$ and 'the successful practice': was response to recent thread - TCT

[Guest guest]

i wholeheartedly agree, clinical success and $ success are 2 entirely

different things, and should not be confused with one another. i remember

while at PCOM the teachers we most highly respected for their

clinical/scholarly knowledge *generally* had smaller practices, and those

with the busy practices we *generally* didn't want as clinic supervisors.

(i'm not going to name names here).

 

my point being that clinical success involves AOM knowledge and experience,

$ success involves business acumen and experience. the 2 are totally

separate issues.

 

and may i say, since i'm on the subject, that i REALLY OBJECT to honora

wolfe's 100K practice as the model for The Successful Practice. i find this

concept VERY OFFENSIVE. to me, " the successful practice " is measured by

clinical success rates, relationships with patients, quality of time and

care provided, and so on in this vein. 100K has Nothing To Do With IT.

it's solely a measure of materialism. don't misunderstand me, i don't mean

to say that it's wrong to make $ practicing. of course a healthy practice

is in the black. i'm saying the clinical goals should be first and

foremost, the $ is the energy exchange that allows us to continue to do this

important and worthy work that we all agree we are blessed to be able to do.

 

i often say that one of the problems with western med is that they have gone

from 'healthcare is our business' to 'our business is healthcare'. to me,

the 100k practice goal is 'our business is healthcare' and i do not believe

that is why any of us enrolled in acu college.

 

my apologies for the rant. i have wanted to say this for a LONG time.

 

kath

 

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Kim Blankenship <kuangguiyuwrote:

 

> I agree with you both entirely about what it takes to be a good

> practitioner

> AND a successful one. A number of my fellow students were much more

> concerned with memorizing information that was likely to be on the boards

> than with the practice management class that some seemed to see as more of

> an unnecessary intrusion into their schooling. I was most fortunate to hold

> the position as assistant office manager and, ultimately, office manager of

> a successful acupuncture clinic while I was in school. It was that

> invaluable experience that has been most meaningful to me in attaining a

> level of economic success in my practice.

> Take care -

>

> Kim

>

>

> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. <

> angelapfa <angelapfa%40comcast.net>> wrote:

>

> > Mark, thanks for making an excellent point, practice success is

> > contingent on many aspects, one's ability as a practitioner being only

> one.

> > When I taught I found that this was hard to accept for students, AND I

> also

> > found that most students were not very interested in business management

> AND

> > their expectations were often unrealistic in face of the economic

> context.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D.

> >

> > angelapfa <angelapfa%40comcast.net> <angelapfa%40comcast.net

> >

> >

> > www.InnerhealthSalem.com

> >

> > Phone: 503 364 3022

> >

> > -

> > zedbowls

> > To:

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>

> <Chinese Medicine%40>

> > Monday, February 02, 2009 7:15 PM

> > Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung

> > styles of acupuncture

> >

> > Hi Kim,

> >

> > While schooled, and perhaps enlightened, many/most on this forum are

> > still human.

> >

> > Perhaps the explanation you seek is simply " envy " in one form or

> > another. Envious of the income, or the physical surroundings,

> > envious of the volume, or the patient-perceived results?

> >

> > Interesting too to read of conspiracy/secret society from one who

> > uses the secret language of some other secret group (spiral dynamics).

> >

> > Chinese medicine works and it has for thousands of years when applied

> > correctly (within a wide array of styles). Given enough time, those

> > with concentration and aptitude can learn to be effective

> > practitioners.

> >

> > Just being a good practitioner will not make one $ucce$$ful in

> > busine$$. A hard pill to swallow for some.

> >

> > Mark Z

> >

> > --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>

> <Chinese Medicine%40>,

>

> > Kim Blankenship

> > <kuangguiyu wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Group:

> > >

> > > I am very disheartened and dismayed at all of the derogatory

> > remarks and

> > > misinformation concerning Tan/Chen/Tung-style acupuncture being

> > bandied

> > > about on this group. Many of these attacks have not just singled

> > out certain

> > > styles of acupuncture, but have rather focused on the morals and

> > ethics of

> > > the many of us who have incorporated these styles into our various

> > > practices.

