Specialty Board Conversation

[Guest guest]

This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

marnaecrystal

Friday, September 21, 2007 11:59 AM

Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

Let me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the

recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general

and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with

differing views expressing them and letting the community know how

you feel.

 

In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and

specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in

Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning

discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very

informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week,

the first phone conference among this group was held. The group

consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee,

president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO

of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline

Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status

or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people

talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of

conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our

conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to

agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The

discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not

specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM

create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on

the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from

CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional

members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include:

Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty

board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification

definitions and more.

 

I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an

official group, it is a group that came together because of the

amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent

weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the

conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or

thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While

I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to

ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive

position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear

what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all,

let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a

positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate.

If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I

suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the

conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward

in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near

future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation

about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators

of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the

appropriate time.

 

Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad

in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come

out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week

occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able

to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general

opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine,

including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture

Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret

that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that

future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards,

rather than any particular board.

 

Thank you.

 

Marnae

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Marnae, I'm glad the discussion is getting productive. CHA hasn't been as

acrimonious as

other Lists and certainly no one here is rude.

As far as the suggestion that CHA or the other lists pass on comments to the

AAAOM, that

really won't be possible. We can't quote others here without their permission. I

think if the

AAAOM sets up its own site I think that should be sufficient. I would remind

others not to

quote CHA generated comments as well.

 

Doug

 

 

 

Marnae wrote "

But, above all,

let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a

positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate.

If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I

suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the

conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward

in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near

future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation

about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators

of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the

appropriate time.

 

 

, " marnaecrystal " <marnae wrote:

>

> Let me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the

> recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general

> and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with

> differing views expressing them and letting the community know how

> you feel.

>

> In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and

> specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in

> Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning

> discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very

> informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week,

> the first phone conference among this group was held. The group

> consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee,

> president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO

> of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline

> Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status

> or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people

> talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of

> conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our

> conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to

> agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The

> discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not

> specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM

> create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on

> the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from

> CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional

> members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include:

> Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty

> board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification

> definitions and more.

>

> I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an

> official group, it is a group that came together because of the

> amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent

> weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the

> conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or

> thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While

> I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to

> ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive

> position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear

> what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all,

> let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a

> positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate.

> If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I

> suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the

> conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward

> in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near

> future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation

> about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators

> of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the

> appropriate time.

>

> Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad

> in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come

> out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week

> occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able

> to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general

> opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine,

> including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture

> Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret

> that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that

> future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards,

> rather than any particular board.

>

> Thank you.

>

> Marnae

>

[Guest guest]

To be honest, I stopped reading the posts on this topic a long time

ago. It started to get like a religious or political debate, where

neither side was listening to the other, and animosity grew larger

by the day. My only comment for your discussion group: Make it a

part of all specialty boards' charters a policy to not imply

superior training or efficacy by members of the board. That will go

a long way to deter attacks from people who do not want to be part

of these specialty boards and feel that their practice is threatend

by them.

 

- Bill

 

 

, " marnaecrystal "

<marnae wrote:

>

> Let me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the

> recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in

general

> and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with

> differing views expressing them and letting the community know how

> you feel.

>

> In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and

> specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in

> Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning

> discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very

> informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week,

> the first phone conference among this group was held. The group

> consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee,

> president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook,

CEO

> of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and

Caroline

> Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official

status

> or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people

> talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of

> conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our

> conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able

to

> agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The

> discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not

> specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM

> create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on

> the topic. Members of the group should include representatives

from

> CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional

> members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include:

> Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a

specialty

> board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification

> definitions and more.

>

> I think that it is important to note again that while this is not

an

> official group, it is a group that came together because of the

> amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent

> weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the

> conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something

or

> thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation.

While

> I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like

to

> ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive

> position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear

> what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all,

> let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a

> positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or

inappropriate.

> If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I

> suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the

> conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move

forward

> in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the

near

> future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation

> about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the

moderators

> of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the

> appropriate time.

>

> Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad

> in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just

come

> out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week

> occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able

> to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general

> opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental

medicine,

> including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture

> Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We

regret

> that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that

> future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards,

> rather than any particular board.

>

> Thank you.

>

> Marnae

>

[Guest guest]

To clarify my post, I am a member of another TCM web group where the

discussion has been MUCH more intense. In comparison, this group has

shown more restraint. Many people post the same message to both

groups, so I get to see the battles rage on two fronts!

 

- Bill

 

, " bill_schoenbart "

<plantmed2 wrote:

>

> To be honest, I stopped reading the posts on this topic a long time

> ago. It started to get like a religious or political debate, where

> neither side was listening to the other, and animosity grew larger

> by the day. My only comment for your discussion group: Make it a

> part of all specialty boards' charters a policy to not imply

> superior training or efficacy by members of the board. That will go

> a long way to deter attacks from people who do not want to be part

> of these specialty boards and feel that their practice is threatend

> by them.

>

> - Bill

>

[Guest guest]

Let me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the

recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general

and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with

differing views expressing them and letting the community know how

you feel.

 

In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and

specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in

Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning

discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very

informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week,

the first phone conference among this group was held. The group

consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee,

president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO

of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline

Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status

or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people

talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of

conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our

conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to

agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The

discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not

specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM

create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on

the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from

CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional

members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include:

Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty

board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification

definitions and more.

 

I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an

official group, it is a group that came together because of the

amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent

weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the

conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or

thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While

I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to

ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive

position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear

what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all,

let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a

positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate.

If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I

suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the

conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward

in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near

future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation

about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators

of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the

appropriate time.

 

Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad

in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come

out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week

occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able

to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general

opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine,

including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture

Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret

that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that

future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards,

rather than any particular board.

 

Thank you.

 

Marnae

[Guest guest]

This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

marnaecrystal

Chinese Medicine

Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 AM

Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

Let me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the

recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general

and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people with

differing views expressing them and letting the community know how

you feel.

 

In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and

specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in

Oriental medicine and their role in the profession, beginning

discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very

informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week,

the first phone conference among this group was held. The group

consisted of: Will Morris, past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee,

president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO

of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and Caroline

Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status

or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people

talking about an issue that has generated a great deal of

conversation. As the discussions on the sites have been, our

conversation was also heated at times. However, we were all able to

agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking. 2. The

discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not

specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM

create a coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on

the topic. Members of the group should include representatives from

CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the insurance industry and professional

members. Potential topics for cooperative inquiry might include:

Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a specialty

board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification

definitions and more.

 

I think that it is important to note again that while this is not an

official group, it is a group that came together because of the

amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent

weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the

conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or

thought about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While

I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to

ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive

position. Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear

what you think about specialty boards in general. But, above all,

let's keep it polite, supportive and about moving forward in a

positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or inappropriate.

If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I

suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the

conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward

in a direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near

future, the AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation

about specialty boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators

of the various groups to forward their conversations there at the

appropriate time.

 

Many of you recently gave your name or your money to support an ad

in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come

out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week

occurred too late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able

to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a more general

opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental medicine,

including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture

Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret

that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that

future discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards,

rather than any particular board.

 

Thank you.

 

Marnae

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are having

this debate, also

be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we might

also be involved in

learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as explain

the what and why

we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own

meeting there is a

danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to improve

our profession,

let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

: alonmarcus:

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

 

 

This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialtiesAlon

Marcus DOMOakland CA

94609-

marnaecrystal Chinese Medicine Sent:

Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 AMSpecialty Board

ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the

recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general and ABORM

in particular. It is great to see so many people with differing views expressing

them and letting the community know how you feel. In an attempt to focus this

discussion away from individuals and specific boards and onto the general topics

of specialty boards in Oriental medicine and their role in the profession,

beginning discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very

informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week, the first

phone conference among this group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris,

past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of

NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae

Ergil and Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official

status or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking

about an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the

discussions on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times.

However, we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep

talking. 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and

not specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a

coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. Members of

the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the

insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for cooperative

inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a

specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification

definitions and more. I think that it is important to note again that while this

is not an official group, it is a group that came together because of the amount

of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent weeks. Again, I thank

all of you who have participated in the conversation, and I hope that many of

you have learned something or thought about your own feelings as regards this

conversation. While I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would

like to ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive position.

Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about

specialty boards in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive

and about moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude

or inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I

suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the conversation

positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a direction that is

good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the AAAOM will create a

site where all of the conversation about specialty boards can be housed, and we

will ask the moderators of the various groups to forward their conversations

there at the appropriate time. Many of you recently gave your name or your money

to support an ad in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just

come out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week occurred too

late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to

change the ad to be a more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture

and Oriental medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of

Acupuncture Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret

that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future

discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any

particular board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Capture your memories in an online journal!

http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us

 

 

[Guest guest]

Obsoletely the profession has to be included and that is one of the problems i

have had with all the other so called boards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

mike Bowser

Chinese Traditional Medicine

Friday, September 21, 2007 1:44 PM

RE: Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are having

this debate, also

be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we might

also be involved in

learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as

explain the what and why

we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own

meeting there is a

danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to

improve our profession,

let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

: alonmarcus:

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation

 

This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialtiesAlon

Marcus DOMOakland CA

94609-

marnaecrystal Chinese Medicine Sent:

Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 AMSpecialty Board

ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the

recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty boards in general and ABORM

in particular. It is great to see so many people with differing views expressing

them and letting the community know how you feel. In an attempt to focus this

discussion away from individuals and specific boards and onto the general topics

of specialty boards in Oriental medicine and their role in the profession,

beginning discussions have begun among a group of individuals who, very

informally, are representing different constituencies. Last week, the first

phone conference among this group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris,

past president of AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of

NCCAOM, Kory Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae

Ergil and Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official

status or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking

about an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the

discussions on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times.

