Guest guest Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 In a message dated 8/8/2007 10:23:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, marnae writes: 1. There is no demonstrated need for this certification We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual states to treat the whole person, not a disease or condition Ironically, the very next topic in the CHA Newsgroup is " Patient with advanced uterine fibroids! (sic) " And many more topics on this list relate to WM diagnoses. Perhaps having people concentrate in certain areas, like functional diseases, pain control or some other classification would allow for greater competence. Further, it might serve to forward the body of knowledge on a specific topic. Board certification, if properly administrated can actually be a boon to the practice of CM Guy Porter ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 Dear CHAers Below is an open letter written by several people, with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer questions etc., but I do not really want to start a major political debate on this forum. If you agree with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that is fine. THanks, Marnae AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine, administered by the newly formed, self-appointed, American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members of local and national acupuncture societies and accredited certifying boards, would like to respectfully oppose the attempts to form such specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose this because: 1. There is no demonstrated need for this certification We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual states to treat the whole person, not a disease or condition. Specialty certification imposes false boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for this other than financial gain to the parties attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine will be compromised. 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a board With its prominent use of the words " board " and " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large, independent certifying boards that comply with nationwide standards for fairness and transparency. ABMS defines specialty certification as “of significance for physicians preparing for careers in teaching, research, or practice restricted to that field” (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand, states that their goal is to “set the standard of care in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized the need for a certification to ensure that practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing so with a qualified knowledge and experience.” We believe that the ABORM board is confused about the role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading our medicine down the wrong path. 3. There is no process supporting the content to be provided How is the content material determined? Has the board gone through the process of making sure that their content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous traditions that exist? Does it give “full recognition to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also providing a unified set of national standards for safe and competent practice”? (NCCAOM website). The creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM, implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility issues, and opens up the potential that this will happen to all specialties that are treated by acupuncture and Oriental medicine. 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and exclusionary In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks of specialty boards and exams which will impose even more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers take such a certification into account when setting fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our profession if this is allowed to happen. 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage rather than benefit our profession. While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing education classes, we find that the structure as presented may also be misleading to the public. It suggests that simply passing an exam structured by self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat fertility patients with more authority than other practitioners. Education in western evaluative measures can be informative, but will not necessarily make us better acupuncturists. In conclusion, while we are in full support of practitioners being well trained in the medicine they practice and have respect for the good intentions of many of the ABORM board members, we believe that self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the profession. Although well intentioned, we find this trend ill conceived. If you would like to support this opposition, please add your name to the petition by emailing boycottaborm with your name, credentials, state in which you practice, and any organization that you represent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 , marnae ergil <marnae wrote: > > Dear CHAers > > Below is an open letter written by several people, > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a > major political debate on this forum. If you agree > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that > is fine. > > THanks, > > Marnae > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine, > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed, > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members > of local and national acupuncture societies and > accredited certifying boards, would like to > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose > this because: > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this > certification > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or > condition. Specialty certification imposes false > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for > this other than financial gain to the parties > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine > will be compromised. > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a > board > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large, > independent certifying boards that comply with > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency. > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of > significance for physicians preparing for careers in > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand, > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized > the need for a certification to ensure that > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading > our medicine down the wrong path. > > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be > provided > > How is the content material determined? Has the board > gone through the process of making sure that their > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also > providing a unified set of national standards for safe > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM, > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility > issues, and opens up the potential that this will > happen to all specialties that are treated by > acupuncture and Oriental medicine. > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and > exclusionary > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers > take such a certification into account when setting > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our > profession if this is allowed to happen. > > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage > rather than benefit our profession. > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing > education classes, we find that the structure as > presented may also be misleading to the public. It > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat > fertility patients with more authority than other > practitioners. Education in western evaluative > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily > make us better acupuncturists. > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they > practice and have respect for the good intentions of > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this > trend ill conceived. > > If you would like to support this opposition, please > add your name to the petition by emailing > boycottaborm with your name, credentials, > state in which you practice, and any organization that > you represent. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 , " Misha Cohen " <TCMPaths wrote: >I think the email address in my last posting got cut off. Names of support can be sent to boycottaborm Thank you, Marnae > > , marnae ergil <marnae@> > wrote: > > > > Dear CHAers > > > > Below is an open letter written by several people, > > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very > > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage > > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer > > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a > > major political debate on this forum. If you agree > > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that > > is fine. > > > > THanks, > > > > Marnae > > > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM > > > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for > > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine, > > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed, > > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see > > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of > > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members > > of local and national acupuncture societies and > > accredited certifying boards, would like to > > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such > > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose > > this because: > > > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this > > certification > > > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual > > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or > > condition. Specialty certification imposes false > > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for > > this other than financial gain to the parties > > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine > > will be compromised. > > > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a > > board > > > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and > > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with > > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American > > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for > > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large, > > independent certifying boards that comply with > > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency. > > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of > > significance for physicians preparing for careers in > > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that > > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand, > > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care > > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized > > the need for a certification to ensure that > > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental > > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing > > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We > > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the > > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading > > our medicine down the wrong path. > > > > > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be > > provided > > > > How is the content material determined? Has the board > > gone through the process of making sure that their > > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous > > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition > > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also > > providing a unified set of national standards for safe > > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The > > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM, > > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized > > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility > > issues, and opens up the potential that this will > > happen to all specialties that are treated by > > acupuncture and Oriental medicine. > > > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and > > exclusionary > > > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the > > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological > > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of > > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks > > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even > > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers > > take such a certification into account when setting > > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on > > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our > > profession if this is allowed to happen. > > > > > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage > > rather than benefit our profession. > > > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing > > education classes, we find that the structure as > > presented may also be misleading to the public. It > > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by > > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat > > fertility patients with more authority than other > > practitioners. Education in western evaluative > > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily > > make us better acupuncturists. > > > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of > > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they > > practice and have respect for the good intentions of > > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that > > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be > > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the > > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this > > trend ill conceived. > > > > If you would like to support this opposition, please > > add your name to the petition by emailing > > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials, > > state in which you practice, and any organization that > > you represent. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM. There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics, sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the extra work, I say great. Go for it. Bob , " Misha Cohen " <TCMPaths wrote: > > > , marnae ergil <marnae@> > wrote: > > > > Dear CHAers > > > > Below is an open letter written by several people, > > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very > > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage > > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer > > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a > > major political debate on this forum. If you agree > > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that > > is fine. > > > > THanks, > > > > Marnae > > > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM > > > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for > > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine, > > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed, > > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see > > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of > > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members > > of local and national acupuncture societies and > > accredited certifying boards, would like to > > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such > > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose > > this because: > > > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this > > certification > > > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual > > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or > > condition. Specialty certification imposes false > > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for > > this other than financial gain to the parties > > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine > > will be compromised. > > > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a > > board > > > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and > > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with > > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American > > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for > > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large, > > independent certifying boards that comply with > > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency. > > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of > > significance for physicians preparing for careers in > > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that > > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand, > > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care > > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized > > the need for a certification to ensure that > > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental > > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing > > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We > > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the > > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading > > our medicine down the wrong path. > > > > > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be > > provided > > > > How is the content material determined? Has the board > > gone through the process of making sure that their > > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous > > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition > > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also > > providing a unified set of national standards for safe > > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The > > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM, > > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized > > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility > > issues, and opens up the potential that this will > > happen to all specialties that are treated by > > acupuncture and Oriental medicine. > > > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and > > exclusionary > > > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the > > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological > > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of > > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks > > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even > > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers > > take such a certification into account when setting > > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on > > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our > > profession if this is allowed to happen. > > > > > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage > > rather than benefit our profession. > > > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing > > education classes, we find that the structure as > > presented may also be misleading to the public. It > > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by > > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat > > fertility patients with more authority than other > > practitioners. Education in western evaluative > > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily > > make us better acupuncturists. > > > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of > > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they > > practice and have respect for the good intentions of > > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that > > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be > > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the > > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this > > trend ill conceived. > > > > If you would like to support this opposition, please > > add your name to the petition by emailing > > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials, > > state in which you practice, and any organization that > > you represent. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 Bob, now this is unconfirmed rumor but I saw on another internet list that the American Acupuncture Council will only cover " facial acupuncture " by those that have taken the " Facial Acupuncture certification " by Wakefield et al. The same would be true for ABORM on fertility cases. I agree that ABORM and Misha's HEPC certification as well as other advanced trainings are valuable. However if tied to insurance coverage then we are in anti-trust and constraint of trade territory. If I remember correctly you offer a number of certificates. What would happen if they were seen as worthless. I know all the players of ABORM. They are good people, and although ambitious I don't think they could have expected these actions or backlash. I imagine we will hear from them soon. Doug , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001 wrote: > > Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM. > There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics, > sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to > take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small > group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's > the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will > only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In > addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will > tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board > certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the > extra work, I say great. Go for it. > > Bob > > , " Misha Cohen " > <TCMPaths@> wrote: > > > > > > , marnae ergil <marnae@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear CHAers > > > > > > Below is an open letter written by several people, > > > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very > > > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage > > > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer > > > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a > > > major political debate on this forum. If you agree > > > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that > > > is fine. > > > > > > THanks, > > > > > > Marnae > > > > > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM > > > > > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for > > > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine, > > > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed, > > > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see > > > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of > > > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members > > > of local and national acupuncture societies and > > > accredited certifying boards, would like to > > > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such > > > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose > > > this because: > > > > > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this > > > certification > > > > > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual > > > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or > > > condition. Specialty certification imposes false > > > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for > > > this other than financial gain to the parties > > > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine > > > will be compromised. > > > > > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a > > > board > > > > > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and > > > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with > > > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American > > > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for > > > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large, > > > independent certifying boards that comply with > > > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency. > > > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of > > > significance for physicians preparing for careers in > > > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that > > > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand, > > > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care > > > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized > > > the need for a certification to ensure that > > > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental > > > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing > > > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We > > > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the > > > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading > > > our medicine down the wrong path. > > > > > > > > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be > > > provided > > > > > > How is the content material determined? Has the board > > > gone through the process of making sure that their > > > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous > > > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition > > > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also > > > providing a unified set of national standards for safe > > > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The > > > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM, > > > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized > > > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility > > > issues, and opens up the potential that this will > > > happen to all specialties that are treated by > > > acupuncture and Oriental medicine. > > > > > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and > > > exclusionary > > > > > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the > > > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological > > > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of > > > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks > > > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even > > > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers > > > take such a certification into account when setting > > > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on > > > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our > > > profession if this is allowed to happen. > > > > > > > > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage > > > rather than benefit our profession. > > > > > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing > > > education classes, we find that the structure as > > > presented may also be misleading to the public. It > > > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by > > > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat > > > fertility patients with more authority than other > > > practitioners. Education in western evaluative > > > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily > > > make us better acupuncturists. > > > > > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of > > > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they > > > practice and have respect for the good intentions of > > > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that > > > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be > > > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the > > > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this > > > trend ill conceived. > > > > > > If you would like to support this opposition, please > > > add your name to the petition by emailing > > > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials, > > > state in which you practice, and any organization that > > > you represent. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 This has come through the Emperors curcuit. It came with an introduction from the founder of ABORM which I won't reproduce. Again, personally, I am not for or against the group just what it means for insurance and malpractice. Doug Dear Alumni, I have now received this email several times and I thought that it would be important to respond to this email and give you a different perspective on the ABORM. My practice specializes in women?s health, reproductive medicine and fertility. The majority of my patients do a lot of research regarding their condition and invariably they have asked me ?what makes you a specialist in this area of medicine other than the fact that you say you are?; as good consumers should. I struggled to answer this question and always said the same three things: ?I studied with several practitioners who also specialized in the field, the majority of my patients come to me for reproductive issues, and I fly around the country taking continuing education classes specific to this specialty.? It was a very long winded answer to justify my education and training, because up until this point in time there was no certification to justify my specialty. I have already registered for the Board Certification and am enthusiastically in support of this process. I feel that this only legitimizes my practice and my profession. I would like to clarify that I am not involved with the ABORM but I have been involved with the politics of this profession since I entered it. Being involved with CSOMA for over four years allowed me to see that state and national organizations only have the professions best interests in mind when making decisions although it may not always appear this way from the outside. From what I understand of the ABORM this is no different. I can understand the concern over the cost of the exam, but have you asked the NCCAOM why their exam is also so expensive? Running an organization and an exam is expensive. When I was on the board of CSOMA we constantly received emails asking us why it was so expensive to be a member; fighting for the professions rights and for the evolution of this profession is not an inexpensive endeavor. Lets look at the AMA. This is a national medical association just like the AAAOM is in our profession. Affiliated with this association are many specialty associations which legitimize, help promote, expand awareness, and increase research within that specialty. I see the ABORM in the same light. I would like to remind everyone that the ABORM is not the only, and certainly not the first, specialty board within our profession. There are specialty certifications for orthopedic acupuncture, sports medicine, and internal medicine - and not one of these has limited anyone's scope of practice, nor have they resulted in higher malpractice rates. I have never received an email from anyone about those boards and how they are ruining our profession. I would also like to say that if someone has an issue with any of the malpractice companies within our profession (which I agree needs some serious attention), that this would be best discussed in a separate email rather than assuming that one organization is dictating the business and pushing agendas for another. I would like to remind everyone that at one point in time the NCCAOM board were " self-appointed " , without oversight, but saw what they felt was a need and filled it. There was also a great amount of resistance at that time. The difference is that the NCCAOM eventually became the required entry-level exam, the ABORM Board Certification is purely voluntary, and the ABORM, as I understand it, has no intention of being anything else. Just like every state and national exam intends to certify practitioners for entry level into the profession, so does the ABORM intend to certify entry level understanding into the specialty of reproductive medicine. If you are happy being a general practitioner then there is nothing saying you cannot continue to do so. There are GP?s in every medical profession, and ours is no different. In reading over the material on their website and in the literature I received from them after applying for the exam, I see the ABORM as a non-profit organization that was organized to establish some minimum standards of competency in the field of Oriental Reproductive Medicine. It seems to me from the reference list of sources to study for the exam that they are using a well round amount of material from both eastern and western sources. All the books that I refer to regularly are on the reading list. There is nothing in the ABORM's website materials, application and registration materials, mission statement that even hint that they are trying to set centralized treatment protocols. To the contrary, I see that they are using a very well rounded approach to the certification. The statement that " This process not only discredits the legitimacy of the bodies that currently certify all practitioners " is a mystery. If that were the case, then any M.D. who opts to get FACOG certification as an RE would be discrediting the medical boards that gave them their M.D. Also, the notion that " the strength of our profession lies in it's training as generalists " flies in the face of the way the medicine is practiced in China. This is a uniquely American point of view that more accurately describes the relative newness of TCM as a license profession here in the US. I have many new students and practitioners call me to ask questions regarding the profession and treatment of patients. I always appreciate the phone calls, but the learning curve for reproductive medicine is steep as it is in any specialty. There is a lot to know from both the eastern and western side and I appreciate the fact that now these individuals will be able to study and sit for an exam that will give them the knowledge they need. I hope that this sheds a new perspective on this situation. I would encourage all of you who have questions regarding this, or any other specialty board, to contact the boards themselves and allow them a chance to show you that they are only looking out for the best interest of the profession. All of my patients are very happy to hear that this board is being formed. Why? Because it is only in their best interest. My patients and the medical doctors I work with are all enthusiastic about the ABORM and the fact that I am going to be certified in the field of reproductive medicine. I am excited for the possibilities that this will bring to my practice and the profession as a whole. Respectfully yours, Marc Sklar -- Marc Sklar, LAc, DA (RI), MSTOM Clinical Director & Founder Reproductive Wellness msklar www.reproductivewellness.com 877-843-7100 - 619-265-0291 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 I am in agreement with you. It raises the bar. And I believe that specialization is in our future. but I do think that in the future the board should be voted in by public vote. Cara Bob Flaws <pemachophel2001 Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:09:51 +0000 Re: Open Letter in Opposition to ABORM Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM. There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics, sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the extra work, I say great. Go for it. Bob <%40> , " Misha Cohen " <TCMPaths wrote: > > > <%40> , marnae ergil <marnae@> > wrote: > > > > Dear CHAers > > > > Below is an open letter written by several people, > > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very > > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage > > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer > > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a > > major political debate on this forum. If you agree > > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that > > is fine. > > > > THanks, > > > > Marnae > > > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM > > > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for > > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine, > > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed, > > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see > > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of > > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members > > of local and national acupuncture societies and > > accredited certifying boards, would like to > > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such > > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose > > this because: > > > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this > > certification > > > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual > > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or > > condition. Specialty certification imposes false > > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for > > this other than financial gain to the parties > > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine > > will be compromised. > > > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a > > board > > > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and > > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with > > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American > > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for > > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large, > > independent certifying boards that comply with > > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency. > > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of > > significance for physicians preparing for careers in > > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that > > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand, > > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care > > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized > > the need for a certification to ensure that > > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental > > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing > > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We > > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the > > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading > > our medicine down the wrong path. > > > > > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be > > provided > > > > How is the content material determined? Has the board > > gone through the process of making sure that their > > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous > > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition > > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also > > providing a unified set of national standards for safe > > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The > > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM, > > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized > > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility > > issues, and opens up the potential that this will > > happen to all specialties that are treated by > > acupuncture and Oriental medicine. > > > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and > > exclusionary > > > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the > > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological > > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of > > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks > > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even > > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers > > take such a certification into account when setting > > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on > > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our > > profession if this is allowed to happen. > > > > > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage > > rather than benefit our profession. > > > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing > > education classes, we find that the structure as > > presented may also be misleading to the public. It > > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by > > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat > > fertility patients with more authority than other > > practitioners. Education in western evaluative > > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily > > make us better acupuncturists. > > > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of > > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they > > practice and have respect for the good intentions of > > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that > > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be > > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the > > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this > > trend ill conceived. > > > > If you would like to support this opposition, please > > add your name to the petition by emailing > > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials, > > state in which you practice, and any organization that > > you represent. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Bob- I know of the orthopedics and the sports medicine specialty boards in acupuncture. What is the internal medicine specialty board? Thanks. -Steve On Aug 8, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Bob Flaws wrote: > Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM. > There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics, > sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to > take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small > group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's > the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will > only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In > addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will > tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board > certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the > extra work, I say great. Go for it. > > Bob > > , " Misha Cohen " > <TCMPaths wrote: > > > > > > , marnae ergil <marnae@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear CHAers > > > > > > Below is an open letter written by several people, > > > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very > > > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage > > > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer > > > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a > > > major political debate on this forum. If you agree > > > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that > > > is fine. > > > > > > THanks, > > > > > > Marnae > > > > > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM > > > > > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for > > > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine, > > > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed, > > > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see > > > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of > > > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members > > > of local and national acupuncture societies and > > > accredited certifying boards, would like to > > > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such > > > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose > > > this because: > > > > > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this > > > certification > > > > > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual > > > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or > > > condition. Specialty certification imposes false > > > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for > > > this other than financial gain to the parties > > > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine > > > will be compromised. > > > > > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a > > > board > > > > > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and > > > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with > > > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American > > > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for > > > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large, > > > independent certifying boards that comply with > > > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency. > > > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of > > > significance for physicians preparing for careers in > > > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that > > > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand, > > > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care > > > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized > > > the need for a certification to ensure that > > > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental > > > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing > > > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We > > > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the > > > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading > > > our medicine down the wrong path. > > > > > > > > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be > > > provided > > > > > > How is the content material determined? Has the board > > > gone through the process of making sure that their > > > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous > > > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition > > > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also > > > providing a unified set of national standards for safe > > > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The > > > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM, > > > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized > > > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility > > > issues, and opens up the potential that this will > > > happen to all specialties that are treated by > > > acupuncture and Oriental medicine. > > > > > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and > > > exclusionary > > > > > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the > > > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological > > > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of > > > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks > > > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even > > > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers > > > take such a certification into account when setting > > > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on > > > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our > > > profession if this is allowed to happen. > > > > > > > > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage > > > rather than benefit our profession. > > > > > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing > > > education classes, we find that the structure as > > > presented may also be misleading to the public. It > > > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by > > > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat > > > fertility patients with more authority than other > > > practitioners. Education in western evaluative > > > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily > > > make us better acupuncturists. > > > > > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of > > > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they > > > practice and have respect for the good intentions of > > > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that > > > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be > > > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the > > > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this > > > trend ill conceived. > > > > > > If you would like to support this opposition, please > > > add your name to the petition by emailing > > > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials, > > > state in which you practice, and any organization that > > > you represent. > > > > > > > > Stephen Bonzak, L.Ac., Dipl. C.H. sbonzak 773-470-6994 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 The problems of someone establishing a board is multifold. If this is truly a board that speaks for the acupuncturists of this country, it should be approved by them prior to any authority being granted. Otherwise, anyone and everyone can create a board specialty of their own with no legitimacy whatsoever. How confusing that will be to the general public who is completely unaware of the politics and standards of care and treatment methods and styles that exist. Other problems with board certification as I see it are: 1. Who determines the standard of competency and the specific " curriculum " for training? Of course, the ones establishing the board are going to determine the " standard " based upon their experience and their training. But what about the vast number of " experts " out there who don't specifically practice that way? What about the non-TCMers and the non-Westernized practitioners of Chinese medicine? 2. While many people have specialties and specific skillsets and have practices dedicated to a few major areas, shouldn't we be focusing training and certifications on diagnosis as the hallmark. It's all well and good to memorize patterns and learn about different areas, etc, but in my opinion, this does not necessarily create a well-defined diagnosis which treatments should be based upon. Diagnosis in Chinese medicine revolves around the 4 Examinations, not western biomedicine or blood work or sonograms. Weaving that information into our paradigm is one thing, but replacing it is another. Setting up board sanctioned specialties, in my opinion, goes a long way to legitimize the western approach to practicing medicine. It will not be long for the disintegration of our medicine should that continue. 3. Other issues have already been raised such as insurance, misrepresentation to the public, etc. 4. Another problem is that the majority of patients being seen are women. One of the largest reasons is gynecology. To try to legitimize treating women's disorders with a board certification seems quite redundant. Especially, as fertility disorders are becoming epidemic in this society for tons of reasons, getting tons of press, etc., board certification has the appearance of trying to establish a small group as the 'experts' and the ones to treat this booming industry. 5. Lastly, I encourage people to not seek degrees and board certifications solely to provide " legitimacy " to the public. I think it sends a poor message, one that denigrates our profession. If one has an interest in any given area, study it, practice it, take CEUs, become an expert in it. Your patients will notice the difference and you will earn a reputation based upon it. Just my two cents, Ross -- Ross Rosen, LAc, CA, Dipl OM (NCCAOM) Center for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine 166 Mountain Ave. Westfield, NJ 07090 (908) 654-4333 www.acupunctureandherbalmedicine.com http://rossrosen.blogspot.com http://rangnangogminling.blogspot.com This email contains confidential information intended for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you should receive this in error please contact us immediately by return mail, or at the above phone number. Unauthorized use of this information may be in violation of criminal statutes or HIPAA regulations. Under no circumstances shall this material be retained, transmitted, or copied by anyone other than the addressee(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Hello Bob, Cara and others - Thank you for your input. I think that there are several things that need to be very clear here. 1. I am absolutely not against certification in a subspecialty, offered in conjunction with an educational component. ABORM is not this. There is no educational component associated with the exam, there is simply an exam that will then give " board certification " in reproductive medicine. 2. Board certification is a very specific thing. The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) says the following: " Since 1933, specialty boards have been approved jointly by action of ABMS and the American Medical Association Council on Medical Education (AMA/CME). This determination begins with a review by the Liaison Committee for Specialty Boards (LCSB), an organization sponsored by ABMS and AMA/CME. The function of LCSB is to receive and evaluate applications for approval of new specialty boards according to standards and procedures agreed upon by both ABMS and AMA. " The ABORM " board " and other boards have not gone through this process. There is no oversight of the board, and there is no clear consensus that this is an area that requires board certification. If we, as a field, after appropriate discussion, ideally, organized by the AAAOM decide that that indeed we want to begin to establish " board certification " in our field, then let's do it right. Boards should not be able to just pop up and say, we exist. Maybe, as Bob says, that is how the NCCAOM began, but not really - the NCCAOM began at the request of the profession and, in order to help us gain licensure throughout the US, and why re-invent the wheel? We have organizations that can be useful in this process - lets use them! Again, as the ABMS says: The definitions of each of the specialties and of the educational and other requirements leading to eligibility for board certification have been developed by consensus within the medical profession and, to date, the certification of a medical specialist has remained separate and distinct from licensure It is considered the gold standard because of its unique physician-directed approach for assessing qualifications. The process for initial certification, whether in a specialty or subspecialty, involves a rigorous process of testing and peer evaluation that is designed and administered by specialists in that specific area of medicine. It is important to note that there is no requirement or need for a certified physician in a recognized specialty to hold special certification in a subspecialty of that field in order to be considered qualified to include aspects of that subspecialty within a specialty practice. Under no circumstances should this physician be considered unqualified to practice within an area of a subspecialty solely because of lack of subspecialty certification. Specialty certification in a subspecialty field is of significance for physicians preparing for careers in teaching, research, or practice restricted to that field. Such special certification is recognition of exceptional expertise and experience and has not been created to justify a differential fee schedule or to confer other professional advantages over other physicians not so certified. ABORM, on the other hand says: We have recognized the need for a certification to ensure that practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing so with a qualified knowledge and experience But, they do not explain how they set their standards, who is qualified to take the exam or what the educational standards are. There is no training component associated with the exam, just an exam. This, to my mind, is not appropriate, nor is it at all similar to the types of advanced certification that individuals or companies such as Blue Poppy offer. Again, I have no problem with certifications based on an specific educational experience, but that is not what ABORM is. Additionally, no where on the website does it say if the board is not-for-profit or for profit, nor is it clear how the exam is being overseen, written, analyzed for quality and psychometric appropriateness. Finally, although ABORM may not realize it, they are setting us up for a dangerous possibility. We already know that our liability insurance coverage is restricted in terms of treatment of OB/reproductive issues, without purchasing the rider. Who is to say that the insurance companies will not use this exam as a pre-requisite for purchase of the rider, thus requiring us to pay additional for the rider, and to pay $765.00 for the exam (with no educational component) and then an regular, unspecific amount for renewal of our certification. Does this mean that eventually, I will have to pay to take an exam in Dermatology, Pediatrics, Reproductive Medicine, GYN, and who knows what else in order to be considered " qualified " to treat in these areas, all of which I consider to be areas of specialty for me? Just some food for thought! Marnae Marnae C. Ergil, M.A., M.S., L.Ac. Associate Professor / Academic Coordinator School of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine New York Chiropractic College 2360 State Route 89 Seneca Falls, NY 13148 (315) 568-3685 marnae / mergil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 I think both points are very appropriate from Doug & Cara. Psychologists around the country are lobbying for prescription privileges. In some cases, there are board members who are fighting for exclusive rights for particular training programs of said psychologists seeking the privilege. In order to have a meaningful certification, an independent third party audit should be done to investigate potential conflicts of interest. Doug's post below shows this isn't limited to other professions. Like it or not, 99.9% of the population doesn't understand that there's a difference between C.Ac.'s (DC weekend acupuncturists) and L.Ac.'s (NCCAOM acupuncturists) - both are listed under acupuncture in the phone book. Pretty soon, we could have Chinese style business cards, with our name followed by 5 lines