> > >

> > > First I would like to address some of the misinformation and the

> > stunning

> > > lack of understanding of the basic principles of acupuncture and the

> > > Classics displayed by some of the detractors:

> > >

> > > Angela Pfaffenberger stated that, " A striking feature of Tan's

> > system is

> > > that it takes so little time, the clients do not need to disrobe,

> > and you

> > > don't really need a diagnosis, you can do the whole thing is a bout

> > 10

> > > minutes...Plus the underlying disorder is never remedied,

> > consequently the

> > > client has to return and Tan also recommends frequent treatments... "

> > >

> > > First, of course there is a necessary diagnosis - to suggest

> > otherwise is

> > > ridiculous. And the comment that " the underlying disorder is never

> > > remedied " is also nonsense. Meridian-style acupuncture/Balance

> > Method

> > > focuses on diagnosing the " sick " meridian(s) which indicates the

> > location of

> > > physical pain as well as an underlying internal problem. This type

> > of

> > > treatment addresses root and branch and I am astounded that any

> > experienced

> > > practitioner could think for a second that bringing balance to a

> > patient's

> > > meridian system would only suffice to alleviate physical pain. And

> > I don't

> > > see any downside to being able to spend less time with each patient

> > and see

> > > more per hour as long as you are giving effective treatments.

> > Don't we all

> > > hope that clients return? I do, and I have personally had more

> > patients

> > > return to address other issues following a rather quick resolution

> > of their

> > > initial complaint. My results have been faster using this type of

> > treatment

> > > rather than the herbalized TCM style I was taught in school. And

> > frequent

> > > treatments - which happen to be the norm in China - can make a huge

> > > difference in results with stubborn, chronic conditions.

> > >

> > > Someone made the comment:

> > > " Many practitioners are claiming how once they switched to Dr Tan's

> > style,

> > > they saw much better results. "

> > >

> > > To which Lonny Jarrett replied:

> > > " Lonny: This would depend on one's value system regarding what

> > > constitutes " a better result " . "

> > >

> > > This seems a terribly arrogant and negative assessment of Tan

> > practitioners'

> > > value systems. But we'll probably never know for sure because

> > Lonny deigned

> > > not to lower himself and " expound a bit " on what he was

> > enigmatically

> > > putting forth. attempted to translate:

> > >

> > > " Lonny has a good point here...What Lonny is speaking about here is

> > very

> > > profound. He is asking

> > > whether the relief of symptomatic pain is the goal of the patient

> > and

> > > practitioner, or something deeper, which in my approach to Chinese

> > > medicine would be alleviation of disharmonious patterns. Lonny may

> > be

> > > looking at more spiritual issues as well, including lifestyle,

> > > emotions, outlook . . . "

> > >

> > > I am not sure how he managed to divine all of that from Lonny's

> > cryptic

> > > one-liner. Of course, once again, meridian-style treatments do

> > much more

> > > than simply alleviate symptomatic pain. As far as Lonny possibly

> > looking at

> > > more spiritual issues, that's nice - especially if that is the

> > patient's

> > > goal - but why is it necessary to comment on other practitioners'

> > value

> > > systems at all? What's profound about that?

> > >

> > > David Vitello responded to Lonny as well:

> > >

> > > " Lonny,

> > >

> > > Good point. I think there is a large influence Orange in Dr Tan

> > > practitioners. There are quite few big name Dr Tan'rs practitioners

> > > in WA -where I practice- and resonating with Angelina, they seem to

> > > me to be interested in fast paced busy practices with little care

> > for

> > > deeper healing. The Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent

> > > with these guys. There is this whole Scientology-Singer-Dr Tan-Jimmy

> > > Chang- Lotus seminar-collaboration monster that is really a bit

> > scary

> > > to me...To not understand the effectiveness of local needling for

> > some

> > > disorders is

> > > baffling. "

> > >

> > > Well, to begin with, linking Tan/Chen/Tung practitioners in general

> > with

> > > Scientology, David Singer and colors (?) is preposterous. I had to

> > google

> > > Singer to even find out what the heck is being referenced. Here

> > again we

> > > also have the inaccurate slam on " little care for deeper healing " .

> > And " The

> > > Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent with these guys "

> > also sounds

> > > like a slam, but it's pointless to refute gibberish so I'm not even

> > going to

> > > attempt that. And yes, local needling can be effective but, in my

> > > experience, meridian-style treatments provide quicker and deeper

> > results so

> > > I am really confused how you could interpret a stronger, quicker

> > response as

> > > being somehow sub-par. By the way, what color value is assigned to

> > cheap

> > > shots?

> > >

> > > Sorry to have gone on so long with this post, but I am deeply

> > disturbed to

> > > see learned practitioners dissing an effective, Classically-derived

> > modality

> > > and, even more, showing such disrespect for their colleagues. I am

> > also

> > > very curious as to what can possibly motivate such a response. I'm

> > afraid

> > > that it is just this sort of thinking that is at the core of why we

> > are such

> > > a fractured, divided profession. And this is no time to be further

> > > promulgating this sort of division.

> > >

> > > With all due respect,

> > >

> > > Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

One must not forget that to have clinical success one must have patients. In my

clinic, patients would not come for long if they did not have extremely good,

immediate results; although for most permanent resolution it does take 9 to 15

visits. If your results are good, more and more patients will come and your

practice will grow. If you are only seeing a small pool of patients, somebody

is not referring. If people are not referring, perhaps the clinical results

aren't quite as good as one might want to believe.

