Fwd: State info about Acupuncture Board

[Guest guest]

 

 

> Resent-<

> Jack Miller <jmiller

> May 20, 2005 10:06:25 AM PDT

> <faculty-sd

> State info about Acupuncture Board

>

>

> At the end of this email I have included the State's Joint Committee's

> review of the California Acupuncture Board. The will continue to

> inform you

> of some of the legislation under consideration. My biggest concern

> with the

> AB is noted in the text: It... " Seeks to erect significant barriers

> to new

> acupuncturists becoming licensed. "

>

> It is a common tactic that you may actually support, since in most

> cases,

> legislation restricting entry to our field will not affect L.Acs

> and current

> students. But, I ask you to look into your conscience and ask if

> that is the

> RIGHT thing to do. Afterall, aren't we supposed to do what is

> right? The

> Dept of Consumer Affairs correctly says that the State's concern

> should be

> about minimum entry-level standards. Given our enviable safety

> record and

> satisfaction of our patients, no convincing evidence has been

> presented that

> our minimum standards are insufficient. Now, keep in mind, Pacific

> College

> has always presented MUCH more than minimum standards, since that

> is our

> mission. We have exceeded state and accreditation standards since our

> inception. But it is not up to the State or the AB to force our

> vision upon

> anyone else. I understand that it is tempting to want the State

> tell us all

> what we need to do to be the best we can be. Is that really the

> role you

> want the government to take in your life? We talk about the need for

> evidence-based medicine. I think we need evidence-based

> legislation. Without

> proof that legislation is necessary (as opposed to just " nice " ), we

> should

> say we have enough laws.

>

> Please call your Senators and Assemblypeople to oppose AB 1116

> which will

> require increased internship hours. They call it " residency " , which

> it is

> not, but whatever you call it, it is more hours, more expense, and

> more

> delay to enter your profession. Maybe it won't affect you, but what

> about

> your friend? This website has your representatives phone #s:

>

> http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/defaulttext.asp

> http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/senate.htm

>

> BTW, for any of you who would LIKE to do a post-graduate

> " residency " the

> college can easily and happily facilitate this voluntary activity.

> Simply

> contact me or Elaine Gates-Miliner.

>

> Here is the Joint Committees review of the Acupuncture Board.

>

> On April 12, 2005, the Joint Committee and the

> Department recommended that the Board should be sunsetted

> and its functions and duties to regulate the profession

> of acupuncture be transferred to the Department.

> According to the Department, historically, the Board has

> had trouble with getting involved in the wrong issues,

> and spending too much time on them without even

> completing work on those issues. For example, over the

> past several years, the Board has advocated for enhancing

> the title of its licensees and further increasing the

> educational requirements for licensees. (The Board

> attempted to raise the educational requirement to 3,200

> hours through the regulatory process, which the

> Department did not approve.) The Little Hoover

> Commission (Commission), in its report, Regulation of

> Acupuncture: A Complementary Therapy Framework (report),

> found that the Board has missed significant opportunities

> to protect the public, particularly in the area of

> consumer information. One of the most significant

> examples of this is the Board's failure to promulgate

> regulations concerning single use needles. While the

> Board is now working on regulations on this issue, it

> seems they are only acting after repeated urging from the

> Commission and the Joint Committee. The report found

> that none of the Board's agendas over the last five years

> included a discussion of disposable, single-use needles

> or emerging research on threats to public health.

> However, the agendas did show a pattern of frequent

> discussions regarding enhanced title (Doctor of Oriental

> Medicine) and various means of restricting entry into the

> profession. For these reasons, and others, the

> Commission found that the Board has at times acted more

> as a venue for promoting the profession rather than

> regulating the profession to protect consumers.

>

>

> Further, the Board has not always followed the

> recommendations of the Department and the Joint

> Committee. In 1998, the Board was asked to evaluate the

> national licensure exam for acupuncture and compare it to

> the California Acupuncture Licensing Exam. Also in 1998,

> the Board was asked to evaluate the acupuncture school

> approval processes of the Bureau for Private

> Postsecondary and Vocational Education, the Accreditation

> Commission of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (ACAOM)

> and the Board. As of the Board's 2002 sunset review,

> they had not acted on either recommendation. As a

> result, in 2002, the Joint Committee asked the Commission

> to review these issues.

>

> Additionally, because the Board has such a relatively small

> staff, it is not always able to operate efficiently. The

> Board takes on numerous responsibilities and it does not

> have the staff resources to adequately manage all of

> those responsibilities. The Commission found that

> reviewing and approving schools is a " substantial and

> episodic burden on the Acupuncture Board and information

> received in the course of the Commission's review

> indicates that the State's process is not as rigorous as

> the process used by ACAOM. " The Commission recommended

> that the state should rely on ACAOM and other recognized

> accreditation institutions to accredit acupuncture

> schools, while ensuring that state-specific curriculum

> standards are met. The Board disagreed with this

> recommendation but did not provide detailed reasons to

> back up their position. The school approval process

> takes a significant amount of Board resources, while

> possibly providing little or no added benefit to

> consumers or the profession.

>

> It was additionally found by the Joint Committee that the

> Board:

>

> Misreads its governing statutes concerning the

> scope of

> practice of licensees;

>

> Seems unable to respond to direction from the

> Department

> and the Legislature, or to criticism from any of the

> many

> neutral bodies that have examined it and made

> recommendations for improvement; and

>

> Seeks to erect significant barriers to new

> acupuncturists becoming licensed.

>

> Most recently, the Commission report identifies the core

> problem this way:

>

> " Many of the specific issues that the Governor and the

> Legislature asked the Commission to review have

> festered because the Acupuncture Board has often acted

> as a venue for promoting the profession rather than

> regulating the profession. " (Little Hoover Commission,

> Regulation of Acupuncture: A Complementary Therapy

> Framework: September 2004, page 63 - emphasis added).

>

>

>

> Jack Miller, L.Ac., M.A. (Educ.)

> President/CEO

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> jmiller

> www.pacificcollege.edu

>

> 7445 Mission Valley Rd.

> San Diego CA 92108

> 619-574-6909

>

> 915 Broadway, 3rd floor

> NY NY 10010

> 212-982-3456

>

> 3646 N. Broadway, 2nd floor

> Chicago, IL 60613

> 773-477-4822

>

> " The Mission of Pacific College of Oriental Medicine is to

> critically assess

> and present the theories and practices of Oriental medicine,

> together with

> its traditional and modern derivations, in order that its graduates

> may

> deliver effective patient care. "

>

>

>