of title acronyms. Geoff , " " wrote: > > Bob, now this is unconfirmed rumor but I saw on another internet list that the American > Acupuncture Council will only cover " facial acupuncture " by those that have taken the > " Facial Acupuncture certification " by Wakefield et al. The same would be true for ABORM > on fertility cases. > I agree that ABORM and Misha's HEPC certification as well as other advanced trainings are > valuable. However if tied to insurance coverage then we are in anti-trust and constraint of > trade territory. --- Posted by: " Cara Frank " herbbabe baguablader Thu Aug 9, 2007 5:05 am (PST) I am in agreement with you. It raises the bar. And I believe that specialization is in our future. but I do think that in the future the board should be voted in by public vote. Cara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Doug, Blue Poppy Institute's courses are simply CEU/CME/PDA distance learning courses. We changed the names of our formerly " certification " courses years ago. Bob , " " wrote: > > Bob, now this is unconfirmed rumor but I saw on another internet list that the American > Acupuncture Council will only cover " facial acupuncture " by those that have taken the > " Facial Acupuncture certification " by Wakefield et al. The same would be true for ABORM > on fertility cases. > I agree that ABORM and Misha's HEPC certification as well as other advanced trainings are > valuable. However if tied to insurance coverage then we are in anti-trust and constraint of > trade territory. If I remember correctly you offer a number of certificates. What would > happen if they were seen as worthless. > I know all the players of ABORM. They are good people, and although ambitious I don't > think they could have expected these actions or backlash. I imagine we will hear from > them soon. > Doug > > > > , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001@> > wrote: > > > > Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM. > > There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics, > > sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to > > take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small > > group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's > > the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will > > only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In > > addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will > > tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board > > certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the > > extra work, I say great. Go for it. > > > > Bob > > > > , " Misha Cohen " > > <TCMPaths@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > , marnae ergil <marnae@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear CHAers > > > > > > > > Below is an open letter written by several people, > > > > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very > > > > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage > > > > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer > > > > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a > > > > major political debate on this forum. If you agree > > > > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that > > > > is fine. > > > > > > > > THanks, > > > > > > > > Marnae > > > > > > > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM > > > > > > > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for > > > > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine, > > > > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed, > > > > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see > > > > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of > > > > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members > > > > of local and national acupuncture societies and > > > > accredited certifying boards, would like to > > > > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such > > > > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose > > > > this because: > > > > > > > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this > > > > certification > > > > > > > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual > > > > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or > > > > condition. Specialty certification imposes false > > > > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for > > > > this other than financial gain to the parties > > > > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine > > > > will be compromised. > > > > > > > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a > > > > board > > > > > > > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and > > > > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with > > > > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American > > > > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for > > > > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large, > > > > independent certifying boards that comply with > > > > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency. > > > > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of > > > > significance for physicians preparing for careers in > > > > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that > > > > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand, > > > > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care > > > > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized > > > > the need for a certification to ensure that > > > > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental > > > > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing > > > > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We > > > > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the > > > > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading > > > > our medicine down the wrong path. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be > > > > provided > > > > > > > > How is the content material determined? Has the board > > > > gone through the process of making sure that their > > > > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous > > > > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition > > > > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also > > > > providing a unified set of national standards for safe > > > > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The > > > > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM, > > > > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized > > > > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility > > > > issues, and opens up the potential that this will > > > > happen to all specialties that are treated by > > > > acupuncture and Oriental medicine. > > > > > > > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and > > > > exclusionary > > > > > > > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the > > > > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological > > > > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of > > > > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks > > > > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even > > > > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers > > > > take such a certification into account when setting > > > > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on > > > > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our > > > > profession if this is allowed to happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage > > > > rather than benefit our profession. > > > > > > > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing > > > > education classes, we find that the structure as > > > > presented may also be misleading to the public. It > > > > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by > > > > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat > > > > fertility patients with more authority than other > > > > practitioners. Education in western evaluative > > > > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily > > > > make us better acupuncturists. > > > > > > > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of > > > > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they > > > > practice and have respect for the good intentions of > > > > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that > > > > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be > > > > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the > > > > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this > > > > trend ill conceived. > > > > > > > > If you would like to support this opposition, please > > > > add your name to the petition by emailing > > > > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials, > > > > state in which you practice, and any organization that > > > > you represent. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Steve, It's a board created by a group of people including Bruce Robinson. I'd Google his name and see if there's a link. I can't tell you anything more about this board other than that it exists. Bob , Stephen Bonzak <stephenbonzak wrote: > > Bob- > > I know of the orthopedics and the sports medicine specialty boards in > acupuncture. What is the internal medicine specialty board? Thanks. > > -Steve > > > On Aug 8, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Bob Flaws wrote: > > > Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM. > > There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics, > > sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to > > take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small > > group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's > > the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will > > only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In > > addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will > > tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board > > certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the > > extra work, I say great. Go for it. > > > > Bob > > > > , " Misha Cohen " > > <TCMPaths@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > , marnae ergil <marnae@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear CHAers > > > > > > > > Below is an open letter written by several people, > > > > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very > > > > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage > > > > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer > > > > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a > > > > major political debate on this forum. If you agree > > > > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that > > > > is fine. > > > > > > > > THanks, > > > > > > > > Marnae > > > > > > > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM > > > > > > > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for > > > > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine, > > > > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed, > > > > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see > > > > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of > > > > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members > > > > of local and national acupuncture societies and > > > > accredited certifying boards, would like to > > > > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such > > > > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose > > > > this because: > > > > > > > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this > > > > certification > > > > > > > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual > > > > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or > > > > condition. Specialty certification imposes false > > > > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for > > > > this other than financial gain to the parties > > > > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine > > > > will be compromised. > > > > > > > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a > > > > board > > > > > > > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and > > > > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with > > > > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American > > > > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for > > > > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large, > > > > independent certifying boards that comply with > > > > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency. > > > > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of > > > > significance for physicians preparing for careers in > > > > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that > > > > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand, > > > > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care > > > > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized > > > > the need for a certification to ensure that > > > > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental > > > > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing > > > > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We > > > > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the > > > > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading > > > > our medicine down the wrong path. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be > > > > provided > > > > > > > > How is the content material determined? Has the board > > > > gone through the process of making sure that their > > > > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous > > > > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition > > > > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also > > > > providing a unified set of national standards for safe > > > > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The > > > > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM, > > > > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized > > > > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility > > > > issues, and opens up the potential that this will > > > > happen to all specialties that are treated by > > > > acupuncture and Oriental medicine. > > > > > > > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and > > > > exclusionary > > > > > > > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the > > > > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological > > > > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of > > > > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks > > > > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even > > > > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers > > > > take such a certification into account when setting > > > > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on > > > > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our > > > > profession if this is allowed to happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage > > > > rather than benefit our profession. > > > > > > > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing > > > > education classes, we find that the structure as > > > > presented may also be misleading to the public. It > > > > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by > > > > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat > > > > fertility patients with more authority than other > > > > practitioners. Education in western evaluative > > > > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily > > > > make us better acupuncturists. > > > > > > > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of > > > > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they > > > > practice and have respect for the good intentions of > > > > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that > > > > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be > > > > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the > > > > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this > > > > trend ill conceived. > > > > > > > > If you would like to support this opposition, please > > > > add your name to the petition by emailing > > > > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials, > > > > state in which you practice, and any organization that > > > > you represent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stephen Bonzak, L.Ac., Dipl. C.H. > sbonzak > 773-470-6994 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Just a small difference here in that psychologists currently don't have prescribing in their scope of practice whereas we do have fertility within ours. Theirs privileges would be a big step up. Doug , " G Hudson " <crudo20 wrote: > > I think both points are very appropriate from Doug & Cara. > Psychologists around the country are lobbying for prescription > privileges. In some cases, there are board members who are fighting > for exclusive rights for particular training programs of said > psychologists seeking the privilege. In order to have a meaningful > certification, an independent third party audit should be done to > investigate potential conflicts of interest. Doug's post below shows > this isn't limited to other professions. > > Like it or not, 99.9% of the population doesn't understand that > there's a difference between C.Ac.'s (DC weekend acupuncturists) and > L.Ac.'s (NCCAOM acupuncturists) - both are listed under acupuncture in > the phone book. > > Pretty soon, we could have Chinese style business cards, with our name > followed by 5 lines of title acronyms. > Geoff > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 From what I know about ABORM so far, I think ABORM does represent a fairly wide spectrum of practitioners and interests. As I said before, someone has to get the ball rolling. If enough people join in, then the board will truly become broad-based and representational. Also, look at the by-laws to see how power will change hands over time. If you work from the inside, over time, you yourself may be one of the people steering such a board. Basically, a person can piss and moan from the outside or join and have a say and, more importantly, a vote from the inside. This is not some cabal who is trying to grab power for themselves. Bob , " Ross Rosen " <rossrosen wrote: > > The problems of someone establishing a board is multifold. If this is truly > a board that speaks for the acupuncturists of this country, it should be > approved by them prior to any authority being granted. Otherwise, anyone > and everyone can create a board specialty of their own with no legitimacy > whatsoever. How confusing that will be to the general public who is > completely unaware of the politics and standards of care and treatment > methods and styles that exist. Other problems with board certification as > I see it are: > 1. Who determines the standard of competency and the specific " curriculum " > for training? Of course, the ones establishing the board are going to > determine the " standard " based upon their experience and their training. > But what about the vast number of " experts " out there who don't specifically > practice that way? What about the non-TCMers and the non-Westernized > practitioners of Chinese medicine? > 2. While many people have specialties and specific skillsets and have > practices dedicated to a few major areas, shouldn't we be focusing training > and certifications on diagnosis as the hallmark. It's all well and good to > memorize patterns and learn about different areas, etc, but in my opinion, > this does not necessarily create a well-defined diagnosis which treatments > should be based upon. Diagnosis in Chinese medicine revolves around the 4 > Examinations, not western biomedicine or blood work or sonograms. Weaving > that information into our paradigm is one thing, but replacing it is > another. Setting up board sanctioned specialties, in my opinion, goes a > long way to legitimize the western approach to practicing medicine. It will > not be long for the disintegration of our medicine should that continue. > 3. Other issues have already been raised such as insurance, > misrepresentation to the public, etc. > 4. Another problem is that the majority of patients being seen are women. > One of the largest reasons is gynecology. To try to legitimize treating > women's disorders with a board certification seems quite redundant. > Especially, as fertility disorders are becoming epidemic in this society for > tons of reasons, getting tons of press, etc., board certification has the > appearance of trying to establish a small group as the 'experts' and the > ones to treat this booming industry. > 5. Lastly, I encourage people to not seek degrees and board certifications > solely to provide " legitimacy " to the public. I think it sends a poor > message, one that denigrates our profession. If one has an interest in any > given area, study it, practice it, take CEUs, become an expert in it. Your > patients will notice the difference and you will earn a reputation based > upon it. > > Just my two cents, > Ross > -- > Ross Rosen, LAc, CA, Dipl OM (NCCAOM) > Center for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine > 166 Mountain Ave. > Westfield, NJ 07090 > (908) 654-4333 > www.acupunctureandherbalmedicine.com > http://rossrosen.blogspot.com > http://rangnangogminling.blogspot.com > > > This email contains confidential information intended for the person(s) to > whom it is addressed. If you should receive this in error please contact us > immediately by return mail, or at the above phone number. Unauthorized use > of this information may be in violation of criminal statutes or HIPAA > regulations. Under no circumstances shall this material be retained, > transmitted, or copied by anyone other than the addressee(s). > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Sure, but the point was that certifications setup to accept only one specific company's training, and not a standardized level of training that many could provide - sounds bogus to me. Geoff , " " wrote: > > Just a small difference here in that psychologists currently don't have prescribing in their > scope of practice whereas we do have fertility within ours. Theirs privileges would be a big > step up. > Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 I am not for or against at this point, but am wondering if the governing board has to take their own exam? It looks like most of the individuals involved are acupuncturists like the rest of us, who through practice, extra reading, ceu’s have chosen a specialty. On the whole, I am not seeing higher levels of qualification that allows them to differentiate themselves from the rest of the profession. I agree though, that it is true for things like this to get going it is generally done by a small group of people, but a lack of differentiation in training between them and the rest of the profession is certain to draw some animosity. Lots of western education requirement in many of these board specialties. You would think that given the trend it would at some point just be added into the core training (like requiring an anatomy and physiology with cadaver lab) ? Sean _____ On Behalf Of Bob Flaws Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:23 PM Re: Open Letter in Opposition to ABORM From what I know about ABORM so far, I think ABORM does represent a fairly wide spectrum of practitioners and interests. As I said before, someone has to get the ball rolling. If enough people join in, then the board will truly become broad-based and representational. Also, look at the by-laws to see how power will change hands over time. If you work from the inside, over time, you yourself may be one of the people steering such a board. Basically, a person can piss and moan from the outside or join and have a say and, more importantly, a vote from the inside. This is not some cabal who is trying to grab power for themselves. Bob @ <%40> , " Ross Rosen " <rossrosen wrote: > > The problems of someone establishing a board is multifold. If this is truly > a board that speaks for the acupuncturists of this country, it should be > approved by them prior to any authority being granted. Otherwise, anyone > and everyone can create a board specialty of their own with no legitimacy > whatsoever. How confusing that will be to the general public who is > completely unaware of the politics and standards of care and treatment > methods and styles that exist. Other problems with board certification as > I see it are: > 1. Who determines the standard of competency and the specific " curriculum " > for training? Of course, the ones establishing the board are going to > determine the " standard " based upon their experience and their training. > But what about the vast number of " experts " out there who don't specifically > practice that way? What about the non-TCMers and the non-Westernized > practitioners of Chinese medicine? > 2. While many people have specialties and specific skillsets and have > practices dedicated to a few major areas, shouldn't we be focusing training > and certifications on diagnosis as the hallmark. It's all well and good to > memorize patterns and learn about different areas, etc, but in my opinion, > this does not necessarily create a well-defined diagnosis which treatments > should be based upon. Diagnosis in Chinese medicine revolves around the 4 > Examinations, not western biomedicine or blood work or sonograms. Weaving > that information into our paradigm is one thing, but replacing it is > another. Setting up board sanctioned specialties, in my opinion, goes a > long way to legitimize the western approach to practicing medicine. It will > not be long for the disintegration of our medicine should that continue. > 3. Other issues have already been raised such as insurance, > misrepresentation to the public, etc. > 4. Another problem is that the majority of patients being seen are women. > One of the largest reasons is gynecology. To try to legitimize treating > women's disorders with a board certification seems quite redundant. > Especially, as fertility disorders are becoming epidemic in this society for > tons of reasons, getting tons of press, etc., board certification has the > appearance of trying to establish a small group as the 'experts' and the > ones to treat this booming industry. > 5. Lastly, I encourage people to not seek degrees and board certifications > solely to provide " legitimacy " to the public. I think it sends a poor > message, one that denigrates our profession. If one has an interest in any > given area, study it, practice it, take CEUs, become an expert in it. Your > patients will notice the difference and you will earn a reputation based > upon it. > > Just my two cents, > Ross > -- > Ross Rosen, LAc, CA, Dipl OM (NCCAOM) > Center for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine > 166 Mountain Ave. > Westfield, NJ 07090 > (908) 654-4333 > www.acupunctureandherbalmedicine.com > http://rossrosen. <http://rossrosen.blogspot.com> blogspot.com > http://rangnangogmi <http://rangnangogminling.blogspot.com> nling.blogspot.com > > > This email contains confidential information intended for the person(s) to > whom it is addressed. If you should receive this in error please contact us > immediately by return mail, or at the above phone number. Unauthorized use > of this information may be in violation of criminal statutes or HIPAA > regulations. Under no circumstances shall this material be retained, > transmitted, or copied by anyone other than the addressee(s). > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 Hi Folks: I think that this issue is both complex and not complex. I have read the pros and cons and have also gone to the ABORM Web site to see what the offering is directly. I think for some folks part of the issue is that there is not a course that is connected to the " Board certification " . I also think that the problem for some people is to call it a " Board " as it has not come out of the gathering of the accredited schools, practitioner organizations or state agencies who create Boards and their certifications. If it were not called a " Board " I think people would probably be less inclined to think that the certification is a problem. Also, there is no indication on the Web site that ABORM is lobbying to have people excluded from malpractice insurance for fertility treatment unless they are ABORM certified--I am not sure where that information arose. If there is any info out there regarding that, please anyone who knows respond. The ABORM members are clearly practitioners who have expertise in fertility assessment and treatment and have gone out of their way (of course, like other fertility