 

Dr. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

: acukath:

Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:01:56 -0500Re: Re: $ and 'the successful

practice': was response to recent thread - TCT

 

 

 

i wholeheartedly agree, clinical success and $ success are 2 entirelydifferent

things, and should not be confused with one another. i rememberwhile at PCOM the

teachers we most highly respected for theirclinical/scholarly knowledge

*generally* had smaller practices, and thosewith the busy practices we

*generally* didn't want as clinic supervisors.(i'm not going to name names

here).my point being that clinical success involves AOM knowledge and

experience,$ success involves business acumen and experience. the 2 are

totallyseparate issues.and may i say, since i'm on the subject, that i REALLY

OBJECT to honorawolfe's 100K practice as the model for The Successful Practice.

i find thisconcept VERY OFFENSIVE. to me, " the successful practice " is measured

byclinical success rates, relationships with patients, quality of time andcare

provided, and so on in this vein. 100K has Nothing To Do With IT.it's solely a

measure of materialism. don't misunderstand me, i don't meanto say that it's

wrong to make $ practicing. of course a healthy practiceis in the black. i'm

saying the clinical goals should be first andforemost, the $ is the energy

exchange that allows us to continue to do thisimportant and worthy work that we

all agree we are blessed to be able to do.i often say that one of the problems

with western med is that they have gonefrom 'healthcare is our business' to 'our

business is healthcare'. to me,the 100k practice goal is 'our business is

healthcare' and i do not believethat is why any of us enrolled in acu college.my

apologies for the rant. i have wanted to say this for a LONG time.kathOn Tue,

Feb 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Kim Blankenship <kuangguiyuwrote:> I agree

with you both entirely about what it takes to be a good> practitioner> AND a

successful one. A number of my fellow students were much more> concerned with

memorizing information that was likely to be on the boards> than with the

practice management class that some seemed to see as more of> an unnecessary

intrusion into their schooling. I was most fortunate to hold> the position as

assistant office manager and, ultimately, office manager of> a successful

acupuncture clinic while I was in school. It was that> invaluable experience

that has been most meaningful to me in attaining a> level of economic success in

my practice.> Take care ->> Kim>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Angela

Pfaffenberger, PH.D. <> angelapfa <angelapfa%40comcast.net>>

wrote:>> > Mark, thanks for making an excellent point, practice success is> >

contingent on many aspects, one's ability as a practitioner being only> one.> >

When I taught I found that this was hard to accept for students, AND I> also> >

found that most students were not very interested in business management> AND> >

their expectations were often unrealistic in face of the economic> context.> >>

> Regards,> > Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D.> >> > angelapfa

<angelapfa%40comcast.net> <angelapfa%40comcast.net> >> >> >

www.InnerhealthSalem.com> >> > Phone: 503 364 3022> >> > ----- Original Message

-----> > zedbowls> > To:

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>> <Chinese Medicine%40>> > Monday,

February 02, 2009 7:15 PM> > Re: Response to the recent thread

regarding Tan/Chen/Tung> > styles of acupuncture> >> > Hi Kim,> >> > While

schooled, and perhaps enlightened, many/most on this forum are> > still human.>

>> > Perhaps the explanation you seek is simply " envy " in one form or> >

another. Envious of the income, or the physical surroundings,> > envious of the

volume, or the patient-perceived results?> >> > Interesting too to read of

conspiracy/secret society from one who> > uses the secret language of some other

secret group (spiral dynamics).> >> > Chinese medicine works and it has for

thousands of years when applied> > correctly (within a wide array of styles).

Given enough time, those> > with concentration and aptitude can learn to be

effective> > practitioners.> >> > Just being a good practitioner will not make

one $ucce$$ful in> > busine$$. A hard pill to swallow for some.> >> > Mark Z> >>

> --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>> <Chinese Medicine%40>,>> > Kim

Blankenship> > <kuangguiyu wrote:> > >> > > Dear Group:> > >> > > I am very

disheartened and dismayed at all of the derogatory> > remarks and> > >

misinformation concerning Tan/Chen/Tung-style acupuncture being> > bandied> > >

about on this group. Many of these attacks have not just singled> > out certain>

> > styles of acupuncture, but have rather focused on the morals and> > ethics

of> > > the many of us who have incorporated these styles into our various> > >

practices.> > >> > > First I would like to address some of the misinformation

and the> > stunning> > > lack of understanding of the basic principles of

acupuncture and the> > > Classics displayed by some of the detractors:> > >> > >

Angela Pfaffenberger stated that, " A striking feature of Tan's> > system is> > >

that it takes so little time, the clients do not need to disrobe,> > and you> >

> don't really need a diagnosis, you can do the whole thing is a bout> > 10> > >

minutes...Plus the underlying disorder is never remedied,> > consequently the> >

> client has to return and Tan also recommends frequent treatments... " > > >> > >