However, we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep

talking. 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and

not specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a

coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. Members of

the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the

insurance industry and professional members. Potential topi! cs for c ooperative

inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the profession wants? What is a

specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or board certification

definitions and more. I think that it is important to note again that while this

is not an official group, it is a group that came together because of the amount

of discussion that has occurred on this topic in recent weeks. Again, I thank

all of you who have participated in the conversation, and I hope that many of

you have learned something or thought about your own feelings as regards this

conversation. While I would encourage you to continue your conversation, I would

like to ask that that conversation move into a productive and positive position.

Let's talk about what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about

specialty boards in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive

and about moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude

or inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I

suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the conversation

positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a direction that is

good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the AAAOM will create a

site where all of the conversation about specialty boards can be housed, and we

will ask the moderators of the various groups to forward their conversations

there at the appropriate time. Many of you recently gave your name or your money

to support an ad in Acupuncture Today in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just

come out. Unfortunately, the conversation that took place last week occurred too

late to make any changes to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to

change the ad to be a more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture

and Oriental medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of

Acupuncture Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret

that the ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM a! nd ask t hat future

discussion focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any

particular board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

 

________

Capture your memories in an online journal!

http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us

 

[Guest guest]

I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably related to the

concerns many others have making this a heated topic.

 

 

 

In my case, I have a bachelor’s degree in sports medicine, a master’s in

exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training career

(prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an

acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy,

physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did intercollegiate

athletic training at big and small schools. I’ve been an acupuncturist now

for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo-skeletal pain

and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to advertise and

claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury.

 

 

 

My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me that, despite

my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I am going to

be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem necessary to do

what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This bugs me

big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture

degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my other graduate

degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough? Are these

specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone?

 

 

 

On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal education in

the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle and

refer to themselves as “sports medicine” specialists. Based on what??

Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm….

 

 

 

Anyone else having this rub?

 

 

 

barb

 

 

 

_____

 

Chinese Medicine

Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike

Bowser

Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM

Chinese Traditional Medicine

RE: Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

 

I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are

having this debate, also

be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we might

also be involved in

learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as

explain the what and why

we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own

meeting there is a

danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to

improve our profession,

let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

HYPERLINK

" Chinese Medicine%40From " Traditional_-Chin

ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK

" alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) -netFri, 21 Sep 2007

12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation

 

This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialtiesAlon

Marcus DOMOakland CA

94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original Message

----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK

" Chinese Medicine%40 " Traditional_-Chinese_

Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 AMSubject:

Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who has

participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty

boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people

with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how you

feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and

specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in Oriental

medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have begun

among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing

different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this

group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of

AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory

Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and

Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status

or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking about

an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the discussions

on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. However,

we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking.

2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not

specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a

coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. Members

of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the

insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for

cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the profession

wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or board

certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note

again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came

together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic

in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the

conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or thought

about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would

encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that

conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk about

what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty boards

in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about

moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or

inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I

suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the

conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a

direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the

AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty

boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups

to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you

recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture Today

in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the

conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any changes

to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a

more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental

medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture

Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that the

ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future discussion

focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular

board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

 

____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_

Capture your memories in an online journal!

HYPERLINK

" http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us " http://www.reallive-moms.

com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us

 

 

[Guest guest]

Are these

specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone?

>>>>>

That is all they have been so far

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

" Barbara Beale " <bbeale

<Chinese Medicine >

Friday, September 21, 2007 2:03 PM

RE: Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably related to the

concerns many others have making this a heated topic.

 

 

 

In my case, I have a bachelor's degree in sports medicine, a master's in

exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training career

(prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an

acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy,

physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did intercollegiate

athletic training at big and small schools. I've been an acupuncturist now

for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo-skeletal pain

and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to advertise and

claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury.

 

 

 

My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me that, despite

my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I am going to

be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem necessary to do

what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This bugs me

big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture

degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my other graduate

degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough? Are these

specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone?

 

 

 

On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal education in

the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle and

refer to themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on what??

Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm..

 

 

 

Anyone else having this rub?

 

 

 

barb

 

 

 

_____

 

Chinese Medicine

Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike

Bowser

Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM

Chinese Traditional Medicine

RE: Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

 

I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are

having this debate, also

be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we might

also be involved in

learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as

explain the what and why

we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own

meeting there is a

danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to

improve our profession,

let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

HYPERLINK

" Chinese Medicine%40From " Traditional_-Chin

ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK

" alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) -netFri, 21 Sep 2007

12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation

 

This would be the only legitimate process for creating board specialtiesAlon

Marcus DOMOakland CA

94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original Message

----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK

" Chinese Medicine%40 " Traditional_-Chinese_

Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57 AMSubject:

Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who has

participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty

boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many people

with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how you

feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and

specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in Oriental

medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have begun

among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing

different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this

group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of

AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory

Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and

Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official status

or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking about

an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the discussions

on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times. However,

we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep talking.

2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not

specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a

coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic. Members

of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the

insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for

cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the profession

wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or board

certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note

again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came

together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this topic

in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the

conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or thought

about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would

encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that

conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk about

what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty boards

in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about

moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or

inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then, I

suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the

conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a

direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the

AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty

boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups

to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you

recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture Today

in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the

conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any changes

to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be a

more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental

medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture

Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that the

ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future discussion

focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular

board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

 

____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_

Capture your memories in an online journal!

HYPERLINK

" http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us " http://www.reallive-moms.

com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us

 

 

[Guest guest]

Barbara,

 

Offering certification while also providing the education required to

gain that certification is considered a conflict of interest and

would disqualify the certifying agency from gaining National

Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) accreditation.

 

ABORM has, thus far, avoided this conflict of interest. The other

two self-proclaimed specialty boards have not.

 

--Bill.

--

Bill Mosca, LAc

San Francisco CA

mosca

 

 

On Sep 21, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Barbara Beale wrote:

 

> How much education is enough? Are these

> specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone?

[Guest guest]

barbara:

 

respectfully, you are as much in violation of hanging a shingle and calling

yourself a sports medicine specialist, as others who you say have little

training. no one has validated anyone's experience, credentials or edu. as

a TCM sport's medicine specialty. that's the problem. using the word

specialty in marketing is a loaded proposition because is insinuates

something similar to a west. med. specialty, involving a board who oversees

edu, clinical work and testing in the related area. we do not have that in

our profession. a more honest description of your practice is that you treat

exclusively sports medicine, and include your other western degrees in

sports medicine. this avoids the problematic, loaded word:specialty, while

still conveying your meaning.

 

i would put forth that part of this discussion is whether we need specialty

boards and certifications to show distinctions in our respective training.

what are the pros and cons to this issue? as you say, when is enough,

enough, and who is profiting? is it merely a marketing ploy. couldn't a

patient/other health care practitioner decided for themselves after doing

their homework: visiting websites, talking to practitioners, to see who

seems knowledgeable and who maybe less so. what about asking to see a cv?

certainly that would provided much info about a practitioner's edu

background and experience.

 

i'm just posing questions to explore pros and cons on the issue.

 

secondly, i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about

insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at

the table or why they would be an invited guest.

 

third: if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would be of

value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what kind of

oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the current west model, or do

we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice of TCM in the US?

why or why not?

 

forth: to those of you in other countries, how does it work in your

countries. do you have specialties within the practice of TCM? how are

practitioners calling themselves a specialist documented in terms of edu and

experience? how well do you think the system in your country works? are

tcm specialties in your country modeled after the western system?

 

i think a rational discussion of these and other issues involved in setting

up TCM specialties will prove provocative and enlightening.

 

kath

 

 

On 9/21/07, Barbara Beale <bbeale wrote:

>

> I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably related to

> the

> concerns many others have making this a heated topic.

>

>

>

> In my case, I have a bachelor's degree in sports medicine, a master's in

> exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training career

> (prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an

> acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy,

> physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did

> intercollegiate

> athletic training at big and small schools. I've been an acupuncturist

> now

> for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo-skeletal

> pain

> and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to advertise and

> claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury.

>

>

>

> My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me that,

> despite

> my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I am going

> to

> be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem necessary to do

> what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This bugs me

> big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture

> degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my other graduate

> degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough? Are these

> specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone?

>

>

>

> On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal education

> in

> the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle

> and

> refer to themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on what??

> Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm….

>

>

>

> Anyone else having this rub?

>

>

>

> barb

>

>

>

> _____

>

> Chinese Medicine

> Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike

> Bowser

> Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> RE: Specialty Board Conversation

>

>

>

> I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession who are

> having this debate, also

> be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That way we

> might

> also be involved in

> learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as

> explain the what and why

> we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then has its own

> meeting there is a

> danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to

> improve our profession,

> let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

> HYPERLINK

> " Chinese Medicine%40From

> " Traditional_-Chin

> ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK

> " alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) -netFri, 21 Sep

> 2007

> 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation

>

> This would be the only legitimate process for creating board

> specialtiesAlon

> Marcus DOMOakland CA

> 94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original

> Message

> ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK

> " Chinese Medicine%40

> " Traditional_-Chinese_

> Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57

> AMSubject:

> Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who

> has

> participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of specialty

> boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so many

> people

> with differing views expressing them and letting the community know how

> you

> feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from individuals and

> specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in

> Oriental

> medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions have

> begun

> among a group of individuals who, very informally, are representing

> different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference among this

> group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past president of

> AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory

> Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and

> Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official

> status

> or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people talking

> about

> an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the

> discussions

> on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times.

> However,

> we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep

> talking.

> 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general and not

> specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a

> coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the topic.

