Digest Number 1251: Message 19 re Lack of Standards

January 17, 2006

" Mike states:

You have eluded to an important but commonly overlooked issue plaguing

our

profession, a lack of educational rigor or standards. The concept of

OM/TCM

as an education in the US has become less than ideal, which is why I

think

that we have such disparity w/i the profession. The schools that are

CA

approved vs. those who are not. Even the programs that are CA

recognized

are not necessarily up to Asian standards. Most of our schools try

hard but

few offer most of the pre-med type science courses that are taught to

students even in China. "

Thank you, Mike. Lack of standards, and lack of uniformity of standards, will

continue to be a problem in the U.S. until each state imposes relatively uniform

licensing standards, including academic requirements. Unfortunately, many OM

schools lack regional accreditation (this means academic accreditation, like

" real " colleges and universities must obtain), as opposed to " trade school "

accreditation, which allows students to obtain federal financial aid, take the

boards, and apply for a license, while the institution is held to minimal

admission and academic standards. If you don't understand the difference, I

encourage you to visit the U.S. Department of Education website. The

accreditation most OM schools currently hold is the same type that secretarial

schools and one-year undertaking programs are required to have, nothing more.

Why don't the OM schools seek regional accreditation, like " real " colleges and

universities?

Why indeed. The OM school administrators see no financial incentive to

meeting the higher admission and academic standards necessary to obtain regional

accreditation, since they will have to " turn away " some students. I am

currently studying OM along with individuals who have less than two years of

college education and NO science background. They would never meet admission

standards for an allopathic medical college. In fact, these students would be

unable to meet admission standards for any regionally accredited Masters degree

program. They probably couldn't gain admission to the two year nursing program

at the state community college. The local chiropractic school has more rigorous

admission standards, and courses. At least they require a 1.7 grade point

average for admission..... (for you non-US readers, 1.7 on a 4.0 scale is not

considered to be a very good grade point average, and suggests that the student

will not perform well academically).

If you have little more than fifty bucks and a crayon to fill out the form,

you can be admitted to most OM schools in the USA today. By contrast, my

professors all had to obtain high scores on admission tests before they could be

admitted to study TCM in China, and were required to take real, college-level

science courses before doing so. Until forced to do so, it would seem that few

OM schools will voluntarily meet and maintain regional accreditation standards.

Why? In part, perhaps, due to lack of understanding, or professional ethics.

I've noticed that few TCM school administrators have any academic administration

training or experience. This would never be the case in a " real " college or

university. Even fewer have any actual training or experience in health

sciences academic administration. The TCM schools will, for the most part,

place an individual with a " PhD " in Theology or some other totally irrelevant

field in an academic administration position, rather than an individual with

bona fide academic administration training and experience. Even our local

junior colleges require that the administrator have a terminal degree in

academic administration, as a minimal requirement. Why, then, is the concept

of professional academic administration so elusive in the field of Oriental

Medicine?

On to the subject of academic standards. My husband has taught at a major

university medical school for almost thirty years, and was positively horrified

to learn that most of my classmates have never taken gross human anatomy and

have no actual concept of where major organs and blood vessels might be located.

Because these individuals have only studied anatomy from a (junior

college-level) textbook, they have no concept of the many anomalous

presentations of organs and vessels possible in the human body. But they

discuss " deep needling " , point injection, and other concepts with him,

blissfully unaware of how frightening their lack of knowledge is to " real "

medical professionals. And then they ask me why the mean old MDs and DCs want

to marginalize OM, and make " acupuncturists " work under direction of a

" professional " (yes, legislation is being presented in a number of states to

" control " the practice of OM in this manner). Although most MDs and DCs have

little or no ability

to actually supervise the practice of Oriental Medicine, their knowledge of

basic sciences, including gross human anatomy, is sadly superior, and causes

those with no understanding of OM (read: legislators/regulators) to believe that

we need the " supervision " of these individuals in order to protect the public

health (that's what the medical lobbyists are telling them).

The practice of Oriental Medicine is reaching a critical point in the USA.

Many of you started to practice before the days of schools, licenses, and

standards, and will howl vociferously about what I've detailed above, however,

you were all " lucky " enough to be flying below the radar of medical

associations, legislators and regulators. As a result of your own success, OM

has become far more visible, and is coming under increased scrutiny. I'm not

attacking your worth or achievements. You were very dedicated to developing

yourself as professionals and to continued learning. The Mayo brothers studied

allopathic medicine for a matter of months before opening their now world-famous

Clinic. I'm not suggesting that they were less viable practitioners because

they did not study medicine for four years. But allopathic medicine has

changed, and so must OM, if it is to survive.

