RE AB 1943 Fw: Some perspective, facts, questions

[Guest guest]

Z'ev -

 

Do you own shares of PCOM? If so, what is the content of your discussion and your vote when policy decisions such as these are made?

Will

 

Teresa.bodywork4u writes:

 

 

> In March of this year, the text of AB1943 was 'rewritten to correct

> objectionable language', by Tom Haines, in the name of the "California

> Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Education Committee" (CAOMEC), and this

> version lobbied in meetings with Assemblyperson Chu and elsewhere,

claiming

> to represent the interests of some group of colleges. Tom Haines is

> affiliated with PCOM, the National Alliance, and appears at Acupuncture

> Board meetings, as well as those of the ACAOM and CCAOM. The "CAOMEC" uses

> the same address as PCOM.

>

> In this CAOMEC, unpublished version of AB1943:

> * all the "wish list" items from the California Council of AOM

associations

> were eliminated;

> * all references to "primary care" were removed or replaced by

> "independent" providers;

> * all text pertaining to 4000 hour education was eliminated;

> * enumeration of educational hours was otherwise reduced, totaling 2675

> hours, which happens

> to be identical to the new standards proposed by the ACAOM;

> * the California licensing exam was to be replaced by the NCCAOM exam(s);

> * school approval by the Acupuncture Board was to be valid for three

years,

> after which, ACAOM accreditation would be mandatory;

> * the California Acupuncture Board was to be required to include a person

> with a graduate degree in Education (e.g. Tom Haines has a PhD in

Education

> and Jack Miller an MA in Education).

[Guest guest]

Hi group!

 

I just recieved this mail regarding AB1943, and thought it may be of

interest to some of you.

 

In Health,

Teresa Hall

 

Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:16 AM

Some perspective, facts, questions

 

 

> This is the year of the horse; the horse associates with FIre, but 2002 is

> a Water horse year -- a " clashing of elements " of the highest order. And

> this after recent extraordinary doses of late summer Heart shock

> (9/11/2001), autumnal grief, and winter fear, not to mention multiple

> arenas of intractable international violence, and now an apparent crisis

in

> California A/OM.

>

> This is an attempt to invoke some clarity as to what's going on, inputting

> some information I haven't seen mentioned so far, admittedly with some

> gaps, hence posing some questions. Witnessing the political turmoil

> surrounding our profession across the last 12 years has always been

> accompanied for me by an experience of grief (Metal). In the recent email

> storm, Wood (acrimony) and Water (fear) and Earth (worry) have come to the

> fore. It's all there, but for Fire (clarity) to hold the rest in the

> balance of propriety (and, personally, to regulate the grief)!

>

> California is the largest market for AOM in the USA. According to

> circulation counts by Acupuncture Today, California has 5644 licensed

> practitioners, 40% of the total for the whole country; the 2nd largest

> State is Florida, with 932. California has 1200 or 31% of the total

> students of AOM, 2nd largest being New York with 555. California is

clearly

> the prime AOM marketplace/community in the nation.

>

> California professional associations have been trying, for years, to raise

> educational and professional standards, and has been opposed by national

> organizations (ACAOM, NCCAOM, CCAOM and the National Alliance). This

> national coalition has also focused on attempts elsewhere to raise

> standards, e.g. recently Rhode Island and Nevada. A logical reason for

this

> opposition would appear to be that schools governed by national standards

> (currently 2175 hours minimum, recently proposed to be raised to 2675

> hours) and graduates of these schools would then be denied job-access in

> States with higher standards. The national interests appear to focus on

the

> " schools " , presumably because one of their strongest points of leverage is

> ACAOM school accreditation.

>

> Other issues are States' rights to independent regulation of medical

> professions vs. uniform national standards. While both are legitimate

> viewpoint, I personally believe we in California are entitled to

> self-determination, on the basis of our unique history and relatively

> well-established and progressing profession.

>

> Another area of issue has to do with the personalities in leadership of

> both the State and national groups, to an unfortunate degree, and from a

> long history, stagnating in rivalries and often bitter opposition. I do

> believe, though, that both sides are well-intentioned.

>

> Yet another, now critical issue, has to do with the vagaries of political

> action. On the one hand, there's (A) an idealistic notion of democratic

> representation and open process, in terms of the public and common good.

On

> the other hand, there are (B) well-established mechanisms whereby special

> interests have avenues of influencing the process, often in ways hidden

> from public view. Lack of clarity here has added to current confusion.

>

> For instance, AB1943, introduced in February, was originally formulated by

> the California associations to express goals that have been developed over

> many years, notably a 2-step ramping up of educational requirements to a

> 4000 hour doctorate level, and together with an extensive 'wish-list' of

> other items.