> Members

> of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the

> insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for

> cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the

> profession

> wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM? Certification or

> board

> certification definitions and more. I think that it is important to note

> again that while this is not an official group, it is a group that came

> together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on this

> topic

> in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in the

> conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something or

> thought

> about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I would

> encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask that that

> conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's talk

> about

> what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty

> boards

> in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and about

> moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal, rude or

> inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own comments, then,

> I

> suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the

> conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a

> direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near future, the

> AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about specialty

> boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the various groups

> to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you

> recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture

> Today

> in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately, the

> conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make any

> changes

> to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be

> a

> more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental

> medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of Acupuncture

> Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that

> the

> ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future

> discussion

> focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular

> board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

> ____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_

> Capture your memories in an online journal!

> HYPERLINK

> " http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us "

> http://www.reallive-moms.

> com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kath,

 

Two things struck me as interesting and problematic about your post:

 

1) You said: " i would like to respond to something in marnae's post

about insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would

get a seat at the table or why they would be an invited guest. "

 

First of all, I think they would be invited because one of the great

fears about the establishment of specializations is that incurance

would offer different coverage or pay different amounts based on

whether one was or was not a " specialist " in a particular area.

 

On another note, why would ANYBODY be an invited guest? I mean, at

some point somebody is deciding who does and does not get a say. By

what criteria will anybody be given a voice in the establishment of

such regulations? People seem up in arms about the aribitrary

establishment of boards, will those same people be up in arms about

the arbitrary formation of committees to oversee boards? Will this

make the boards themselves seem less arbitrary?

 

2) You said: " if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards

would be of value, then we need to determine how they should be set

up. what kind of oversight, etc? "

 

A consensus of our profession does not seem like a very realistic

propositon to me. Our 'profession' is a very abstract body composed

of many diverging views and interests. Judging by the conversations

that have taken place on this very board and the polarized

viewpoints that are represented, it seems to me that consensus

should be tossed out as an impractical goal. Maybe we should focus

on what's practical rather than on what our 'profession'

collectively agrees that we want.

 

I realize that the formation of specialty boards is a controversial

topic, and that there are people on both sides of the issue that

have strong concerns and opinions. But, on a pragmatic level, is

there realy anyone that can stop them?

 

Opponents of specialty boards claim that such boards are

illegitimate because they are not invested with the authority of a

governing body. But, can't we make the same argument in favor of

specialty boards? Namely, that there does not exist a governing body

with the authority to stop them or regulate them?

 

Whether you are for them or against them, do we all agree that in

the current landscape, nobody has the right or the authority to stop

specialty boards or to impose regulations upon them?

 

This is my understanding. Does anyone have information to the

contrary? Or are specialty acupuncture boards in America simply the

expression of free enterprise?

 

David Karchmer

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , " Kath Bartlett,

MS, LAc " wrote:

>

> barbara:

>

> respectfully, you are as much in violation of hanging a shingle

and calling

> yourself a sports medicine specialist, as others who you say have

little

> training. no one has validated anyone's experience, credentials

or edu. as

> a TCM sport's medicine specialty. that's the problem. using the

word

> specialty in marketing is a loaded proposition because is

insinuates

> something similar to a west. med. specialty, involving a board who

oversees

> edu, clinical work and testing in the related area. we do not

have that in

> our profession. a more honest description of your practice is that

you treat

> exclusively sports medicine, and include your other western

degrees in

> sports medicine. this avoids the problematic, loaded

word:specialty, while

> still conveying your meaning.

>

> i would put forth that part of this discussion is whether we need

specialty

> boards and certifications to show distinctions in our respective

training.

> what are the pros and cons to this issue? as you say, when is

enough,

> enough, and who is profiting? is it merely a marketing ploy.

couldn't a

> patient/other health care practitioner decided for themselves

after doing

> their homework: visiting websites, talking to practitioners, to

see who

> seems knowledgeable and who maybe less so. what about asking to

see a cv?

> certainly that would provided much info about a practitioner's edu

> background and experience.

>

> i'm just posing questions to explore pros and cons on the issue.

>

> secondly, i would like to respond to something in marnae's post

about

> insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get

a seat at

> the table or why they would be an invited guest.

>

> third: if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards

would be of

> value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what

kind of

> oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the current west

model, or do

> we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice of TCM in

the US?

> why or why not?

>

> forth: to those of you in other countries, how does it work in your

> countries. do you have specialties within the practice of TCM?

how are

> practitioners calling themselves a specialist documented in terms

of edu and

> experience? how well do you think the system in your country

works? are

> tcm specialties in your country modeled after the western system?

>

> i think a rational discussion of these and other issues involved

in setting

> up TCM specialties will prove provocative and enlightening.

>

> kath

>

>

> On 9/21/07, Barbara Beale <bbeale wrote:

> >

> > I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably

related to

> > the

> > concerns many others have making this a heated topic.

> >

> >

> >

> > In my case, I have a bachelor's degree in sports medicine, a

master's in

> > exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training

career

> > (prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to

becoming an

> > acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy,

> > physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did

> > intercollegiate

> > athletic training at big and small schools. I've been an

acupuncturist

> > now

> > for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo-

skeletal

> > pain

> > and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to

advertise and

> > claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury.

> >

> >

> >

> > My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me

that,

> > despite

> > my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I

am going

> > to

> > be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem

necessary to do

> > what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This

bugs me

> > big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my

acupuncture

> > degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my

other graduate

> > degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough?

Are these

> > specialty boards going to just be another income source for

someone?

> >

> >

> >

> > On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal

education

> > in

> > the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a

shingle

> > and

> > refer to themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on

what??

> > Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm….

> >

> >

> >

> > Anyone else having this rub?

> >

> >

> >

> > barb

> >

> >

> >

> > _____

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > Chinese Medicine On Behalf

Of mike

> > Bowser

> > Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM

> > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > RE: Specialty Board Conversation

> >

> >

> >

> > I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession

who are

> > having this debate, also

> > be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That

way we

> > might

> > also be involved in

> > learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as

well as

> > explain the what and why

> > we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then

has its own

> > meeting there is a

> > danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all

want to

> > improve our profession,

> > let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> >

> > HYPERLINK

> > " Chinese Medicine%40From

> > " Traditional_-Chin

> > ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK

> > " alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus: Fri, 21 Sep

> > 2007

> > 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation

> >

> > This would be the only legitimate process for creating board

> > specialtiesAlon

> > Marcus DOMOakland CA

> > 94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------

Original

> > Message

> > ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK

> > " Chinese Medicine%40

> > " Traditional_-Chinese_

> > Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57

> > AMSubject:

> > Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking

everyone who

> > has

> > participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of

specialty

> > boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so

many

> > people

> > with differing views expressing them and letting the community

know how

> > you

> > feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from

individuals and

> > specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards

in

> > Oriental

> > medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions

have

> > begun

> > among a group of individuals who, very informally, are

representing

> > different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference

among this

> > group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past

president of

> > AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of

NCCAOM, Kory

> > Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae

Ergil and

> > Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no

official

> > status

> > or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people

talking

> > about

> > an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the

> > discussions

> > on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at

times.

> > However,

> > we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to

keep

> > talking.

> > 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general

and not

> > specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM

create a

> > coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the

topic.

> > Members

> > of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM,

NCCAOM, the

> > insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for

> > cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the

> > profession

> > wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM?

Certification or

> > board

> > certification definitions and more. I think that it is important

to note

> > again that while this is not an official group, it is a group

that came

> > together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred

on this

> > topic

> > in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated

in the

> > conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something

or

> > thought

> > about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I

would

> > encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask

that that

> > conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's

talk

> > about

> > what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about

specialty

> > boards

> > in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and

about

> > moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal,

rude or

> > inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own

comments, then,

> > I

> > suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the

> > conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move

forward in a

> > direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near

future, the

> > AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about

specialty

> > boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the

various groups

> > to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time.

Many of you

> > recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in

Acupuncture

> > Today

> > in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out.

Unfortunately, the

> > conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make

any

> > changes

> > to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change

the ad to be

> > a

> > more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and

Oriental

> > medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of

Acupuncture

> > Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We

regret that

> > the

> > ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future

> > discussion

> > focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any

particular

> > board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > removed]

> >

> > ____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_

> > Capture your memories in an online journal!

> > HYPERLINK

> > " http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us "

> > http://www.reallive-moms.

> > com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi David -

 

Let me say 2 things

 

1. Again, this group is entirely unofficial. There

will be discussions about this at the Portland

meetings in October and perhaps an official group will

be formed - no idea what the membership of that group

will be.

 

2. Sorry I didn't introduce Caroline and myself.

Caroline is the person who began this entire

discussion when, after the ABORM ad came out, she

contacted several of her colleagues to find out how we

felt about specialty boards. She is a private

practitioner in NYC and New Jersey who has been

working with infertility patients for well over 10

years, has taught classes on infertility in NYC and

has been a faculty member at PCOM NY and Mercy

College. She is strongly opposed to the formation of

specialty boards. I was one of the people that

Caroline contacted. I am on the faculty at the School

of AOM at NYCC, I have taught at New York College on

Long Island, Touro College, PCOM NY and ACTCM. I

currently teach a class for our program on

infertility. A large percentage of my practice is also

infertility patients. I, like Caroline, am stronly

opposed to the formation of specialty boards. I am

the one who originally posted the Open Letter of

Oppostion on this site.

 

I guess that Caroline and I were sort the voices of

the opposition at this meeting, but again, this was an

unofficial meeting of people with no mandate and it is

quite possible that none of these people will be on

the eventuall organizing committee. If you are

interested in participating, please let the AAAOM

and/or the NCCAOM know.

 

Marnae

[Guest guest]

MIke -

 

I absolutely agree. If you would like to be involved,

let the NCCAOM / AAAOM know. One of our goals was to

get the AAAOM to house an e-group devoted to this

discussion so that anyone who wanted to could

participate. Obviously, organizing committees need to

be smaller to get any work done, but then the

consensus conference would be something that would

have room for a greater number of people, representing

different views to be present and voice their opinions

and be involved in any further action.