First, of course there is a necessary diagnosis - to suggest> > otherwise is> >

> ridiculous. And the comment that " the underlying disorder is never> > >

remedied " is also nonsense. Meridian-style acupuncture/Balance> > Method> > >

focuses on diagnosing the " sick " meridian(s) which indicates the> > location of>

> > physical pain as well as an underlying internal problem. This type> > of> >

> treatment addresses root and branch and I am astounded that any> >

experienced> > > practitioner could think for a second that bringing balance to

a> > patient's> > > meridian system would only suffice to alleviate physical

pain. And> > I don't> > > see any downside to being able to spend less time with

each patient> > and see> > > more per hour as long as you are giving effective

treatments.> > Don't we all> > > hope that clients return? I do, and I have

personally had more> > patients> > > return to address other issues following a

rather quick resolution> > of their> > > initial complaint. My results have been

faster using this type of> > treatment> > > rather than the herbalized TCM style

I was taught in school. And> > frequent> > > treatments - which happen to be the

norm in China - can make a huge> > > difference in results with stubborn,

chronic conditions.> > >> > > Someone made the comment:> > > " Many practitioners

are claiming how once they switched to Dr Tan's> > style,> > > they saw much

better results. " > > >> > > To which Lonny Jarrett replied:> > > " Lonny: This

would depend on one's value system regarding what> > > constitutes " a better

result " . " > > >> > > This seems a terribly arrogant and negative assessment of

Tan> > practitioners'> > > value systems. But we'll probably never know for sure

because> > Lonny deigned> > > not to lower himself and " expound a bit " on what

he was> > enigmatically> > > putting forth. attempted to

translate:> > >> > > " Lonny has a good point here...What Lonny is speaking about

here is> > very> > > profound. He is asking> > > whether the relief of

symptomatic pain is the goal of the patient> > and> > > practitioner, or

something deeper, which in my approach to Chinese> > > medicine would be

alleviation of disharmonious patterns. Lonny may> > be> > > looking at more

spiritual issues as well, including lifestyle,> > > emotions, outlook . . . " > >

>> > > I am not sure how he managed to divine all of that from Lonny's> >

cryptic> > > one-liner. Of course, once again, meridian-style treatments do> >

much more> > > than simply alleviate symptomatic pain. As far as Lonny possibly>

> looking at> > > more spiritual issues, that's nice - especially if that is

the> > patient's> > > goal - but why is it necessary to comment on other

practitioners'> > value> > > systems at all? What's profound about that?> > >> >

> David Vitello responded to Lonny as well:> > >> > > " Lonny,> > >> > > Good

point. I think there is a large influence Orange in Dr Tan> > > practitioners.

There are quite few big name Dr Tan'rs practitioners> > > in WA -where I

practice- and resonating with Angelina, they seem to> > > me to be interested in

fast paced busy practices with little care> > for> > > deeper healing. The

Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent> > > with these guys. There is

this whole Scientology-Singer-Dr Tan-Jimmy> > > Chang- Lotus

seminar-collaboration monster that is really a bit> > scary> > > to me...To not

understand the effectiveness of local needling for> > some> > > disorders is> >

> baffling. " > > >> > > Well, to begin with, linking Tan/Chen/Tung practitioners

in general> > with> > > Scientology, David Singer and colors (?) is

preposterous. I had to> > google> > > Singer to even find out what the heck is

being referenced. Here> > again we> > > also have the inaccurate slam on " little

care for deeper healing " .> > And " The> > > Orange values of $bling are definetly

apparent with these guys " > > also sounds> > > like a slam, but it's pointless to

refute gibberish so I'm not even> > going to> > > attempt that. And yes, local

needling can be effective but, in my> > > experience, meridian-style treatments

provide quicker and deeper> > results so> > > I am really confused how you could

interpret a stronger, quicker> > response as> > > being somehow sub-par. By the

way, what color value is assigned to> > cheap> > > shots?> > >> > > Sorry to

have gone on so long with this post, but I am deeply> > disturbed to> > > see

learned practitioners dissing an effective, Classically-derived> > modality> > >

and, even more, showing such disrespect for their colleagues. I am> > also> > >

very curious as to what can possibly motivate such a response. I'm> > afraid> >

> that it is just this sort of thinking that is at the core of why we> > are

such> > > a fractured, divided profession. And this is no time to be further> >

> promulgating this sort of division.> > >> > > With all due respect,> > >> > >

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.> > >> > >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been removed]> > >> >> >