Guest guest Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 I saw a letter today purporting to detail the legislature's attack on acupuncture. there were two gross legal errors contained in this letter. Perhaps Roger could comment. 1. contrary to the letter, ALL legal authorities to whom I have consulted on this matter over the years agree that state medical practice acts apply to all state residents, NOT just licensed physicians and surgeons. In fact, the law has nothing to do with any specific form of medicine, per se, but just bans all unlicensed medical practice outright. All scopes of practice in every state are technically legal EXCEPTIONS to the medical practice act of that state. 2. the healthcare freedom act has no application to the practice of acupuncture. While also a legal EXCEPTION to the medical practice act, it applies only to those who are NOT licensed by the state. once you obtain a license, as detailed here many times, you actually may lose certain rights while gaining others (for example, it is legal to practice chinese herbology under common law in all 50 states, but only in 16 if you gave up that right by getting license that did not allow it in one of those states). However, there are some concerns about this amendment. But I think they would be better addressed by expert testimony proving that TCM has always performed disease diagnosis, not just pattern diagnosis. Books that are a thousand years old as well as most of our modern texts are laid out as bian bing AND bian zheng (Disease AND Pattern). Thus, diagnosing headache and back pain, etc. are indeed part of TCM and have nothing to do with WM, per se. And there is no reason we should not be able to code for these things. This is quite different from coding for lupus or migraine, which I believe is truly far beyond our scope and training and thus unethical. If we successfully make this umbrella case, we can stop fighting this endless battle over turf wars because the turf in this narrow sense is just as much ours as theirs. We should stop trying to obtain their scope of practice and instead clarify ours in its historical context. This should solve the practical problem of insurance reimbursement and thus address the only practical concerns of the rank and file. It also hews to the spirit of the LHC report which slapped us on the wrist for overreaching, but also opened a door to legitimizing ourselves in our own domain. that is where our resources should be directed. New creative solutions instead of the same tired old refrains. If we try and make a case filled with lies and half- truths, then that will be the real undoing of the profession. Our training in WM does not even come close to the level necessary to make a diagnosis in that system and 6th grader with access to the internet could prove that in one hour of research.. And while the bill would not allow us to order lab tests for diagnostic or treatment purposes, there does NOT seem to be a prohibition against ordering tests to track the patient's progress in case a referral to someone who can make a WM dx is necessary. That would just seem to be prudent for all parties concerned. And for the record, check my words on legislative issues over the past 5 years. I have been right far more than I have been wrong about failed tactics. And as with presidential elections and initiative referendums, if you are not willing to take the time to research the issues on your own, it is better to just sit on the sidelines rather than make a wrong decision that could hurt us all. Chinese Herbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Todd states, " while the bill would not allow us to order lab tests for diagnostic or treatment purposes, there does NOT seem to be a prohibition against ordering tests to track the patient's progress in case a referral to someone who can make a WM dx is necessary. " This is a misconception as they are one in the same. This bill does not allow us to order any lab test period. Although I agree with the intent above it will not work this way. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Couldn't agree more. On May 11, 2005, at 1:56 AM, wrote: > We should stop trying to obtain > their scope of practice and instead clarify ours in its historical > context. This should solve the practical problem of insurance > reimbursement and thus address the only practical concerns of the > rank and file. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Zev, Do you mean that we should go back in time to pre-primarycare like in the 1970's ? We will lose a lot of support and a future. Insurance will not pay for patient visits, etc. Good luck with a professional future under these circumstances. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " <zrosenbe > > >Re: acu board >Wed, 11 May 2005 09:05:03 -0700 > >Couldn't agree more. > > >On May 11, 2005, at 1:56 AM, wrote: > > > We should stop trying to obtain > > their scope of practice and instead clarify ours in its historical > > context. This should solve the practical problem of insurance > > reimbursement and thus address the only practical concerns of the > > rank and file. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Not at all. Please don't misinterpret what I say. People only hear through their bias filters. There is too much demonizing going on in our profession right now. What I mean is we should clarify what it is we treat, which conditions have historical precedence in Chinese medicine, and perhaps suggest new codes for pattern differentiation. Also, what is primary care? There is our own definition as health professionals, where we take a major responsibility for the health and care of patients, and there are legal definitions, i.e. 'gate- keeper' status in terms of insurance, referral, etc. There is so much distortion right now about the present California senate bills, and I think I agree with Jack Miller that we need a legal opinion on what these bills mean before we shoot off our cannons. I agree that much is at stake right now, but I don't want to see our profession continue its self-destructive behavior patterns. On May 11, 2005, at 9:20 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > Zev, > > Do you mean that we should go back in time to pre-primarycare like > in the > 1970's ? We will lose a lot of support and a future. Insurance > will not > pay for patient visits, etc. Good luck with a professional future > under > these circumstances. > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Agreed but would add that gatekeeper is related only to managed care and not a legal responsibility under our statutes like primarycare implies. Hope this makes sense. From what we have seen in the last few years we cannot blindly trust what we hear from politicians either unless it is clearly spelled out. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " <zrosenbe > > >Re: acu board >Thu, 12 May 2005 18:48:44 -0700 > >Not at all. Please don't misinterpret what I say. People only hear >through their bias filters. There is too much demonizing going on in >our profession right now. What I mean is we should clarify what it >is we treat, which conditions have historical precedence in Chinese >medicine, and perhaps suggest new codes for pattern differentiation. > >Also, what is primary care? There is our own definition as health >professionals, where we take a major responsibility for the health >and care of patients, and there are legal definitions, i.e. 'gate- >keeper' status in terms of insurance, referral, etc. > >There is so much distortion right now about the present California >senate bills, and I think I agree with Jack Miller that we need a >legal opinion on what these bills mean before we shoot off our >cannons. I agree that much is at stake right now, but I don't want >to see our profession continue its self-destructive behavior patterns. > > >On May 11, 2005, at 9:20 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > Zev, > > > > Do you mean that we should go back in time to pre-primarycare like > > in the > > 1970's ? We will lose a lot of support and a future. Insurance > > will not > > pay for patient visits, etc. Good luck with a professional future > > under > > these circumstances. > > > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > 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.