 

Marnae

[Guest guest]

Alon -

 

I think it is important to remember that the members

of the Boards of the AAAOM and the NCCAOM are members

of the profession. They are mostly private

practitioners who give of their time and energy to

support these organizations. The best way to create

change with these boards is to get on the boards. The

AAAOM board is looking for new professional members

this year and has put out a call for nominations. The

NCCAOM board members are elected by the Diplomates who

choose to vote. Some of the names of the board

members may begin to look familiar, but that is

because these are people who over and over again give

of their time. They are members of the profession.

Perhaps what needs to happen is simply that they need

to find a way to hear the voice of the rest of the

profession in a more efficient way.

 

Marnae

[Guest guest]

Kath -

 

Let me respond to some of your points:

 

1. You write: " i would put forth that part of this

discussion is whether we need specialty

boards and certifications to show distinctions in our

respective training.

what are the pros and cons to this issue? "

 

ME: I absolutely agree that this is the first

question that must be addressed. As I have said

before, I do not think that we need specialty boards.

I have done a great deal of study to gain more

knowledge in a few specific areas, notably gynecology

(including but not limited to infertility),

dermatology and pediatrics, but I do not " specialize "

in these areas in that I do not limit my practice to

the treatment of these areas I do not wish to. While

treating in specific areas is certainly the trend of

practice in China, I think that we need to look very

carefully at that model before we decide that we want

to follow it. First of all, we already use CHinese

medicine very differently in this country (in the

West) than is done in China. We are not, for the most

part, working in hospitals on a regular basis. We are

not treating the same number of patients as are

treated in China and so we do not have the same time

restrictions -we do not need to see 30 - 60 patients

in a day. If we did, then yes, we might need to

specialize because we would not have time to do the

work to effectively treat our patients. If others

want to limit their practice to the treatment of one

or another type of condition, then that is fine, they

should do that, and let their experience and their

success speak for them.

 

While taking a specialty board exam is unlikely to

ever be required in order to practice within that

specialty, it does, in my mind, change the public

perception of what Chinese medicine is, which, at its

very root is a medicine whose strength is in its

ability to take any patient, no matter what their

biomedically diagnosed condition may be, assess their

signs and symptoms, determine a pattern and treat the

presenting pattern. Does this mean that there is not a

need to know and understand the presenting condition.

Absolutely not. Is there important information about

any field that a generalist might not know.

Absolutely. But, I would hope that we, as a

profession, would know when we need more information,

and when we are simply not qualified to treat and need

to refer the patient on. But, I do not think that

taking an exam to become a specialist is the way to

identify who we should refer to and I for one, am

unlikely to ever take any of these exams, should they

come into existence.

 

Kath said: secondly, i would like to respond to

something in marnae's post about

insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why

they would get a seat at

the table or why they would be an invited guest.

 

The reason the insurance companies were included in

the initial list is so that we, as a profession, can

begin to get a very clear idea of how they determine

risk and what the development of specialty boards

would mean to the insurance company. There is a

general feeling among many of us, myself included,

that the malpractice companies would jump at the

chance to require specialty exams in order to have

continued coverage in particular areas. However, we

do not know that this is true and we would like to

hear what the malpractice companies have to say about

this. At this time, there are basically only 2

companies that cover individual practitioners: AAC and

Eastern Special Risk. We would like to know where

they stand on the issue of specialty boards as it

might have an influence on the profession in terms of

deciding if specialty boards are actually a direction

that we want to take.

 

Kath said: " third: if the consensus of the prof is

that specialty boards would be of

value, then we need to determine how they should be

set up. what kind of

oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the

current west model, or do

we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice

of TCM in the US? "

 

Absolutely - Unfortunately, I think that this question

needs to be answered in relation to the first question

about boards - do we even want them. Because, as it

currently stands, there are already at least 3 boards

in existence in our field and there is basically

nothing we can do about them. They only way that they

will cease to exist is if people cease to take their

exams. But, as long as people take their exams, they

will continue. So, since they are here, we need to

figure out how we are going to use them to do what we

want.

 

My two cents.

 

Marnae

[Guest guest]

Regarding point number two: I assume Marnae is referring to insurance

companies that provide our liability coverage. They have an interest

in these discussions because they may choose not to cover us for

certain treatments unless we are " certified " in that

particular " specialty. " All philosophical discussions aside, this is

when it affects each one of us on a very real level (legally and

financially). Does anyone have any information on liability insurance

companies headed in this direction?

 

Heidi Irwin, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine , " Kath Bartlett,

MS, LAc " wrote:

>

> barbara:

>

> respectfully, you are as much in violation of hanging a shingle and

calling

> yourself a sports medicine specialist, as others who you say have

little

> training. no one has validated anyone's experience, credentials or

edu. as

> a TCM sport's medicine specialty. that's the problem. using the

word

> specialty in marketing is a loaded proposition because is insinuates

> something similar to a west. med. specialty, involving a board who

oversees

> edu, clinical work and testing in the related area. we do not have

that in

> our profession. a more honest description of your practice is that

you treat

> exclusively sports medicine, and include your other western degrees

in

> sports medicine. this avoids the problematic, loaded

word:specialty, while

> still conveying your meaning.

>

> i would put forth that part of this discussion is whether we need

specialty

> boards and certifications to show distinctions in our respective

training.

> what are the pros and cons to this issue? as you say, when is

enough,

> enough, and who is profiting? is it merely a marketing ploy.

couldn't a

> patient/other health care practitioner decided for themselves after

doing

> their homework: visiting websites, talking to practitioners, to see

who

> seems knowledgeable and who maybe less so. what about asking to

see a cv?

> certainly that would provided much info about a practitioner's edu

> background and experience.

>

> i'm just posing questions to explore pros and cons on the issue.

>

> secondly, i would like to respond to something in marnae's post

about

> insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get

a seat at

> the table or why they would be an invited guest.

>

> third: if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would

be of

> value, then we need to determine how they should be set up. what

kind of

> oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the current west

model, or do

> we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice of TCM in

the US?

> why or why not?

>

> forth: to those of you in other countries, how does it work in your

> countries. do you have specialties within the practice of TCM?

how are

> practitioners calling themselves a specialist documented in terms

of edu and

> experience? how well do you think the system in your country

works? are

> tcm specialties in your country modeled after the western system?

>

> i think a rational discussion of these and other issues involved in

setting

> up TCM specialties will prove provocative and enlightening.

>

> kath

>

>

> On 9/21/07, Barbara Beale <bbeale wrote:

> >

> > I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably

related to

> > the

> > concerns many others have making this a heated topic.

> >

> >

> >

> > In my case, I have a bachelor's degree in sports medicine, a

master's in

> > exercise physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training

career

> > (prevention and treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming

an

> > acupuncturist. I worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy,

> > physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did

> > intercollegiate

> > athletic training at big and small schools. I've been an

acupuncturist

> > now

> > for over 10 years with a busy practice that focuses on musculo-

skeletal

> > pain

> > and injury. I feel this gives me more than enough clout to

advertise and

> > claim that I specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury.

> >

> >

> >

> > My concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me

that,

> > despite

> > my advanced education in this area and 25 years of experience, I

am going

> > to

> > be required to take additional coursework that THEY deem

necessary to do

> > what I have been doing very successfully for many years. This

bugs me

> > big-time. I am still paying back $50,000 in loans for my

acupuncture

> > degree and just recently finished paying for my loan for my other

graduate

> > degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough?

Are these

> > specialty boards going to just be another income source for

someone?

> >

> >

> >

> > On another note, I am irritated by practitioners with no formal

education

> > in

> > the areas of sports medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a

shingle

> > and

> > refer to themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on

what??

> > Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm….

> >

> >

> >

> > Anyone else having this rub?

> >

> >

> >

> > barb

> >

> >

> >

> > _____

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > Chinese Medicine On Behalf

Of mike

> > Bowser

> > Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM

> > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > RE: Specialty Board Conversation

> >

> >

> >

> > I would agree but would also add that maybe we, the profession

who are

> > having this debate, also

> > be included with this group who is discussing this issue. That

way we

> > might

> > also be involved in

> > learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as

well as

> > explain the what and why

> > we feel the way they do. If the group only listens in and then

has its own

> > meeting there is a

> > danger that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all

want to

> > improve our profession,

> > let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> >

> > HYPERLINK

> > " Chinese Medicine%40From

> > " Traditional_-Chin

> > ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK

> > " alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus: Fri, 21 Sep

> > 2007

> > 12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation

> >

> > This would be the only legitimate process for creating board

> > specialtiesAlon

> > Marcus DOMOakland CA

> > 94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------

Original

> > Message

> > ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK

> > " Chinese Medicine%40

> > " Traditional_-Chinese_

> > Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21, 2007 11:57

> > AMSubject:

> > Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by thanking

everyone who

> > has

> > participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of

specialty

> > boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great to see so

many

> > people

> > with differing views expressing them and letting the community

know how

> > you

> > feel. In an attempt to focus this discussion away from

individuals and

> > specific boards and onto the general topics of specialty boards in

> > Oriental

> > medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions

have

> > begun

> > among a group of individuals who, very informally, are

representing

> > different constituencies. Last week, the first phone conference

among this

> > group was held. The group consisted of: Will Morris, past

president of

> > AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of

NCCAOM, Kory

> > Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae

Ergil and

> > Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no

official

> > status

> > or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of people

talking

> > about

> > an issue that has generated a great deal of conversation. As the

> > discussions

> > on the sites have been, our conversation was also heated at times.

> > However,

> > we were all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to

keep

> > talking.

> > 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in general

and not

> > specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM

create a

> > coordinating group to organize a consensus conference on the

topic.

> > Members

> > of the group should include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM,

NCCAOM, the

> > insurance industry and professional members. Potential topics for

> > cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the

> > profession

> > wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM?

