Senate Bill 233

[Guest guest]

the continual distortion of the facts of this matter by CSOMA and

AIMs is certainly masterful politics. This open letter makes it

seem as if it is only the Joint Committee on Boards, Committees and

Consumer Protection that supports the sunsetting of the acupuncture

board. However the JC is only following the the recommendation of

the LHC, as well as the advice of the governor. The LHC report was

made with input from numerous independent organizations. In fact,

many groups separate from our field, but with no apparent vested

interest in anything other than public protection have all pretty

much agreed the board must go. I also forwarded a lengthy letter

from Jack Miller, PCOM president and past CCAOM president, siding

with the JC. CSOMA pretty much stands alone in this matter. Groups

like AIMS are really subsets or contractees or lobbyists of

organizations like CSOMA, so they don't really constitute another

independent entity, IMO. As for the rank and file licensees, I don't

recall ever being asked what I thought in any formal CAB survey. But

just as a recent survey showed negligible interest in the doctoral

title across the profession as a whole, I would suspect that most

licensees would just assume see the board go away, too. Most

licensees I speak with do not want the added rights of western

diagnosis, for example, because with those rights comes a whole host

of responsibilities, which if adhered to closely would interfere with

the practice of OM. If I have to spend inordinate amounts of time

playing CYA by doing all this unnecessary testing and examination,

when will I have time to insert needles and perform acupuncture. As I

have written here before, we chose in OR to NOT be primary care to

avoid the legal consequences of being poorly trained yet highly

liable in this area. We should support the abolishment of the board

and we should oppose any backdoor attempts to turn all of us into

minidocs against our wills at the behest of a small group of vocal

but misguided politicos.

 

 

 

On May 5, 2005, at 5:51 PM, CSOMA wrote:

 

>

> May 5, 2005

>

> Dear CSOMA members and colleagues;

>

> The following is the background for an EXTREMELY URGENT request to

> contact our state legislators, urging them to oppose Senate Bill

> 233 (SB233) which, if passed, could have far-reaching detrimental

> effects on our profession, and to your livelihood as a licensed

> acupuncturist. Although the background is somewhat long, we urge

> you to read through it within the next couple days and respond with

> letters to appropriate legislators. A sample letter and listing of

> legislators is provided towards the end of this alert.

>

> On April 25, the State Senate Business and Professions Committee

> voted 4-1 to pass SB233, which will abolish the California

> Acupuncture Board (CAB) on July 1, 2006. The CAB will sunset and

> become a bureau that will be placed under direct supervision of the

> Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). In addition, a May 3

> amendment to that bill could effectively prohibit licensed

> acupuncturists from rendering a diagnosis according to accepted

> standards of medical practice.

>

> This bill should be of grave concern and an affront to every

> licensed acupuncturist in California as well as the patients we

> treat. And although in public testimony Senator Figueroa adamantly

> states that SB 233 has nothing to do with the profession, but

> rather the performance of the Acupuncture Board, the recent

> amendments to the legislation validate that this is simply not the

> case. The Joint Committee on Boards, Committees and Consumer

> Protection (JC) recommended that the CAB be abolished for the

> following reasons:

>

> The CAB “has had trouble getting involved in the wrong issues”. The

> JC cited CAB discussions on upgrading educational standards for our

> acupuncture colleges, criticizing its recommendations for a 3,200

> hour curriculum requirement as a “means of restricting entry into

> the profession”. In fact, the upgraded standards, which were signed

> into law in 2002 with AB1943, are meant to further ensure the

> viability of future acupuncturists as primary care providers.

> The CAB “missed significant opportunities to protect the public”.

> The JC criticized the CAB for its lack of discussion regarding

> “disposable, single-use needles or emerging research on threats to

> public health”. What the JC fails to understand is that the vast

> majority of licensed acupuncturists have received required

> certification in clean needle technique, and have been trained to

> use nothing other than disposable needles. It also fails to see

> that the CAB has made significant efforts to protect the public by

> advocating for higher standards of education that will better

> prepare future acupuncturists to function within integrated

> settings with other medical professionals.

> The CAB has such a relatively small staff, it is not always able to

> operate efficiently. The JC made the same criticism of the Medical

> Board in SB231, yet recommended that it be extended until 2010. The

> JC cites that the CAB function of approving schools of acupuncture

> in California is a drain on its meager time and resources. Behind

> this criticism, however, is the reality that national stakeholders

> have effectively lobbied key legislators in the State Capitol in an

> effort to wrest control from the CAB this vital function. It is

> these same national stakeholders who have consistently opposed

> upgrading educational standards for acupuncture schools in

> California in order to force conformity with lower nationally held

> standards.

> The CAB “misreads its governing statutes concerning the scope of

> practice of licensees”. Our scope of practice and authority to

> diagnose have been a major point of disagreement between the CAB

> and JC. The JC’s intention to restrict our diagnostic authority

> would effectively prevent acupuncturists from participating in

> workers compensation and health insurance as primary care

> providers. Furthermore, it could once again subordinate us under

> the supervision of MDs, ODs and DCs. The JC fails or refuses to

> recognize Legal Opinion 93-11 rendered in 1993. It states that by

> repealing the requirement of referral or diagnosis from an MD, the

> Legislature has authorized acupuncturists to diagnose a patient’s

> condition prior to providing any treatment.