| --Type Summary Here-- |
| Letters of Opposition |
| The following schools and organizations have indicated opposition to advancement in the education and practice of Oriental medicine in California, by submitting testimony in opposition to AB 1943. |
| Santa Barbara College of Oriental Medicine |
| Pacific College of Oriental Medicine - San Diego |
| Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine |
| Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine - Second Letter |
| Santa Barbara College of Oriental Medicine |
| The bill is a totally unnecessary response to some old problems. I think it is obvious to all schools (that) we are doing a good job handling the profession - especially with the national accreditation commission. There has been no reputable evidence that any of the points in this bill are needed or required. |
| JoAnn Tall, LAc, DOM |
| President |
| * * * |
| Pacific College of Oriental Medicine - San Diego |
| Since the safety record of Chinese medicine in California is undisputable, I think the legislation proposed is misplaced. Any increase in hours in schools should be market driven. That is, it should be based on demand from students and patients. Some schools have responded to that, and other schools, using their best judgement, have not. That is the way educational standards should be developed in this profession. |
| Jack Miller, LAc, MA (Ed) |
| President |
| * * * |
| Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine |
| [The following is a copy of a letter sent from CCAOM to Assemblywoman Chu on February 26, 2002.] |
| Dear Representative Chu: |
| We are writing to you on behalf of the Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (CCAOM), a national organization representing 45 colleges of acupuncture and Oriental medicine located throughout the USA. We have 24 CCAOM member colleges plus two branch campuses that are California-approved. |
| We would like to meet with you in Sacramento on Thursday, March 7, 2002. Lixin Huang, President of teh American Colelge of Traditional Chinese Medicine in California, will call your office this afternoon or tomorrow to set up an appointment. |
| We are writing to request that you withdraw your proposed bill AB 1943. There are several very significant problems with the proposed bill. Most importantly, passage of this measure would be very detrimental to the California-approved colleges, our students and ultimately the consumer of our medicine, our patients. The reasons for our request are as follows: |
| 1. There is no demonstrated need to raise the hours. Our graduates are very competent, patient satisfaction is high, and the field's safety record in California and nationally is superb. |
| 2. The adverse financial impact on the students, colleges and ultimately the patients would be very significant. From an initial analysis, the proposed increase in hours would cost students at all California-approved colleges at least $12 million, which will impact not only the ability of students to pay their educational loans, but may also make the education in this field beyond the reach of financially disadvantaged students. |
| 3. State licensure laws are designed to set the basic entry-level standards into a field, not the most advanced levels. Entry-level for acupuncture and Oriental medicine in the U.S., as recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, is the master's degree. A 4,000-hour acupuncture/Oriental medicine educational training program leading to a master's degree is extremely unreasonable and inappropriate. It may also adversely impact the ability of California colleges to attract students who intend to practice outside of California, as all other states use national standards as their main criteria for state licensure. Currently, many students at California colleges are from throughout the USA. |
| 4. We acknowledge that the hours could be raised and have suggested a 2,600 to 2,800-hour compromise with the practitioners who are attempting to raise the educational training hours. A 2,600-2,800-hour master's program, while eing quite lengthy, might be acceptable. |
| 5. The practitioners who are recommending the raise in educational training would not themselves have to meet the new educational standards, nor have they agreed to do so. We believe that they should be. |
| 6. Furthermore, it is very important to emphasize that we are training practitioners in acupuncture and Oriental medicine, not in Western medicine. Students learn a sufficient amount of Western medicine to do a limited biomedical assessment and know a) how to communicate with Western medical providers and b) when to refer patients to Western health care providers. For clarification, it is important that you understand that our practitioners do "acupuncture and Oriental medicine diagnosis and treatment." |
| 7. The Department of Consumer Affairs rejected the same proposed raise in hours last year due to the lack of demonstrated need and financial support. |
| 8. The Joint Legislative Sunset Review is in process now, and this bill appears that it is attempting to override that process. |
| 9. As you probably know, since your husband sits on the California Acupuncture Board, the California Acupuncture Board currently has an Educational Task Force discussing competencies, subject matters and training length, and this bill appears that it is attempting to circumvent the sunset review process as well. We are also concerned that because your husband sits on the Acupuncture Board, that your bill may be viewed in a different light than a bill introduced by someone not related to a board member. |
| 10. Forty-one states plus Washington, D.C. utilize national standards. Only California does not. We strongly recommend that instead of AB 1943, that California adopt national standards as the primary basis for licensing acupuncture and Oriental medicine providers. The two main national criteria include graduation from an accredited/candidate college and passage of the national certification commission. The national accreditation commission has established the appropriate educational training requirements for our field. |
| 11. In addition, the colleges do not support the proposed AB 1943 as it micromanages our educational training programs and thus restricts our academic freedom. |
| 12. There are several other major problems with this bill. |
| Therefore, we request to meet with you on March 7, 2002 to further discuss this situation. We will contact your office this week to confirm an appointment time. |
| Yours sincerely, |
| Elizabeth A. Goldblatt, PhD, President, Portland, OR |
| Jack Miller, MEd, LAc, Vice-president, San Diego, CA |
| Lixin Huang, MA, Secretary, San Francisco, CA |
| Shen Ping Liang, PhD, LAc, Houston, Texas |
| Steve Given, LAc, Seattle, WA |
| Barbara Ellrich, Columbia, MD |
| Anthony Abbate, LAc, Santa Fe, NM |
| All of the above persons work at California-approced acupuncture/Oriental medicine educational institutions. |
| CC: The Honorable Senator John Burton |
| Senator Liz Figueroa, Chair of the Joint Legislative Susnet Review Committee |
| Kristin Triepke, Senior Consultant, Senate Committee on Business & Professions |