Certification or

> > board

> > certification definitions and more. I think that it is important

to note

> > again that while this is not an official group, it is a group

that came

> > together because of the amount of discussion that has occurred on

this

> > topic

> > in recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated

in the

> > conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned something

or

> > thought

> > about your own feelings as regards this conversation. While I

would

> > encourage you to continue your conversation, I would like to ask

that that

> > conversation move into a productive and positive position. Let's

talk

> > about

> > what specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about

specialty

> > boards

> > in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite, supportive and

about

> > moving forward in a positive way rather than becoming personal,

rude or

> > inappropriate. If you do not feel you can monitor your own

comments, then,

> > I

> > suspect that group moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the

> > conversation positive so that we, as a profession, can move

forward in a

> > direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near

future, the

> > AAAOM will create a site where all of the conversation about

specialty

> > boards can be housed, and we will ask the moderators of the

various groups

> > to forward their conversations there at the appropriate time.

Many of you

> > recently gave your name or your money to support an ad in

Acupuncture

> > Today

> > in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out. Unfortunately,

the

> > conversation that took place last week occurred too late to make

any

> > changes

> > to the ad. Had we been able to, we would have liked to change the

ad to be

> > a

> > more general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and

Oriental

> > medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of

Acupuncture

> > Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal Medicine. We

regret that

> > the

> > ad in AT focuses the discussion around ABORM and ask that future

> > discussion

> > focus on the general topic of specialty boards, rather than any

particular

> > board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > removed]

> >

> > ____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_

> > Capture your memories in an online journal!

> > HYPERLINK

> > " http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us "

> > http://www.reallive-moms.

> > com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

David,

 

Offering a review course is not regarded (according to NCCA

accreditation criteria) as a conflict of interest for certifying

agencies unless the course is *required* for certification.

 

My original post merely says that " ABORM has... avoided *THIS*

conflict of interest. " (emphasis added)

 

I wasn't speaking to and can't intelligently speak to any other

potential conflicts. But there appear to be a host of other apparent

deficiencies (governance, exam development, policy-making, etc)

relative to the NCCA accreditation criteria as an earlier post outlined.

 

--Bill.

 

 

On Sep 23, 2007, at 9:20 AM, flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

 

> Hi Bill:

>

> Since that is what has been stated, lets look at what is occurring.

>

> ABORM gives the exam and certification, income source.

> ABORM advisory committe member hosts a review course, income source.

> ABORM member who is an AAAOM executive supports certification.

> Former AAAOM president suports certification and hosts exam location,

> income for event.

>

> It seems there is a web of interaction and revenue stream from the

> partites involved, which is fine but lets not present it does not

> exist.

>

> regards,

> david

>

[Guest guest]

You are right Bill something that has compromised all of the present specialty

boards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Bill Mosca

Chinese Medicine

Friday, September 21, 2007 4:49 PM

Re: Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

Barbara,

 

Offering certification while also providing the education required to

gain that certification is considered a conflict of interest and

would disqualify the certifying agency from gaining National

Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) accreditation.

 

ABORM has, thus far, avoided this conflict of interest. The other

two self-proclaimed specialty boards have not.

 

--Bill.

--

Bill Mosca, LAc

San Francisco CA

mosca

 

On Sep 21, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Barbara Beale wrote:

 

> How much education is enough? Are these

> specialty boards going to just be another income source for someone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Marnae

I agree and know because i have been there. I was active in a specialty board

sponsored by the AAOM where i tried to push for high ethics, complete

transparency, inclusion of the entire profession and all stake holders.

Unfortunately political expediency, conflict of interest, and power fighting

won. I argued very strongly against having the same institutions offer teaching

and board certificates or examinations, an obvious conflict of interest, and the

first test that was offered via that so-called board was a joke. In the end it

turned into a completely privately owned money making enterprise that had

nothing to do with high or rigorous training or expectations. I also agree with

you that we need to be careful regarding malpractice companies trying to define

any scope of practice. They also have a conflict of interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

marnae ergil

Chinese Medicine

Saturday, September 22, 2007 6:04 AM

Re: Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

Alon -

 

I think it is important to remember that the members

of the Boards of the AAAOM and the NCCAOM are members

of the profession. They are mostly private

practitioners who give of their time and energy to

support these organizations. The best way to create

change with these boards is to get on the boards. The

AAAOM board is looking for new professional members

this year and has put out a call for nominations. The

NCCAOM board members are elected by the Diplomates who

choose to vote. Some of the names of the board

members may begin to look familiar, but that is

because these are people who over and over again give

of their time. They are members of the profession.

Perhaps what needs to happen is simply that they need

to find a way to hear the voice of the rest of the

profession in a more efficient way.

 

Marnae

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

David states,

" Whether you are for them or against them, do we all agree that in the current

landscape, nobody has the right or the authority to stop specialty boards or to

impose regulations upon them? "

This is a problem as the medical usage of boards has the blessing of

the profession, while you are simply stating anyone go ahead w/o

any regulations as no one can stop you. That belief is the problem

and shows that you are for a more personal vs professional interest.

 

The profession does have the right to censure or fail to give their

approval. The profession did so with the NOMAA and some diploma

mill PhD programs. Neither of these has been able to overcome it.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

: acuprof:

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 05:14:14 +0000Re: Specialty Board Conversation

 

 

 

 

Kath,Two things struck me as interesting and problematic about your post:1) You

said: " i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about insurance

co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at the table or

why they would be an invited guest. " First of all, I think they would be invited

because one of the great fears about the establishment of specializations is

that incurance would offer different coverage or pay different amounts based on

whether one was or was not a " specialist " in a particular area.On another note,

why would ANYBODY be an invited guest? I mean, at some point somebody is

deciding who does and does not get a say. By what criteria will anybody be given

a voice in the establishment of such regulations? People seem up in arms about

the aribitrary establishment of boards, will those same people be up in arms

about the arbitrary formation of committees to oversee boards? Will this make

the boards themselves seem less arbitrary? 2) You said: " if the consensus of the

prof is that specialty boards would be of value, then we need to determine how

they should be set up. what kind of oversight, etc? " A consensus of our

profession does not seem like a very realistic propositon to me. Our

'profession' is a very abstract body composed of many diverging views and

interests. Judging by the conversations that have taken place on this very board

and the polarized viewpoints that are represented, it seems to me that consensus

should be tossed out as an impractical goal. Maybe we should focus on what's

practical rather than on what our 'profession' collectively agrees that we

want.I realize that the formation of specialty boards is a controversial topic,

and that there are people on both sides of the issue that have strong concerns

and opinions. But, on a pragmatic level, is there realy anyone that can stop

them? Opponents of specialty boards claim that such boards are illegitimate

because they are not invested with the authority of a governing body. But, can't

we make the same argument in favor of specialty boards? Namely, that there does

not exist a governing body with the authority to stop them or regulate

them?Whether you are for them or against them, do we all agree that in the

current landscape, nobody has the right or the authority to stop specialty

boards or to impose regulations upon them?This is my understanding. Does anyone

have information to the contrary? Or are specialty acupuncture boards in America

simply the expression of free enterprise?David Karchmer--- In

Chinese Medicine , " "

wrote:>> barbara:> > respectfully, you are as much in violation of

hanging a shingle and calling> yourself a sports medicine specialist, as others

who you say have little> training. no one has validated anyone's experience,

credentials or edu. as> a TCM sport's medicine specialty. that's the problem.

using the word> specialty in marketing is a loaded proposition because is

insinuates> something similar to a west. med. specialty, involving a board who

oversees> edu, clinical work and testing in the related area. we do not have

that in> our profession. a more honest description of your practice is that you

treat> exclusively sports medicine, and include your other western degrees in>

sports medicine. this avoids the problematic, loaded word:specialty, while>

still conveying your meaning.> > i would put forth that part of this discussion

is whether we need specialty> boards and certifications to show distinctions in

our respective training.> what are the pros and cons to this issue? as you say,

when is enough,> enough, and who is profiting? is it merely a marketing ploy.

couldn't a> patient/other health care practitioner decided for themselves after

doing> their homework: visiting websites, talking to practitioners, to see who>

seems knowledgeable and who maybe less so. what about asking to see a cv?>

certainly that would provided much info about a practitioner's edu> background

and experience.> > i'm just posing questions to explore pros and cons on the

issue.> > secondly, i would like to respond to something in marnae's post about>

insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at> the

table or why they would be an invited guest.> > third: if the consensus of the

prof is that specialty boards would be of> value, then we need to determine how

they should be set up. what kind of> oversight, etc? do we model our boards

after the current west model, or do> we develop a model unique to the needs of

the practice of TCM in the US?> why or why not?> > forth: to those of you in

other countries, how does it work in your> countries. do you have specialties

within the practice of TCM? how are> practitioners calling themselves a

specialist documented in terms of edu and> experience? how well do you think the

system in your country works? are> tcm specialties in your country modeled after

the western system?> > i think a rational discussion of these and other issues

involved in setting> up TCM specialties will prove provocative and

enlightening.> > kath> > > On 9/21/07, Barbara Beale <bbeale wrote:> >> > I

guess I have more of a personal concern, which is probably related to> > the> >

concerns many others have making this a heated topic.> >> >> >> > In my case, I

have a bachelor's degree in sports medicine, a master's in> > exercise

physiology and nearly 15 years of an athletic training career> > (prevention and

treatment of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an> > acupuncturist. I worked

rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy,> > physiology, kinesiology, etc.) at the

college level and did> > intercollegiate> > athletic training at big and small

schools. I've been an acupuncturist> > now> > for over 10 years with a busy

practice that focuses on musculo-skeletal> > pain> > and injury. I feel this

gives me more than enough clout to advertise and> > claim that I specialize in

sports medicine, pain and injury.> >> >> >> > My concern is that some board is

going to come in and tell me that,> > despite> > my advanced education in this

area and 25 years of experience, I am going> > to> > be required to take

additional coursework that THEY deem necessary to do> > what I have been doing

very successfully for many years. This bugs me> > big-time. I am still paying

back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture> > degree and just recently finished

paying for my loan for my other graduate> > degree which I earned in 1987. How

much education is enough? Are these> > specialty boards going to just be another

income source for someone?> >> >> >> > On another note, I am irritated by

practitioners with no formal education> > in> > the areas of sports

medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle> > and> > refer to

themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on what??> > Because they