experts) to be additionally trained outside of the basics taught in Chinese medicine school. It would be great for them to set up a certification course for those who have not had the ability or opportunity to do so as well. This is what may be the missing link. Some of you know that at our nonprofit Quan Yin Healing Arts Center, we offer a Hepatitis C Professional Certification Course. It is a course from our perspective of Chinese medicine and Western medicine in combination to help people manage HCV. The course also offers 33+ CEUS whether or not someone passes the exam. The teachers are all specialists in HCV from several disciplines-- MD hepatologists, naturopaths, community leaders and activists and Chinese medicine practitioners. While this is not a huge amount of time to study and become certified it gives practitioners a beginning understanding and they are given huge amount of resources to access to continue their education. We are also now offering advanced course as well. This is much more than is offered in the typical Chinese medicine schooling. However, we are not a " Board " of any type and offer the certification based on taking our course and exams. The main goal is to train people to have competency in HCV as well as provide a list of trained HCV practitioners around the world. I do not know if this adds anything to the discussion, however I hope that this issue can be discussed in a manner that helps the whole profession. Yours, Misha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 Misha, I think you've hit many of the points. I know Yosan was going to give a class in conjunction with ABORM, and as a matter of disclosure, when the Dean said he needed helped with the syllabus I volunteered although it was not needed as it turned out. I believe that class is still on in the Fall in Los Angeles. I think Ray Rubio, the founder of ABORM, has all the best intentions, however obviously could not have imagined the implications of the term " Board " and the objections it might bring. In a email to me he was rather disturbed that no one from the petition had contacted him and instead he felt it was an attack without dialogue. It may also be that being here in Los Angeles we know the people involved and as the petition seemed to have more steam on the East Coast they felt disconnected from the organization. Sorry, I have no real information about insurance. Usually, I run into Marilyn Allen on Thursday nights, she teaches in the next room, but managed to miss her this week. Does anyone want to make a call to AAC next week and report back? Doug , " Misha Cohen " <TCMPaths wrote: > > Hi Folks: > I think that this issue is both complex and not complex. > I have read the pros and cons and have also gone to the ABORM Web site to see what the > offering is directly. > I think for some folks part of the issue is that there is not a course that is connected to the > " Board certification " . I also think that the problem for some people is to call it a " Board " as > it has not come out of the gathering of the accredited schools, practitioner organizations > or state agencies who create Boards and their certifications. If it were not called a " Board " I > think people would probably be less inclined to think that the certification is a problem. > Also, there is no indication on the Web site that ABORM is lobbying to have people > excluded from malpractice insurance for fertility treatment unless they are ABORM > certified--I am not sure where that information arose. > If there is any info out there regarding that, please anyone who knows respond. > The ABORM members are clearly practitioners who have expertise in fertility assessment > and treatment and have gone out of their way (of course, like other fertility experts) to be > additionally trained outside of the basics taught in Chinese medicine school. It would be > great for them to set up a certification course for those who have not had the ability or > opportunity to do so as well. This is what may be the missing link. > Some of you know that at our nonprofit Quan Yin Healing Arts Center, we offer a Hepatitis > C Professional Certification Course. It is a course from our perspective of Chinese > medicine and Western medicine in combination to help people manage HCV. The course > also offers 33+ CEUS whether or not someone passes the exam. The teachers are all > specialists in HCV from several disciplines-- MD hepatologists, naturopaths, community > leaders and activists and Chinese medicine practitioners. While this is not a huge amount > of time to study and become certified it gives practitioners a beginning understanding and > they are given huge amount of resources to access to continue their education. We are also > now offering advanced course as well. This is much more than is offered in the typical > Chinese medicine schooling. > However, we are not a " Board " of any type and offer the certification based on taking our > course and exams. The main goal is to train people to have competency in HCV as well as > provide a list of trained HCV practitioners around the world. > I do not know if this adds anything to the discussion, however I hope that this issue can > be discussed in a manner that helps the whole profession. > Yours, > Misha > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Hi folks: I will respond as one of the primary authors, in conjunction with many including Marnae, to try to answer some questions posed here as the dialogue continues. Several of the members of ABORM were contacted without response and there was a growing group of practitioners here in the East Coast who either 1. knew nothing about this until the AT ad came out 2. thought it was a bad direction for the profession for many reasons or 3. were not willing to take a stand. We went out on a limb and conjectured that this was too important a topic to be discussed soley amongst the ABORM board and a few practitioners that thought it was a bad idea and decided that widespread attention would be more likely to come from a full page advertisement of this letter so that the profession as a whole could decide if they wanted this. A few TCM purists out here think it is pretentious and misleading to offer such a specialization as we have all the tools we need already in our training and have been adequately prepared to practice our medicine by NCCAOM and the States, and that knowing the difference between and HSG and FSH would not guide you to the choice of better herbs or points in treeating infertility. The malpractice fears were founded in the previous battles to get gyn removed as an exclusion and the recent attempts of AAC to impose on PCOM the requirement that any practitioner performing " facial acupuncture " would not be covered by malpractice UNLESS they had taken and been certified in the M E Wakefield course of the same topic, which led to an outright rebellion by the faculty. I have been practicing and teaching in NYC for 12 years and have received unprecedented support for this opposition. So from here we go forth. Best, Caroline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 I respect those of you who wish to keep high standards in our profession. I completely understand and respect the sentiment that we, as a profession, must continue to raise standards and improve our place in the medical community. I simply cannot see how it hurts us to form Boards of specialization. This is what is done in the medical field all the time. Even in Western Reproductive Medicine, there are Board Certified specialists, and there are doctors who call themselves 'specialists' who are NOT board certified. The Reproductive Endocrinoliogist that I work with in San Antonio is Board Certified in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. He is an Infertility Specialist. However, there are several other OB/GYN's in our area that perform IVF and treat Infertility and call themselves specialists that ARE NOT Board Certified in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. This is the same model that ABORM seems to be adopting. Any licensed practitioner is free to claim to be a specialist. As things currently stand - ANY acupuncturist can represent themselves as a Fertility Specialist - whether they have any specialized knowledge or training of any kind. Just because they SAY they are. And nobody can tell them to do any differently. With ABORM certification, anybody can STILL call themselves a reproductive specialist, whether they are certified by ABORM or NOT. Here is the differI respect those of you who wish to keep high standards in our profession. I completely understand and respect the sentiment that we, as a profession, must continue to raise standards and improve our standing in the medical community. I simply cannot see how it hurts us to form Boards of specialization. This is done in the medical field all the time. Even in Western Reproductive Medicine, there are Board Certified specialists, and there are doctors who call themselves 'specialists' who are NOT board certified. The Reproductive Endocrinologist that I work with in San Antonio is Board Certified in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. He is an Infertility Specialist. However, there are several other OB/GYN's in our area that perform IVF and treat Infertility and call themselves specialists that ARE NOT Board Certified in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Both have the same rights and benefits when it comes to scope of practice. This is the same model that ABORM seems to be adopting. Any licensed practitioner is free to claim to be a specialist. As things currently stand - ANY acupuncturist can represent themselves as a Fertility Specialist - whether or not they have any specialized knowledge or training of any kind. Anyone is free to represent themselves as a qualified reproductive acupuncturist JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY that they are. And nobody can tell them to do any differently. With ABORM certification, anybody can STILL call themselves a reproductive specialist, whether they are certified by ABORM or NOT. Here is the difference: With the formation of ABORM, consumers now have some reference point, some means of distinguishing from among the so called, " specialists. " ABORM may not be perfect. How could it be? It is in its infancy. ABORM may look very different in ten years. But for right now, I hardly see how setting a minimum bar for specialized knowledge is detrimental to our profession. And I CERTAINLY do not see how it is ill begotten, unethical, or bogus, as some of our colleagues would have you believe. ABORM is not a vehicle to get a few fancy letters after our names. It is a legitimate test of basic understanding of the principles that govern the practice of modern Oriental Reproductive Medicine. Without ABORM, how will the infertile consumer possibly distinguish one so called " specialist " from another?? SUPPORT ABORM. It is not perfect, but it is good. It is not harmful to our profession, it is of great benefit. Like all things organizational, it will take time to develop and mature. But we must start somewhere and we must start now. If we wait until such certifying boards are without flaws and satisfy the needs and concerns of everybody................well, we all know that day will never come. Support ABORM NOW. Instead of complaining and trying to tear down this intrepid effort, get involved and help shape it into the regulating agency that best represents your views. DO something constructive instead of trying to stop what is being done. David Karchmer The Texas Center for Reproductive Acupuncture Registered for the 2008 ABORM Exam , marnae ergil <marnae wrote: > > Dear CHAers > > Below is an open letter written by several people, > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a > major political debate on this forum. If you agree > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that > is fine. > > THanks, > > Marnae > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine, > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed, > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members > of local and national acupuncture societies and > accredited certifying boards, would like to > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose > this because: > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this > certification > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or > condition. Specialty certification imposes false > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for > this other than financial gain to the parties > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine > will be compromised. > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a > board > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large, > independent certifying boards that comply with > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency. > ABMS defines specialty certification as ?of > significance for physicians preparing for careers in > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that > field? (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand, > states that their goal is to ?set the standard of care > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized > the need for a certification to ensure that > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing > so with a qualified knowledge and experience.? We > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading > our medicine down the wrong path. > > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be > provided > > How is the content material determined? Has the board > gone through the process of making sure that their > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous > traditions that exist? Does it give ?full recognition > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also > providing a unified set of national standards for safe > and competent practice?? (NCCAOM website). The > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM, > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility > issues, and opens up the potential that this will > happen to all specialties that are treated by > acupuncture and Oriental medicine. > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and > exclusionary > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers > take such a certification into account when setting > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our > profession if this is allowed to happen. > > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage > rather than benefit our profession. > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing > education classes, we find that the structure as > presented may also be misleading to the public. It > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat > fertility patients with more authority than other > practitioners. Education in western evaluative > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily > make us better acupuncturists. > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they > practice and have respect for the good intentions of > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this > trend ill conceived. > > If you would like to support this opposition, please > add your name to the petition by emailing > boycottaborm with your name, credentials, > state in which you practice, and any organization that > you represent. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 To all those opposing the formation of ABORM, With respect, I would like to state that I simply do not understand how the formation of a specialty board would in any way damage the profession of TCM in America. The group of practitioners who are vocalizing this dissent seem to be forgetting one basic notion: that it is our job as healthcare professionals to provide our patients with the best possible care, and above all, to do no harm. Suggesting that it is not important to know the difference between HCG and FSH, because it would not impact the choice in herbs we might prescribe, is flagrantly irresponsible, and in and of itself demonstrates a need for a board like ABORM. Simply put, the treatment of infertility requires detailed knowledge of Western Medicine, due to the fact that a vast number of fertility patients will be SIMULTANEOUSLY USING WESTERN FERTILITY MEDICATION WHILE WE ARE TREATING THEM!! Ignoring a patients western diagnosis in this case could inhibit or even ruin her chances of having a baby. The ABORM exam will at least show a basic level of competence in the realm of western fertility treatments, which should bring patients peace of mind while dealing with this costly, emotional and often painful issue. Of course, for the patient who is only using TCM in their efforts to conceive, one might argue that we as herbalists can differentiate between yin, yang or qi deficiency, etc., but what argument can be set in place to oppose knowing the effects of our herbs on the endocrine system and fertility medications? Additionally, should we not know when to refer out for structural tests, so that we don't waste our patient's time and money? Is it not our job to work with our patients, and to guide them through their health crisis' with grace? I ALWAYS recommend that my fertility patients get baseline blood work and ultrasound, so that I know where I am starting from. It is my opinion that we should be striving to integrate with and educate our MD colleagues about the effects of TCM on fertility, so that we can provide the most comprehensive care possible to our patients. Having a board such as ABORM puts in place a basic level of competency that one should have in order to go forth as a " specialist " in the area of fertility. The notion that we are provided with a sufficient body of knowledge in school to treat ALL conditions as GP's is preposterous. I went to great lengths for the duration of my clinical internship to specialize in women's health, and still feel that it was just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, general practitioners are of great benefit to the public, but so are people who are drawn to know their particular niche in great detail. Those who take the time, and spend the energy and money to specialize, should be so credited. I would advocate for specialty boards for many of the conditions that we commonly treat, as the professional community sees fit. I truly hope that those who are leading this opposition will re-consider their position, and ask themselves what motivates it in the first place? It is clearly in the best interest of our patients to create ways to measure competence, especially when it comes to specialties that require integrative knowledge in order to be successful. Sincerely, Laura Erlich, LAc, MTOM _______________ More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us & ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM\ _mini_2G_0507 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Laura, An important issue to remember is insurance reimbursal, as well as malpractice insurance. When you have a licensure in place such as ABORM, people on the outside tend to consider those not licensed by them to be not necessarily on the same level of competence or expertise. That can lead to denials of claims or exemptions to coverage. I would have much less of a problem if there was an association (however loose) with a national organization such as NCCAOM, and the licensure would be accompanied by specific courses and a test. That would level the playing field. Does that make sense? Laura Erlich <lauraerlich wrote: To all those opposing the formation of ABORM, With respect, I would like to state that I simply do not understand how the formation of a specialty board would in any way damage the profession of TCM in America. The group of practitioners who are vocalizing this dissent seem to be forgetting one basic notion: that it is our job as healthcare professionals to provide our patients with the best possible care, and above all, to do no harm. Suggesting that it is not important to know the difference between HCG and FSH, because it would not impact the choice in herbs we might prescribe, is flagrantly irresponsible, and in and of itself demonstrates a need for a board like ABORM. Simply put, the treatment of infertility requires detailed knowledge of Western Medicine, due to the fact that a vast number of fertility patients will be SIMULTANEOUSLY USING WESTERN FERTILITY MEDICATION WHILE WE ARE TREATING THEM!! Ignoring a patients western diagnosis in this case could inhibit or even ruin her chances of having a baby. The ABORM exam will at least show a basic level of competence in the realm of western fertility treatments, which should bring patients peace of mind while dealing with this costly, emotional and often painful issue. Of course, for the patient who is only using TCM in their efforts to conceive, one might argue that we as herbalists can differentiate between yin, yang or qi deficiency, etc., but what argument can be set in place to oppose knowing the effects of our herbs on the endocrine system and fertility medications? Additionally, should we not know when to refer out for structural tests, so that we don't waste our patient's time and money? Is it not our job to work with our patients, and to guide them through their health crisis' with grace? I ALWAYS recommend that my fertility patients get baseline blood work and ultrasound, so that I know where I am starting from. It is my opinion that we should be striving to integrate with and educate our MD colleagues about the effects of TCM on fertility, so that we can provide the most comprehensive care possible to our patients. Having a board such as ABORM puts in place a basic level of competency that one should have in order to go forth as a " specialist " in the area of fertility. The notion that we are provided with a sufficient body of knowledge in school to treat ALL conditions as GP's is preposterous. I went to great lengths for the duration of my clinical internship to specialize in women's health, and still feel that it was just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, general practitioners are of great benefit to the public, but so are people who are drawn to know their particular niche in great detail. Those who take the time, and spend the energy and money to specialize, should be so credited. I would advocate for specialty boards for many of the conditions that we commonly treat, as the professional community sees fit. I truly hope that those who are leading this opposition will re-consider their position, and ask themselves what motivates it in the first place? It is clearly in the best interest of our patients to create ways to measure competence, especially when it comes to specialties that require integrative knowledge in order to be successful. Sincerely, Laura Erlich, LAc, MTOM _______________ More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us & ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM\ _mini_2G_0507 Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including a practitioner's directory and a moderated discussion forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Laura: With all due respect, you may have missed the point of the petition. We are in no way suggesting that knowledge of Western medicine is not crucial to giving your patients the best service and treatment. An exam without appropriate training is pointless as it does not clearly identify that knowing what the tests are in a multiple choice format means that one understands the implications of this in relation to our TCM treatments. It is actually a disservice to patients to suggest that more letters after your name because you passed an exam without appropriate advanced training (which you also identified is lacking in the basic training of practitioners) makes you somehow better qualified then someone who may have done the work and study to understand what the implications are of western tests in the context of our medicine, despite not having the " stamp of approval " from a board. Of course this exam is optional, but we are concerned that this is a dangerous trend, because someday it may not be and do you want to be required to take an exam for every thing you treat or pay malpractice premiums or dues to specialty groups to do what you already do? We are advocating for training and want the word to be out there for all practitioners to judge. If the profession decides that this is a trend they need to have in order to be accepted by Western Medicine (by following them as a role model) then let the entire community decide this, not a few well-qualified and well-intentioned folks who may not have considered all the possible implications of the structure they have proposed. Caroline Radice, MS LAc CA NCCAOM (which is plenty) , " Laura Erlich " <lauraerlich wrote: > > To all those opposing the formation of ABORM, > > With respect, I would like to state that I simply do not understand how the > formation of a specialty board would in any way damage the profession of TCM > in America. The group of practitioners who are vocalizing this dissent seem > to be forgetting one basic notion: that it is our job as healthcare > professionals to provide our patients with the best possible care, and above > all, to do no harm. Suggesting that it is not important to know the > difference between HCG and FSH, because it would not impact the choice in > herbs we might prescribe, is flagrantly irresponsible, and in and of itself > demonstrates a need for a board like ABORM. Simply put, the treatment of > infertility requires detailed knowledge of Western Medicine, due to the fact > that a vast number of fertility patients will be SIMULTANEOUSLY USING > WESTERN FERTILITY MEDICATION WHILE WE ARE TREATING THEM!! Ignoring a > patients western diagnosis in this case could inhibit or even ruin her > chances of having a baby. The ABORM exam will at least show a basic level > of competence in the realm of western fertility treatments, which should > bring patients peace of mind while dealing with this costly, emotional and > often painful issue. > > Of course, for the patient who is only using TCM in their efforts to > conceive, one might argue that we as herbalists can differentiate between > yin, yang or qi deficiency, etc., but what argument can be set in place to > oppose knowing the effects of our herbs on the endocrine system and > fertility medications? Additionally, should we not know when to refer out > for structural tests, so that we don't waste our patient's time and money? > Is it not our job to work with our patients, and to guide them through their > health crisis' with grace? I ALWAYS recommend that my fertility patients > get baseline blood work and ultrasound, so that I know where I am starting > from. It is my opinion that we should be striving to integrate with and > educate our MD colleagues about the effects of TCM on fertility, so that we > can provide the most comprehensive care possible to our patients. Having a > board such as ABORM puts in place a basic level of competency that one > should have in order to go forth as a " specialist " in the area of fertility. > > The notion that we are provided with a sufficient body of knowledge in > school to treat ALL conditions as GP's is preposterous. I went to great > lengths for the duration of my clinical internship to specialize in women's > health, and still feel that it was just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, > general practitioners are of great benefit to the public, but so are people > who are drawn to know their particular niche in great detail. Those who > take the time, and spend the energy and money to specialize, should be so > credited. I would advocate for specialty boards for many of the conditions > that we commonly treat, as the professional community sees fit. > > I truly hope that those who are leading this opposition will re- consider > their position, and ask themselves what motivates it in the first place? It > is clearly in the best interest of our patients to create ways to measure > competence, especially when it comes to specialties that require integrative > knowledge in order to be successful. > > Sincerely, > Laura Erlich, LAc, MTOM > > _______________ > More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. > http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en- us & ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 > 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.