| Jay J. DeFuria, Principal Consultant, Senate Commisttee on Business & Professions |
| Kathleen Hamilton, Executive Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs |
| Marilyn Nielson, Executive Director, California Acupuncture Board |
| Response from the Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine |
| March 6, 2002 |
| Ted Gagliano Priebe, LAc |
| President |
| NGAOM, OPEIU 62, AFL-CIO |
| 3445 Pacific Coast Highway |
| Suite 300 |
| Torrance, CA 90505 |
| The comments below are in response to your "Open Letter to the Profession" dated March 2, 2002. |
| In this letter, you make several erroneous comments. These comments are consistent with those made by a few practitioners, and not consistent with the view of many in our profession, including many licensed acupuncturists. In addition to pointing out the errors listed below, we would like to strongly encourage you to be more accurate, and communicate in a way that will encourage dialog, rather than continue to publish the divisive and acrimonious innuendos that makes up much of your letter. |
| The first problem concerns communication with elected officials. In a democratic society, communication with elected or appointed state officials does not constitute undue influence of that official. It is the obligation as well as the right of members of our society to communicate with elected and appointed officials in our government about how we feel. If we feel that a position, proposed legislation or any other issue is a threat to our profession, we have an obligation to point this out to those in a position to impact our profession. There has been no attempt by any member of the Council of Colleges to hide our position on any issue, unduly influence any state officials beyond educating that individual regarding our position on issues within our profession. Nor is it a conflict to employ the services of a lobbyist, something you clearly cannot object to since there is a lobbyist supporting your position. |
| Your assertion that AB 1943 will "assure greater safety, improved training for better effectiveness, and gives acupuncturists educational equity with all other medical providers thus paving the way for increased participation in the American healthcare system" is also clearly incorrect. The first error is the assumption that the number of hours, or the increase in the number of hours, will result in increased competency of a graduate. Competency is based on the quality of the education, not the number of hours devoted to it. What is done during those hours, how the curriculum is conceived, managed and executed, and the quality of the teaching is of paramount importance. It is also not true that arbitrarily increasing hours to 3,200 hours or even 4,000 hours will result in parity or increased participation in the healthcare system. The participation we enjoy in our healthcare system, and the respect we enjoy from our colleagues, is dependent on the quality of our work and the satisfaction of our patients, not on statutory changes in the hours required to graduate in one state. |
| Your renewed assertion that the members of the Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine are opposed to improving our profession is a clear statement of your lack of understanding of this profession. The educational institutions that make up the Council of Colleges reflect the diversity and richness of our profession. Those of us who are involved in the educational institutions in acupuncture and Oriental medicine are made up of acupuncturists, educators (and) researchers, all who put many hours, often unpaid, into improving the education our graduates receive, and our profession at large. The results are clear and unambiguous. Our patient satisfaction level is high. Our safety record is unparalleled in the healthcare industry. The recognition of the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine by the United States Department of Education and the recognition of the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies of the National Organization for Competency Assurance reflects that very high standard that ACAOM and the NCCAOM have set for our education and certification of our graduates. |
| Our participation in the California Acupuncture Board Competencies and Outcomes Task Force does not reflect a belief on our part that our curriculum is deficient or not in compliant with current California law. Our participation is representative of our ongoing effort to participate in dialog with other members of our profession on the issues affecting all of us, and to continue our ongoing efforts, efforts that long predate the task force, to assess and where needed improve our institutions and our profession. |
| We must once again correct your assertion that your interpretation of "primary care provider" requires massive changes in the current educational requirement. As was pointed out by Donald Chang, attorney for the California Acupuncture Board, our status is based on a statute that requires us to be able to assess and treat based on the principles of Oriental medicine, and make an assessment for the basis of referral, a requirement consistent with independent provider status. The nomenclature in the current acupuncture law reflects this point. We as acupuncturists are independent providers. This position was again supported by statements made to the task force by Stephen Rosenblatt, MD, LAc, one of the framers of the current acupuncture law. Your implication that the educational institutions are not currently training independent providers is not correct. Your misinterpretation of current California law is a disservice to the profession and the public. |
| The position of the Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine is that the people of the state of California are best served by the following. |
| 1. All California approved schools should be required to have accredited or have candidate status with the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine. This is the best way to insure that all candidates for licensure have the best possible education in acupuncture and Oriental medicine. |
| 2. There is no demonstrated need to raise educational hours. Our graduates are very competent, patient satisfaction is high, and the field's safety record in California and nationally is superb. The adverse financial impact on students, institutions and patients would be very high should the hours be raised to the 3,200 to 4,000 hour level. |
| 3. Licensure should in part be based on the successful completion of the acupuncture and herbal exams administered by the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine. |
| 4. Acupuncturists should continue to assess their patient within the scope of acupuncture and Oriental medicine, and a limited biomedical assessment for the purpose of making referrals to biomedical practitioners and insurance billing. |
| Sincerely, |
| Liza Goldblatt, PhD, President, Portland OR |
| Jack Miller, MEd, LAc, Vice-President, San Diego, CA |
| Barbara Ellrich, Treasurer, Columbia, MD |
| Lixin Huang, MS, Secretary, San Francisco, CA |
| Shen Ping Liang, PhD, LAc, Member-at-Large, Houston, TX |
| Steve Given, LAc, Member-at-Large, Seattle, WA |