LIKE it? Hmmmm….> >> >> >> > Anyone else having this rub?> >> >> >> > barb> >>

>> >> > _____> >> > Chinese Medicine > >

Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike> >

Bowser> > Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM> > To:

Chinese Traditional Medicine > > RE: Specialty

Board Conversation> >> >> >> > I would agree but would also add that maybe we,

the profession who are> > having this debate, also> > be included with this

group who is discussing this issue. That way we> > might> > also be involved in>

> learning more about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as> >

explain the what and why> > we feel the way they do. If the group only listens

in and then has its own> > meeting there is a> > danger that we will once again

be left out or not heard. We all want to> > improve our profession,> > let us

help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac> >> > HYPERLINK> >

" Chinese Medicine%40From> >

" Traditional_-Chin> > ese_Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -comHYPERLINK> >

" alonmarcus%40wans.netDate " alonmarcus: Fri, 21 Sep> > 2007> >

12:50:53 -0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation> >> > This would

be the only legitimate process for creating board> > specialtiesAlon> > Marcus

DOMOakland CA> >

94609510-452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original> > Message>

> ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK> >

" Chinese Medicine%40> >

" Traditional_-Chinese_> > Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday, September 21,

2007 11:57> > AMSubject:> > Specialty Board ConversationLet me begin by

thanking everyone who> > has> > participated in the recent, sometimes heated,

discussions of specialty> > boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is

great to see so many> > people> > with differing views expressing them and

letting the community know how> > you> > feel. In an attempt to focus this

discussion away from individuals and> > specific boards and onto the general

topics of specialty boards in> > Oriental> > medicine and their role in the

profession, beginning discussions have> > begun> > among a group of individuals

who, very informally, are representing> > different constituencies. Last week,

the first phone conference among this> > group was held. The group consisted of:

Will Morris, past president of> > AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president of AAAOM, Bryn

Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory> > Ward-Cook, CEO of NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president

of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and> > Caroline Radice. At this time, this group has

absolutely no official> > status> > or mandate from any organization. It is just

a group of people talking> > about> > an issue that has generated a great deal

of conversation. As the> > discussions> > on the sites have been, our

conversation was also heated at times.> > However,> > we were all able to agree

on several points: 1. We all need to keep> > talking.> > 2. The discussion must

be focused on specialty boards in general and not> > specific boards. 3. We

would like to see AAAOM and the NCCAOM create a> > coordinating group to

organize a consensus conference on the topic.> > Members> > of the group should

include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the> > insurance industry and

professional members. Potential topics for> > cooperative inquiry might include:

Are specialty boards what the> > profession> > wants? What is a specialty board

for the field of OM? Certification or> > board> > certification definitions and

more. I think that it is important to note> > again that while this is not an

official group, it is a group that came> > together because of the amount of

discussion that has occurred on this> > topic> > in recent weeks. Again, I thank

all of you who have participated in the> > conversation, and I hope that many of

you have learned something or> > thought> > about your own feelings as regards

this conversation. While I would> > encourage you to continue your conversation,

I would like to ask that that> > conversation move into a productive and

positive position. Let's talk> > about> > what specialty boards are. Let's hear

what you think about specialty> > boards> > in general. But, above all, let's

keep it polite, supportive and about> > moving forward in a positive way rather

than becoming personal, rude or> > inappropriate. If you do not feel you can

monitor your own comments, then,> > I> > suspect that group moderators will

begin to monitor you. Keep the> > conversation positive so that we, as a

profession, can move forward in a> > direction that is good for all of us. We

hope that in the near future, the> > AAAOM will create a site where all of the

conversation about specialty> > boards can be housed, and we will ask the

moderators of the various groups> > to forward their conversations there at the

appropriate time. Many of you> > recently gave your name or your money to

support an ad in Acupuncture> > Today> > in opposition to ABORM. This ad has

just come out. Unfortunately, the> > conversation that took place last week

occurred too late to make any> > changes> > to the ad. Had we been able to, we

would have liked to change the ad to be> > a> > more general opposition to

specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental> > medicine, including, but not

limited to the National Board of Acupuncture> > Orthopedics and the National

Board of Internal Medicine. We regret that> > the> > ad in AT focuses the

discussion around ABORM and ask that future> > discussion> > focus on the

general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular> > board. Thank

you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have been> > removed]> >> >

____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_> > Capture your

memories in an online journal!> > HYPERLINK> >

" http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us " > >

http://www.reallive-moms.> > com?-ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us> >> > [Non-text

portions of this message have been removed]> >> >> >> >> > No virus found in

this incoming message.> > > > Version: 7.5.488 /

Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date:> > 9/21/2007> > 2:02 PM> >> >> >>

> > > > >

Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date:> > 9/21/2007>

> 2:02 PM> >> >> >> >

[Guest guest]

Mike,

 

You can look at the issue in one of two ways:

 

On the one hand you could argue that anyone has the right to

establish a board and start selling 'Certification' without any

oversight or regulation by the profession. But, on the other hand,

if such boards are not established then individual practitioners are

tacitly endowned with similar freedoms (i.e. the ability to

represent themselves as specialists in a particular area without any

regulation or oversight).

 

With respect to the establishment of specialty boards, you said that

I am " simply stating anyone go ahead w/o any regulations as no one

can stop you. "

 

What I am saying to you is that without any oversight or quality

control from such specialty boards, you are in effect saying the

same thing to individual practitioners: Go ahead acupuncturists,

call yourself a 'specialist.' (I think Heidi raised this concern

earlier) You don't need any kind of oversight or quality control of

any kind, as there are no regulations and no one can stop you.

 

Secondly, I am confused Mike about people who keep referring to " the

profession " as a decision making body. I know that in my state there

are laws and regulations established by the state board of medical

examiners that dictate things like scope of practice, and marketing

and the like. But I do not know of any kind of governing body run by

this abstraction called " the profession " that has any such powers.

 

Can you (or anybody else for that matter) clarify exactly what you

mean when you say things like, " The profession does have the right

to censure or fail to give their approval. " Just who is

this " profession, " and what is the exact process by which such

decisions are made? Do we have some kind of profession-wide

representative government that I am not aware of?

 

And finally Mike, on a more personal note:

 

So far in this conversation you have asked me why I am trying to

hurt our profession. And more recently you state that my statments

and inquiries " show that [i am] for a more personal vs professional

interest. "

 

I realize that this is your interpretation of my motives, to which

you are of course entitiled. But I ask you this: Do you think that

such speculation about my personal motives, or posting these kinds

of indictments is productively furthering this dialogue?

 

In light of all of the hostility and invective rhetoric surrounding

these topics in recent weeks, I respectfully ask that you refrain

from the use of personal attacks and accusations, and that we keep

our opinions focused on the merits of the ideas being advanced

rather than speculating about the character of the people who

introduce these ideas.

 

David Karchmer

 

--------------------------------

 

raditional_Chinese_Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

> David states,

> " Whether you are for them or against them, do we all agree that in

the current landscape, nobody has the right or the authority to stop

specialty boards or to impose regulations upon them? "

> This is a problem as the medical usage of boards has the blessing

of

> the profession, while you are simply stating anyone go ahead w/o

> any regulations as no one can stop you. That belief is the problem

> and shows that you are for a more personal vs professional

interest.

>

> The profession does have the right to censure or fail to give their

> approval. The profession did so with the NOMAA and some diploma

> mill PhD programs. Neither of these has been able to overcome it.

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

>

> : acuprof: Sat, 22 Sep

2007 05:14:14 +0000Re: Specialty Board Conversation

>

>

>

>

> Kath,Two things struck me as interesting and problematic about

your post:1) You said: " i would like to respond to something in

marnae's post about insurance co's being represented. i'm not sure

why they would get a seat at the table or why they would be an

invited guest. " First of all, I think they would be invited because

one of the great fears about the establishment of specializations is

that incurance would offer different coverage or pay different

amounts based on whether one was or was not a " specialist " in a

particular area.On another note, why would ANYBODY be an invited

guest? I mean, at some point somebody is deciding who does and does

not get a say. By what criteria will anybody be given a voice in the

establishment of such regulations? People seem up in arms about the

aribitrary establishment of boards, will those same people be up in

arms about the arbitrary formation of committees to oversee boards?

Will this make the boards themselves seem less arbitrary? 2) You

said: " if the consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would

be of value, then we need to determine how they should be set up.

what kind of oversight, etc? " A consensus of our profession does not

seem like a very realistic propositon to me. Our 'profession' is a

very abstract body composed of many diverging views and interests.

Judging by the conversations that have taken place on this very

board and the polarized viewpoints that are represented, it seems to

me that consensus should be tossed out as an impractical goal. Maybe

we should focus on what's practical rather than on what

our 'profession' collectively agrees that we want.I realize that the

formation of specialty boards is a controversial topic, and that

there are people on both sides of the issue that have strong

concerns and opinions. But, on a pragmatic level, is there realy

anyone that can stop them? Opponents of specialty boards claim that

such boards are illegitimate because they are not invested with the

authority of a governing body. But, can't we make the same argument

in favor of specialty boards? Namely, that there does not exist a

governing body with the authority to stop them or regulate them?