Things need to change in order for OM to survive and develop in the USA.

Schools need to meet regional accreditation standards, like any other college or

university. That will ensure that there are minimal admission and academic

standards. The time has also come for an entry-level doctorate degree in

Oriental Medicine. I personally support the accreditation of O.M.D degree

programs in the United States. Why? Because the Department of Education has

been lobbied by the AMA, chiropractors, and other interested parties into

" supporting " a doctoral degree for OM " practitioners " , but one with the " DAOM "

designation. Why? So no one will mistake us for being real medical

professionals, that's why.

O.M.D. is the most accurate, recognizable, and concise designation. It has a

tradition of use in the US, as well as other nations. Without a single,

recognizable, entry-level doctorate, we will never achieve uniform licensing

laws between the states, licensing reciprocity between the states will remain an

elusive dream, and recognition of the profession by Medicare/Medicaid/

insurance programs will continue to founder. With uniform academic and

licensing standards, we will be able to pursue hospital based training and

professional standing, student loan forgiveness programs, and perhaps even

standing in the medical corps of the United States Armed Forces (I believe that

active military and veterans deserve access to OM treatments, too).

For those of you that are interested, I recently received this information

from the California-based NOMAA accreditation agency, and encourage you to

attend or at least send written support:

" NOMAA has submitted a Petition for recognition by the U.S. Secretary of

Education in compliance with the Criteria for Secretarial Recognition (34 CFR

Part 602) on June 30 2005; there is no approval process for curriculum by the

USDE. NOMAA has earned the endorsement of the Council of Acupuncture and

Oriental Medicine Associations and the Council on Oriental Medicine Education,

representing the majority of Primary Care Practitioners in the United States, as

these organizations continue to be instrumental in the development of the NOMAA

curriculum. NOMAA standards have been available for review and comment on the

nomaa.org website for two years and have been provided to all interested

Regulatory Agencies, Educational Institutions, Professional Associations and

individuals.

The NOMAA, Doctor of Oriental Medicine (OMD) educational program meets and

exceeds the world Gold standard (Asia) as well as California 2005 requirements

as adopted in AB 1943. B & P Code Section 4939(b) requires a minimum 3,000-hour

curriculum requirement, effective January 1, 2005. NOMAA standards provide

training that is consistent with the known physiological basis of Oriental and

standard medicine with evidence-based teaching methodologies (EBM) and

competency based training (CBT) demonstrated by Technical Assessment

requirements.

The Doctor of Oriental Medicine (OMD) First-professional doctoral degree

logically follows other health professional’s educational requirements and

standards in relation to role and responsibility, scope of practice and

licensure, in order to communicate and maintain continuity of care between

professions for public safety and welfare. Universities teaching Oriental

medicine in China, Korea, Japan and other countries train their students in

human physiology, standard pathology and modern diagnostic methods in order to

integrate the utilization of Oriental medicine modalities and herbs with

standard medical procedures and medications.

NOMAA has aligned its standards and criteria to conform to 34 CFR Part 602 of

the USDE regulations. Once recognized by the Secretary of Education, (May 06)

institutions accredited by NOMAA, will be eligible for Title IV funding. The

accreditation process in the United States is entirely voluntary on the part of

an institution.

At its meeting on May 26, 2005, the Commission of the National Oriental

Medicine Accreditation Agency (NOMAA) acted on the accreditation status of South

Baylo University.

The Commission made the following decision: South Baylo University is granted

Initial Accreditation (2010) with the following condition that by December 31,

2007, the institution submits a Progress Report to the Commission to demonstrate

that satisfactory progress is made toward full implementation of the OMD

program.

NOMAA Commission will meet on Saturday February 25, 2006 at

11AM-2PM in the Board Room - 721 N. Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92801.

We would welcome your attendance/observation and written endorsment.

NOMAA, through its rigorous programmatic standards, along with comprehensive

institutional requirements and its supporting policies and procedures will raise

educational standards and promote the highest quality in the Oriental Medicine

profession.

NOMAA has other Institutions in California and other states in the

Application/Accreditation process and will be announced over the next few

months. If you have Institutions that are capable of meeting the NOMAA standard

please encourage them to apply. "

If we do not take these measures to develop and protect our profession, other,

more organized, scientific and methodical entities will be happy to step in and

take over for us.

Best Regards,

Rachel H. Peterman, M.S., J.D.

Third year OM Student

(Not affiliated with NOMAA)

>>Message: 19

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:05:08 +0000

" mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1

Re: Weight Loss Acupuncture Protocol

Eric states,

" Westerners who don't

understand basic concepts in CM are actually the butt of the jokes of

tens of thousands of educated practitioners? "