>

> In March of this year, the text of AB1943 was 'rewritten to correct

> objectionable language', by Tom Haines, in the name of the " California

> Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Education Committee " (CAOMEC), and this

> version lobbied in meetings with Assemblyperson Chu and elsewhere,

claiming

> to represent the interests of some group of colleges. Tom Haines is

> affiliated with PCOM, the National Alliance, and appears at Acupuncture

> Board meetings, as well as those of the ACAOM and CCAOM. The " CAOMEC " uses

> the same address as PCOM.

>

> In this CAOMEC, unpublished version of AB1943:

> * all the " wish list " items from the California Council of AOM

associations

> were eliminated;

> * all references to " primary care " were removed or replaced by

> " independent " providers;

> * all text pertaining to 4000 hour education was eliminated;

> * enumeration of educational hours was otherwise reduced, totaling 2675

> hours, which happens

> to be identical to the new standards proposed by the ACAOM;

> * the California licensing exam was to be replaced by the NCCAOM exam(s);

> * school approval by the Acupuncture Board was to be valid for three

years,

> after which, ACAOM accreditation would be mandatory;

> * the California Acupuncture Board was to be required to include a person

> with a graduate degree in Education (e.g. Tom Haines has a PhD in

Education

> and Jack Miller an MA in Education).

>

> From observations at meetings, and readings in Acupuncture Today and other

> published sources, I would interpret this as a 'wish-list' of the leaders

> of the national organizations. It reflects a clear intention to solidly

> control AOM politics in California, deferring all critical issues to

> national control, and substantially reducing the autonomy of the

> Acupuncture Board.

>

> The decoction of the original AB1943, this antithetical version,

> high-powered lobbying, and the work of an unnamed consultant to the

> legislative analysis (question: are these factors part of public record?

> Can we find out who/what?) resulted, last week, in a new AB1943, cut-down

> to a 4000 hour statement of 'intent', implementation of a 3000 hour

> educational requirement, and a radically increased CEU requirement (from 7

> or 8 pages down to a half page of text).

>

> For want of more information, my impression is that the national interests

> here have moved to completely negate AB1943, with some masterly political

> maneuvering. So skillful, in fact, as to let the core component -- albeit

> compromised to 3000 hours -- stand but with a 'poison-pill' amendment (the

> CEUs). If the bill does then fail, the appearance would be that it would

> fail at the hands of the State's own practitioner constituency,

> high-lighting another facet of the tactics -- to create confusion and

> division within the State (divide and conquer).

>

> Personally, second to my practice, I'm a professional student, and even

> after 12 years there's still a wealth of teachers and topics to pursue, so

> the CEU issue is not a practical deterrent to my supporting the current

> AB1943. The 450 hours, though, is clearly extreme, and meant to

demonstrate

> political power rather than practical substance. I wonder what the back-up

> strategies may be that lie ahead to derail AB1943 in the face of

continuing

> support.

>

> Related questions:

>

> At an Acupuncture Board meeting in Sacramento, a couple of years ago, a

> long list of California schools, with the exception of PCOM, all expressed

> strong support for the 3200 hour program, many emphasizing the need for

> 4000 hours/doctorate. Why, later, did some schools appear to change

> position? Was pressure exerted, explicitly or implicitly leveraged on

ACAOM

> accreditation?

>

> After AB approval of the 3200 hour program, the DCA (Department of

Consumer

> Affairs) suspended that decision. How often does that happen? What

> influences, contacts by whom brought about that change?

>

> " Follow the money. " How much, from whom is going into sophisticated

> lobbying efforts and political contributions? How much from in-State, from

> out-of-state, and who ends up with the money?

>

> Incidentally, costs in terms of exams and school approval/accreditation

> tend to be significantly more expensive in the national arena, relative to

> comparable California costs. Also, it would appear, given the dimensions

of

> the California market, the increased revenue prospects for the national

> groups with full control over California would be substantial.

>

> Conclusion:

>

> Clarity -- being well-informed to be able to make proper choices. To my

> mind, too much, at both the State and the national levels, is hidden from

> view, determined by somewhat ingrown ranks of leadership. Such

> organizations, as also, for instance, the AMA/CMA, or the AARP, or for

that

> matter the AAA (Automobile Club) are generally not 'democratic', but

rather

> operate on the basis of " representation " for the somehow presumed benefit

> of their constituents. I wonder whether more transparent and participatory

> attitudes on both sides (of the AOM scene) might not naturally result in

an

> ability to become both more mutually respectful of differences of

interest,

> and more fruitfully cooperative.

>

> , L.Ac.

>

[Guest guest]

Nope. . . .just a professor. I have no influence or involvement with

PCOM political activities.

 

 

Et toi?

 

 

On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 07:55 AM, WMorris116 wrote:

 

> Z'ev -

>

> Do you own shares of PCOM? If so, what is the content of your

> discussion and your vote when policy decisions such as these are made?

>

> Will

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/23/02 8:13:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, My position is mutual, not that I don't try....Will

 

zrosenbe writes:

 

 

Nope. . . .just a professor. I have no influence or involvement with

PCOM political activities.

 

 

Et toi?