Whether you are for them or against them, do we all agree that in

the current landscape, nobody has the right or the authority to stop

specialty boards or to impose regulations upon them?This is my

understanding. Does anyone have information to the contrary? Or are

specialty acupuncture boards in America simply the expression of

free enterprise?David Karchmer--- In

Chinese Medicine , " Kath Bartlett, MS,

LAc " <acukath@> wrote:>> barbara:> > respectfully, you are as much

in violation of hanging a shingle and calling> yourself a sports

medicine specialist, as others who you say have little> training. no

one has validated anyone's experience, credentials or edu. as> a TCM

sport's medicine specialty. that's the problem. using the word>

specialty in marketing is a loaded proposition because is

insinuates> something similar to a west. med. specialty, involving a

board who oversees> edu, clinical work and testing in the related

area. we do not have that in> our profession. a more honest

description of your practice is that you treat> exclusively sports

medicine, and include your other western degrees in> sports

medicine. this avoids the problematic, loaded word:specialty, while>

still conveying your meaning.> > i would put forth that part of this

discussion is whether we need specialty> boards and certifications

to show distinctions in our respective training.> what are the pros

and cons to this issue? as you say, when is enough,> enough, and who

is profiting? is it merely a marketing ploy. couldn't a>

patient/other health care practitioner decided for themselves after

doing> their homework: visiting websites, talking to practitioners,

to see who> seems knowledgeable and who maybe less so. what about

asking to see a cv?> certainly that would provided much info about a

practitioner's edu> background and experience.> > i'm just posing

questions to explore pros and cons on the issue.> > secondly, i

would like to respond to something in marnae's post about> insurance

co's being represented. i'm not sure why they would get a seat at>

the table or why they would be an invited guest.> > third: if the

consensus of the prof is that specialty boards would be of> value,

then we need to determine how they should be set up. what kind of>

oversight, etc? do we model our boards after the current west model,

or do> we develop a model unique to the needs of the practice of TCM

in the US?> why or why not?> > forth: to those of you in other

countries, how does it work in your> countries. do you have

specialties within the practice of TCM? how are> practitioners

calling themselves a specialist documented in terms of edu and>

experience? how well do you think the system in your country works?

are> tcm specialties in your country modeled after the western

system?> > i think a rational discussion of these and other issues

involved in setting> up TCM specialties will prove provocative and

enlightening.> > kath> > > On 9/21/07, Barbara Beale <bbeale@>

wrote:> >> > I guess I have more of a personal concern, which is

probably related to> > the> > concerns many others have making this

a heated topic.> >> >> >> > In my case, I have a bachelor's degree

in sports medicine, a master's in> > exercise physiology and nearly

15 years of an athletic training career> > (prevention and treatment

of athletic injuries) prior to becoming an> > acupuncturist. I

worked rehab, taught sports sciences (anatomy,> > physiology,

kinesiology, etc.) at the college level and did> > intercollegiate>

> athletic training at big and small schools. I've been an

acupuncturist> > now> > for over 10 years with a busy practice that

focuses on musculo-skeletal> > pain> > and injury. I feel this gives

me more than enough clout to advertise and> > claim that I

specialize in sports medicine, pain and injury.> >> >> >> > My

concern is that some board is going to come in and tell me that,> >

despite> > my advanced education in this area and 25 years of

experience, I am going> > to> > be required to take additional

coursework that THEY deem necessary to do> > what I have been doing

very successfully for many years. This bugs me> > big-time. I am

still paying back $50,000 in loans for my acupuncture> > degree and

just recently finished paying for my loan for my other graduate> >

degree which I earned in 1987. How much education is enough? Are

these> > specialty boards going to just be another income source for

someone?> >> >> >> > On another note, I am irritated by

practitioners with no formal education> > in> > the areas of sports

medicine/athletic training/rehab that hang a shingle> > and> > refer

to themselves as " sports medicine " specialists. Based on what??> >

Because they LIKE it? Hmmmm….> >> >> >> > Anyone else having this

rub?> >> >> >> > barb> >> >> >> > _____> >> >

Chinese Medicine > >

Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of

mike> > Bowser> > Friday, September 21, 2007 1:45 PM> > To:

Chinese Traditional Medicine > > RE: TCM -

Specialty Board Conversation> >> >> >> > I would agree but would

also add that maybe we, the profession who are> > having this

debate, also> > be included with this group who is discussing this

issue. That way we> > might> > also be involved in> > learning more

about what our leadership is thinking and doing as well as> >

explain the what and why> > we feel the way they do. If the group

only listens in and then has its own> > meeting there is a> > danger

that we will once again be left out or not heard. We all want to> >

improve our profession,> > let us help. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac> >> >

HYPERLINK> > " Chinese Medicine%

40From> > " Traditional_-Chin> > ese_Medicine-

@.-comHYPERLINK> > " alonmarcus%

40wans.netDate " alonmarcus@: Fri, 21 Sep> > 2007> > 12:50:53 -

0700Re: Specialty Board Conversation> >> > This would

be the only legitimate process for creating board> >

specialtiesAlon> > Marcus DOMOakland CA> > 94609510-

452--5034www.integrat-ivehealthmedicin-e.com------ Original> >

Message> > ----- marnaecrystal HYPERLINK>

> " Chinese Medicine%40>

> " Traditional_-Chinese_> > Medicine- (AT) (DOT) -com Friday,

September 21, 2007 11:57> > AMSubject:> > Specialty Board

ConversationLet me begin by thanking everyone who> > has> >

participated in the recent, sometimes heated, discussions of

specialty> > boards in general and ABORM in particular. It is great

to see so many> > people> > with differing views expressing them and

letting the community know how> > you> > feel. In an attempt to

focus this discussion away from individuals and> > specific boards

and onto the general topics of specialty boards in> > Oriental> >

medicine and their role in the profession, beginning discussions

have> > begun> > among a group of individuals who, very informally,

are representing> > different constituencies. Last week, the first

phone conference among this> > group was held. The group consisted

of: Will Morris, past president of> > AAAOM, Leslie McGee, president

of AAAOM, Bryn Clark, Chair of NCCAOM, Kory> > Ward-Cook, CEO of

NCCAOM, Ray Rubio, president of ABORM, Marnae Ergil and> > Caroline

Radice. At this time, this group has absolutely no official> >

status> > or mandate from any organization. It is just a group of

people talking> > about> > an issue that has generated a great deal

of conversation. As the> > discussions> > on the sites have been,

our conversation was also heated at times.> > However,> > we were

all able to agree on several points: 1. We all need to keep> >

talking.> > 2. The discussion must be focused on specialty boards in

general and not> > specific boards. 3. We would like to see AAAOM

and the NCCAOM create a> > coordinating group to organize a

consensus conference on the topic.> > Members> > of the group should

include representatives from CCAOM, AAAOM, NCCAOM, the> > insurance

industry and professional members. Potential topics for> >

cooperative inquiry might include: Are specialty boards what the> >

profession> > wants? What is a specialty board for the field of OM?

Certification or> > board> > certification definitions and more. I

think that it is important to note> > again that while this is not

an official group, it is a group that came> > together because of

the amount of discussion that has occurred on this> > topic> > in

recent weeks. Again, I thank all of you who have participated in

the> > conversation, and I hope that many of you have learned

something or> > thought> > about your own feelings as regards this

conversation. While I would> > encourage you to continue your

conversation, I would like to ask that that> > conversation move

into a productive and positive position. Let's talk> > about> > what

specialty boards are. Let's hear what you think about specialty> >

boards> > in general. But, above all, let's keep it polite,

supportive and about> > moving forward in a positive way rather than

becoming personal, rude or> > inappropriate. If you do not feel you

can monitor your own comments, then,> > I> > suspect that group

moderators will begin to monitor you. Keep the> > conversation

positive so that we, as a profession, can move forward in a> >

direction that is good for all of us. We hope that in the near

future, the> > AAAOM will create a site where all of the

conversation about specialty> > boards can be housed, and we will

ask the moderators of the various groups> > to forward their

conversations there at the appropriate time. Many of you> > recently

gave your name or your money to support an ad in Acupuncture> >

Today> > in opposition to ABORM. This ad has just come out.

Unfortunately, the> > conversation that took place last week

occurred too late to make any> > changes> > to the ad. Had we been

able to, we would have liked to change the ad to be> > a> > more

general opposition to specialty boards in acupuncture and Oriental>

> medicine, including, but not limited to the National Board of

Acupuncture> > Orthopedics and the National Board of Internal

Medicine. We regret that> > the> > ad in AT focuses the discussion

around ABORM and ask that future> > discussion> > focus on the

general topic of specialty boards, rather than any particular> >

board. Thank you. Marnae[Non-text portions of this message have

been> > removed]> >> > ____________-_________-_________-_________-

_________-_________-_> > Capture your memories in an online journal!

> > HYPERLINK> > " http://www.reallivemoms.com?

ocid=TXT_TAGHM & loc=us " > > http://www.reallive-moms.> > com?-

ocid=TXT_-TAGHM & loc=-us> >> > [Non-text portions of this message

have been removed]> >> >> >> >> > No virus found in this incoming

message.> > > > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus

Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date:> > 9/21/2007> > 2:02 PM> >>

>> >> > > > Checked by AVG

Free Edition.> > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 -

Release Date:> > 9/21/2007> > 2:02 PM> >> >> >> > [Non-text portions

of this message have been removed]> >> >> >> > Subscribe to the fee

online journal for TCM at Times> >

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com> >> > Help build the world's

largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine> > and acupuncture,

click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia> >> > To

change your email delivery settings, click,> >

and

adjust> > accordingly.> >> > Messages are the property of the

author. Any duplication outside the group> > requires prior

permission from the author.> >> > Please consider the environment

and only print this message if absolutely> > necessary.> >

Groups Links> >> >> >> >> > > -- > >

Oriental Medicine> Experienced,

Dedicated, Effective> > Asheville Center For > 70

Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two> Asheville, NC 28801

828.258.2777> kbartlett@> www.AcupunctureAsheville.com> > > [Non-

text portions of this message have been removed]>

_______________

> Can you find the hidden words?  Take a break and play Seekadoo!

