The Real News (Cal)

[Guest guest]

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

the backcourt (Appropriations Committee). Available information from

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

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

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

preliminary versions appeared here as posts)

http://www.jreidomd.blogspot.com

 

Succinctly, the issues at the moment are:

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

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

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

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

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

portion :

 

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

providing acupuncture treatment " within the definition of the treatment

_modality_ called acupuncture (4927 d).

 

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

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

they possibly be competent?

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

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

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

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

 

The second reason is to block reimbursement for office visit charges (because

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

opinion consults.

 

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

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

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

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

Senator Figueroa, and ongoing support of AB1113 by several acupuncture

organizations.

 

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

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

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

specific

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

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

implemented as _regulations_.

 

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

 

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

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

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

opposed to knowledgeable acupuncturists). The legal opinion that merely

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

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

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

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

attorney give a different interpretation that suits their current aims.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

role in California as primary care providers performing diagnostic evaluation

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

There ARE ways to turn this mess around.

Next I will elaborate on a pro-active approach.

 

This has been a public service announcement.

Joe Reid 2005 May 19

http://www.jreidomd.blogspot.com