RE: The real news

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info it is much appreciated and needed. I am not sure how

some can continue to say wait and will see while it is obvious that the

intent of such language is to take away diagnostic authority and put us

under MD control. No more board = no more separate profession. While some

in this country want us to go back to historical times it simply is not

possible to turn back the clock nor is it equitable. Think people think and

write letters to your CA representatives.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " jreidomd " <jreidomd

>

>

> The real news

>Fri, 20 May 2005 05:24:24 -0000

>

>There is an elaborate shell game going on. At the moment SB233 is stalled

>in

>the backcourt (Appropriations Committee). Available information from

>organizations has been either confusing, late, merely confused, or

>deliberately misleading. I'm not going to tip my hand (remember that) but

>I

>encourage everyone to carefully read or re-read my revised essays (most

>preliminary versions appeared here as posts)

>http://www.jreidomd.blogspot.com

>

>Succinctly, the issues at the moment are:

>The latest (May 3) addition to SB233 came straight from the CMA. This

>serves

>two purposes: first to throw up a long-shot on the outside chance that

>they

>can completely wipe out the 1979 removal of prior referral. The second

>purpose of this is to create a diversion from the slightly less obvious

>assaults

>in SB233, AB1113, and AB1117. Aside from the directly-CMA-sponsored

>portion :

>

>There are only two reasons to place " diagnosis of a person for the purpose

>of

>providing acupuncture treatment " within the definition of the treatment

>_modality_ called acupuncture (4927 d).

>

>The first reason is to turn the words against us. If acupuncturists don't

>understand that diagnosis is not for the purpose of treatment, then how

>could

>they possibly be competent?

>I'm stating this with established cred in deciding cases between doctors

>(LAcs, DCs and MDs). I suggest licensees, students and instructors get

>straight about this now and stop playing into the hands of the opposition,

>because that IS the kind of distinction that makes a difference.

>

>The second reason is to block reimbursement for office visit charges

>(because

>the Tx becomes defined as including evaluation), and effectively bar second

>opinion consults.

>

>The only reason to " authorize to diagnose within their scope of practice "

>is to

>set the stage for further delineation, because taken as is, it is

>completely

>meaningless. Sadly, many Acupuncturists didn't, (or still don't)

>understand

>this, and thus the above wording supported by both lobbyist Art Krause and

>Senator Figueroa, and ongoing support of AB1113 by several acupuncture

>organizations.

>

>Sen Figueroa indicated just a few days ago she also wanted specific

>examples of scope that diagnostic authority could then be limited to.

>Meaning

>that the opposition plan is to limit Tx (by any of the modalities that are

>specific

>components of scope) – to certain _conditions _ that will then be deemed as

>within authority to diagnose. This may (I haven't confirmed) be able to be

>implemented as _regulations_.

>

>Any herbalists who don't understand what this means? HELLO?

>

>The attack on the CAB is largely a personal issue, as the arguments against

>it

>are specious. The stated intent is to change membership, remove Executive

>veto power, and make a majority membership Public political appointees (as

>opposed to knowledgeable acupuncturists). The legal opinion that merely

>stated diagnosis was established (a priori) wasn't from the CAB, but from a

>Dept of Consumer Affairs lawyer ! The Dept of Consumer Affairs published

>the Consumer's Guide that clearly states that we diagnose. The desire and

>plan of our opponents is simply to have another Dept of Consumer Affairs

>attorney give a different interpretation that suits their current aims.

>

>AB1117 (Oriental to Asian) has been stupidly approved and ignored thus far.

>Somehow people haven't grasped the effect of altering a broadly inclusive

>phrase set down as legislative intent 25 years ago. There are a number of

>slang terms that have historically been used to denigrate and insult

>persons

>of various asian backgrounds; _oriental _ is certainly not one of those

>terms.

>Do you need to hear the list to agree? Oriental medicine includes a LOT of

>history and development by non-asians in other continents, and parallels

>our

>role in California as primary care providers performing diagnostic

>evaluation

>to make decisions. Asian medicine, if it is newly instated as a LIMITING

>legal

>term, simply does not. Read my site for the background.

>

>Just about everything that I have predicted over the last 2 months has come

>down. No one has yet proved any point in my essays wrong; I challenge

>anyone to try - but you better be able to demonstrate to some real

>awareness.

>Note that the essays at my site have not been edited for overall

>cohesiveness;

>i.e. certain sections or comments are directed toward different readers.

>

>There ARE ways to turn this mess around.

>Next I will elaborate on a pro-active approach.

>

>This has been a public service announcement.

>Joe Reid 2005 May 19

>

>

>