreditation, community of colleges to voluntarily go to all DPT education > > by 2020 have not included a change in accreditation or statue. > > > Audiology - went to doctorate in 2007 - changed statutes > > > Nursing - tried to require Bachelors of all RN's -- failed. Have not > > changed statutes even with Masters, doctorate, and specialty education > > degrees > > > OT - Both Master's & Doctorate are available- did not change > > statutes.Even when Master's & doctorate degrees were developed in 2006, most > > statutes simply state that a graduate must be from an " approved " or > > " accredited " program. > > > > > > I understand that you and others in our profession believe that if we all > > have one degree at the doctorate level that this will create branding and > > will better serve our profession. > > > > > > I recognize that there are other opinions on this subject, and a real > > public health need (much like there was in nursing) to keep a Master's level > > degree to provide affordable care while we also offer a doctorate. I can > > live with a educationally tiered profession. There are many examples (see > > above) that suggest that scopes of practice do not need to change to allow > > multiple levels of education to lead to practice --and-- people with a > > doctorate do use the " Dr. " title and work in positions that require that > > level of skill. > > > > > > I have some experience in this area, and have been active in formative > > discussions in higher education since 1999. If you have any questions you > > want to ask me offline, feel free. > > > > > > Valerie Hobbs. L.Ac > > > > > > --- In Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com>, > > mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> Valerie, > > >> > > >> You still do not appear to understand what I and Don have posted. I > > would suggest, you contact me with your questions about my posts in order to > > avoid further misinterpretation. > > >> > > >> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > >> > > >> > > >> To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > > >> hobbs.valeriehobbs > > >> Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:25:17 +0000 > > > > >> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Respectfully, this " confusion " among patients and the solution to bring > > everyone to a higher educational degree is still your opinion. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> There are other medical professions that have achieved doctoral status > > other than MD and chiropractic. Your opinion that we should follow the > > chiropractic model is only one way, not at this time THE way. The times we > > live in demand this too. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> It is not a fact that when all other health profession moved to a > > doctorate that the minimum education in licensing standards changed. For > > many, yes, they changed. For all, they did not. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I would just request if when you promote a shift in licensure as a > > result of the FPD, that you do so as your opinion or even your best outcome, > > and not as a fait accompli. It's way too early to talk about legislative > > outcome. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Valerie > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --- In Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com>, > > mike Bowser <naturaldoc1@> wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> Valerie, > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> The simple reason for all this is public understanding of who and what > > we are. When you confuse them with all these different titles, they struggle > > to find accurate information. The public is confused and it takes awhile to > > market the message to them. The times we live in demand this. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > > >> > > >>> hobbs.valeriehobbs@ > > >> > > >>> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:39:48 +0000 > > > > >> > > >>> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> I think you do have it, but why does licensure have to reflect the > > highest level of education? The DPT is still a PT and still a doctor. The > > MPT is still a PT. In my state, a DAOM can use the " Dr. " title. I have an > > MSOM, and use L. Ac. We coexist. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> As we consider transitions, we need to consider the times in which we > > work, and the populations we serve. Nursing tried at one time to eliminate > > all the AA nurses and bring everyone to the BSN educational level. Didn't > > meet the public need, and we find multiple educational points of entry for > > nursing. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> All I'm saying at this point, is that there are many different > > scenarios to investigate before assuming that one conclusion is inevitable. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> Valerie > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> --- In Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com>, > > Donald Snow <don83407@> wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> I think that what Dr. Bowser is saying is that the state licensure > > titles do not match our educational titles. I don't think he is discussing > > educational level as such. He is stating that an MD license matches the MD > > degree, and the DC license matches the academic degree title. As far as the > > PTs go, their title is still PT. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> I hope I got it. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> ________ > > >> > > >>> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from > > your inbox. > > >> > > >>> > > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> 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.