> http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink

>

>

[Guest guest]

David,

 

I am sorry if I offended you but you seem to be misinterpretting my wording. It

is not meant to be a judgement but many of the players that are for creating the

ABORM and other boards may not be looking for

it to benefit the profession, as a primary goal. Many are looking to set

themselves apart. There has been much to do on here about the money and if we

really even need to have a specialty, at least at this time in our evolution. I

happen to think we need to be spending our time getting ourselves stronger and

consolidation of our institutions, making better laws in all states, doctoral

degrees and doctoral-degreed faculty and then we should be thinking about

possible specialty boards. That could be many decades from now as we do not yet

have either of the others done.

 

The concept of our profession is similar, I guess, to other professions in that

we are the ones who got legislation passed and to some extent participate in a

constant monitoring of it. Many states have laws that usually mention a

self-policing regulation designed for us to report practitioners who violate the

law.

 

On a similar note, there was am exchange printed in Acupuncture Today between

the NOMAA and the AAAOM (formerly AAOM) and how our professional representatives

basically squelched them. They have yet to get anything going and the one

school they choose has now come under ACAOM suspension for violation for changes

to its program. Are you aware that an informal group of AAAOM reps has or will

be discussing the issue of specialty boards and whether or not they are

rellevent to our profession?

 

The maverick mentality is one that worked for our profession a long time ago but

will no longer. Creating these so called certification programs without public

and practitioner input will seek to divide us and put a lot of questions into

the minds of the patients, the legislators, malpractice insurance companies and

ourselves. I understand your desire to want to learn to help patients,

collaborate with others and be recognized. These are things we all share in

common. Set your self apart with your experiences and successes.

 

Please remember that there are still some groups out there that teach

acupuncture in seminars, often without any supervised clinical training. If we

take our eye off the ball, then we will lose a lot more then our ego. Our

privilege to practice came from the " profession " that started schools,

organizations, etc.

 

Mike W. Bowser, LAc

_______________

Can you find the hidden words?  Take a break and play Seekadoo!

http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink

[Guest guest]

Mike,

 

It seems like you are saying that the formation of specialty boards

for OM before we have stronger academic programs and regulating

agencies is placing the proverbial cart before the horse.

 

If I am understanding you correctly, you believe that Specialty

Boards should be formed ONLY after our profession has a stronger

infrastructure, including things like doctoral programs, clinical

residencies, and proper oversight organizations.

 

I think this is a very common perception, but it is not one that I

happen to agree with. The principle reason that I do not agree with

such an approach is that I believe that in the case of Reproductive

Acupuncture, there is an immediate need. I have written extensively

about this need in previous posts, so I will not go into detail here.

Anyone interested can listen to the interview I gave on the subject

at:

 

http://www.chinesemedicinetools.com/audio-podcasts/specialty-

certification-debate-the-aborm-others-sp/david-karchmer-aborm-debate

 

The second reason that I do not buy into the 'cart before the horse'

argument is my belief that processes like this one are organic in

nature. Chutzpah and initiative get balls rolling, and once they are

in motion, regulation and oversight naturally follow. Trying to

Bureaucratically plan for every conceivable contigency, and plan

everything in advance before taking action is a) Usually ineffective

and b) Is usually an obstacle to anything meaningful actually

getting done.

 

What's the military saying? " The best battle plan only lasts until

the first shot is fired. "

 

And finally, to illustrate that oversight usually follows initiative

(and not the other way around), I rely on precedent.

 

Within our field, there is the precedent of the NCCAOM, which formed

at the time of its earliest inception out of a perceived need, at a

time when there was no regulation or oversight, and despite a

tremendous amount of profession-wide resistance.

 

Within the field of western medicine, we can look to the American

Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) for precedent. The stated

purpose of this organization is " to establish and maintain high

standards for the delivery of safe, quality medical care by

certified physician specialists. "

 

But here is the interesting thing about the ABMS:

 

It first formed in 1933.

 

The first specialty board for western medicine formed in 1916, a

full SEVENTEEN YEARS BEFORE the formation of the board that would

eventually provide regulation and oversight. By the time the ABMS

formed, there were a total of 4 operational specialty boards in

existence. And this was at a time when specialized residencies were

not widespread.

 

In other words, the Cart comes Before the Horse. First comes

initiative and oversight follows. In Western Medicine, specialty

boards were established and operational BEFORE a full spectrum of

regulations and oversight organizations were in place.

 

Because the practice of acupuncture and OM in America is young, it

seems natural that we would follow the precedent set by Western

Medicine and the ABMS, which in 1916 was probably remarkably similar

to the field of American Acupuncture in 2007.

 

This approach is not self-interested or mercenary. Nor does it seek

to send the profession backwards, or try to undo hard won progress.

It is a time-tested approach that has resulted in stronger and

better medical care in western medicine, and so it can do for the

practice of American OM.

 

Here is a full excerpt from the ABMS website:

 

Our History

 

ABMS can trace its roots to the rise and growth of the medical

specialty board movement in the early 1900s. This movement has been

associated directly with many significant advancements in medical

science and the resulting improvements made in medical care

delivery. During this period of growth, however, there was no system

to assure the public that a physician claiming to be a specialist

was indeed qualified. Until the development of the specialty board

movement, each physician was the sole assessor of his or her own

qualifications to practice a given specialty. The advent of

specialty societies and medical education institutions brought a

more organized and rigorous approach. These bodies encouraged and

assisted in the development of boards to define specialty

qualifications and to issue credentials that would assure the public

of the specialist's qualifications. As the original boards and

societies matured, it was natural that they coalesce and organize a

national system to provide recognition of qualified physician

specialists.

 

The concept of a specialty board was first proposed in 1908, though

it was not until 1916 that the first specialty board, the American

Board for Ophthalmic Examinations, was formed. In 1917 the board was

officially incorporated, and in 1933 its name was changed to the

American Board of Ophthalmology. This board established the

guidelines for training and evaluating candidates desiring

certification to practice ophthalmology.

 

The second specialty board, the American Board of Otolaryngology,

was founded and incorporated in 1924; the third and fourth boards,

The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American

Board of Dermatology and Syphilology, were established in 1930 and

1932, respectively. These boards developed along the same path as

their predecessor and shared the common objectives to:

 

Elevate the standards of their respective specialties

Familiarize the public with their aims and ideals

Protect the public against irresponsible and unqualified

practitioners

Authorize educational resources

Set requirements for test candidates

Oversee the examination program

Issue certificates of qualification

 

At a 1933 professional conference, representatives from these four

pioneering specialty boards and the American Hospital Association,

the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Federation of

State Medical Boards, the American Medical Association (AMA) Council

on Medical Education and Hospitals and the National Board of Medical

Examiners agreed that the examination and certification of

specialists would best be carried out by the National Boards

(specialty boards). They also concluded that the efficacy of these

boards would be maximized by the formation of an advisory committee

or council created by two delegated representatives from the

official specialty boards currently in existence or in the process

of formation.

 

Formal organization of the Advisory Board occurred that same year,

and in 1934 the Constitution and Bylaws were adopted. The purposes

of the newly formed Advisory Board were:

 

To furnish an opportunity for the discussion of problems common to

the various specialty examining boards in medicine and surgery

To act in an advisory capacity to these boards

To coordinate their work as far as possible

Assume jurisdiction over those policies and problems common to all

of the Boards which are expressly delegated to it by the component

boards

To avoid interfering with the autonomy of any represented examining

board

To stimulate improvement in postgraduate medical education

 

Though broadened since then, these purposes and goals remain much

the same today.

 

Since 1933, official recognition of specialty boards in medicine has

been achieved by the collaborative efforts of the Advisory Board for

Medical Specialties, its successor, the American Board of Medical

Specialties, and the AMA Council on Medical Education. In 1948 these

efforts were formalized through the establishment of the Liaison

Committee for Specialty Boards (LCSB). A jointly approved

publication, " Essentials for Approval of Examining Boards in

Medicine Specialties, " established standards. This document has

undergone several revisions through the years and remains the

standard for recognition of new specialty boards.

 

David Karchmer

 

 

 

-- In Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

>

> David,

>

> I am sorry if I offended you but you seem to be misinterpretting

my wording. It is not meant to be a judgement but many of the

players that are for creating the ABORM and other boards may not be

looking for

> it to benefit the profession, as a primary goal. Many are looking

to set themselves apart. There has been much to do on here about

the money and if we really even need to have a specialty, at least

at this time in our evolution. I happen to think we need to be

spending our time getting ourselves stronger and consolidation of

our institutions, making better laws in all states, doctoral degrees

and doctoral-degreed faculty and then we should be thinking about

possible specialty boards. That could be many decades from now as

we do not yet have either of the others done.

>

> The concept of our profession is similar, I guess, to other

professions in that we are the ones who got legislation passed and

to some extent participate in a constant monitoring of it. Many

states have laws that usually mention a self-policing regulation

designed for us to report practitioners who violate the law.

>

> On a similar note, there was am exchange printed in Acupuncture

Today between the NOMAA and the AAAOM (formerly AAOM) and how our

professional representatives basically squelched them. They have

yet to get anything going and the one school they choose has now

come under ACAOM suspension for violation for changes to its

program. Are you aware that an informal group of AAAOM reps has or

will be discussing the issue of specialty boards and whether or not

they are rellevent to our profession?

>

> The maverick mentality is one that worked for our profession a

long time ago but will no longer. Creating these so called

certification programs without public and practitioner input will

seek to divide us and put a lot of questions into the minds of the

patients, the legislators, malpractice insurance companies and

ourselves. I understand your desire to want to learn to help

patients, collaborate with others and be recognized. These are

things we all share in common. Set your self apart with your

experiences and successes.

>

> Please remember that there are still some groups out there that

teach acupuncture in seminars, often without any supervised clinical

training. If we take our eye off the ball, then we will lose a lot

more then our ego. Our privilege to practice came from

the " profession " that started schools, organizations, etc.

>

> Mike W. Bowser, LAc

> _______________

> Can you find the hidden words?  Take a break and play Seekadoo!

> http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_wlmailtextlink

>