Guest guest Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 Hi All, I wrote this post for another site that is relevant to the discussion here, and particularly for countering some of the hyperbole and hysteria around this issue. And just so you don't have to spend time looking it up yourself, the address to send your letters: ACAOM Maryland Trade Center #3 7501 Greenway Center Drive, Suite 760 Greenbelt, MD 20770 If the FPD were adopted, my sense is that most of the schools in CA would drop their masters and go with the FPD because they already have a bloated 3,000+ hour program and it wouldn¹t take that much more to ramp it up to a FPD. In other states, especially those that don¹t have herbs as part of their scope and primary care as part of their standards of care, my sense is that the majority of schools that aren¹t CA approved will stay with their lean and mean acupuncture masters. An example of an exception would be Tri-State in NY, which is already ramping up for the FPD. Why is Tri State doing this? They are training their students to be able to function in an integrative medical setting and get jobs in hospitals. While its unfortunate that the title ³doctor² carries an inordinate amount of weight in hospital settings, the crucial aspect of the proposed FPD training is that AOM practitioners would be learning competencies to speak the language and function in mainstream bio-med culture. From what I¹ve heard in terms of actual placement of grads in hospitals, Tri-State has been the most successful of all the schools so far. In contrast, the other programs in NY that don¹t ramp up and continue with the masters would continue to produce grads with the competencies to provide acupuncture care as an independent practitioner and spend a year less in school. I don¹t think that many schools would continue with both a masters and FPD, it would be one or the other, and the competition would be between schools lean and mean masters and other schools reaching for higher doctoral standards. Some of the really large schools might try to keep both. As far as how much this would cost, I¹ll speak from my experience as a Dean at AIMC Berkeley and use our tuition/faculty/admin costs to extrapolate what the additional costs for the proposed FPD would be: As it stands with the current proposed FPD, a CAB approved AOM program needs the same number of academic years (4), and requires 50 hours less clinic (950 vs. 1,000). The increase of 50 clinic hours would cost about $790. A non-CAB approved ACAOM accredited Masters OM program needs the same number of academic years (4) as the proposed FPD and requires 150 hours less of clinic (850 vs. 1000). The increase of 150 hours would cost $2,370. There could well be additional costs for other programs, depending where they are and what personnel they already have; this would include upgrading an Admin to doctoral level (+$40K/year) and paying some faculty that teach biomedicine more (+$25K/year). In terms of student tuition, my estimate is that these additional admin/faculty costs increase student tuition by $1,650, assuming 100 full time students attending for 3 calendar years. [= (40K(3) + 25K)/100] Given that a majority of students receive financial aid, I¹ll assume that debt amortization would double these costs. Given the criteria above, we end up with the estimated additional costs of the FPD coming out to: For CAB approved programs the minimum student overall increase for proposed FPD compliance: $5080 For non-CAB but ACAOM approved programs the minimum student overall increase for proposed FPD compliance: $8000 As far as the societal cost goes as measured by the additional fees patients would end up paying, we can look at a prototypical AOM practitioner that has a 30 year career and sees 30 patients/week for 50 weeks per year and calculate the additional cost per treatment. For those doing CAB approved FPDs, this additional cost comes to a little more than 11 cents per patient treatment. For those doing the non-CAB approved FPDs, the additional cost is a little less than 18 cents per patient treatment. Given that the average cost of treatment these days is about $70, we¹re looking at an increase of 0.16% to 0.26%. For a prototypical CAN-style practitioner that has a 30 year career and treats 100 patients/week, the additional cost per patient treatment is 3.4 cents for the CAB approved FPDs and 5.3 cents for the non-CAB FPDs. If we estimate that the typical CAN-style patient pays significantly less, say $20/treatment, we¹re looking at an increase of 0.17 to 0.27% for patients. Both the current OM masters and proposed FPD would require 4 academic years (= 12 quarters = 8 semesters = 9 trimesters = 36 months) to complete. As outlined above the additional costs of the proposed FPD would be much less than doing the 1,200 hour DAOM add-on, which, if the FPD were to be established, would likely evolve into a post-graduate degree for those that want to go really deep into the medicine. The FPD is a complex issue and I¹ve been working on it for over 15 years from both the professional and academic sides, and I¹m still learning new things about it. While I personally think the proposed FPD should have more rigor, ACAOM has set the bar low enough so that the transition would be relatively simple and inexpensive. Its very much a worthwhile investment that I think will eventually play a key role in the transformation of health care in this country, as will community acupuncture (we¹ve got 2 clinic shifts at our school doing CA) and they don¹t have to be mutually exclusive! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Again....a cogent analysis. You hit the nail on the head Keith.......that's the systems purpose....decrease the number of practitioners and increase barriers. The less of us out there the less we can help people. Richard In a message dated 11/26/2009 1:59:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, writes: True, we don't know why folks are leaving AOM, and a survey of those who left the profession would be difficult to conduct. Presumably, some combination of retirement, inability to make it in practice, etc. In 2003, the average career " lifespan " of an AOM'er in the U.S. was polled at 7.9 years. (from NCCAOM job task analysis report 2003, still waiting patiently for last year's JTA to be released with the new numbers) Looking at the number of licensees state by state and nationally, the growth trends over time gives us an overall idea how many are not renewing (for any number of reasons), because the number of new grads/licensees has been mostly steady at around 2000 nationally for a number of years. What's noteworthy to me about these trends is the how the implementation of an FPD is likely to affect a further decrease in the number AOM professionals in the United states in the years to come, by increasing barriers to education, eventually further decreasing access in our communities. -keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Hi Ben, Thanks for laying down your cost estimates. Makes for good conversation. For me what is hard to ignore is that the trends over the years at American TCM schools have been consistent with increasing didactic and clinical hours, which amount to increased cost. Also, the cost per didactic or clinical unit has consistently been increased across the country at all schools, even if the hours have remained steady. Not so great for the students, quite a few of whom are now leaving school with 100,000 or more in debt. Maybe not so great for the profession as a whole, as this could impact a potential student's decision to go to school. Right now the profession is at a standstill growth wise, as shown here in the latest census count. ( http://www.communityacupuncturenetwork.org/blog/survey-says-27965-licensed-acupu\ ncturists-us-july-2009 ) Also, it's easy to see schools moving towards 4200-4500 hour programs in the near future, all rolled into one. What incentive do schools have to stay " lean and mean " when student loans are available? Which means higher cost, and most likely will discourage more practitioners from entering a profession with very high debt load and very, very few jobs. Lots to think about. Keith Chinese Medicine , Benjamin Dierauf <bdierauf wrote: > > Hi All, > > I wrote this post for another site that is relevant to the discussion here, > and particularly for countering some of the hyperbole and hysteria around > this issue. And just so you don't have to spend time looking it up yourself, > the address to send your letters: > > ACAOM > Maryland Trade Center #3 > 7501 Greenway Center Drive, Suite 760 > Greenbelt, MD 20770 > > If the FPD were adopted, my sense is that most of the schools in CA would > drop their masters and go with the FPD because they already have a bloated > 3,000+ hour program and it wouldn¹t take that much more to ramp it up to a > FPD. In other states, especially those that don¹t have herbs as part of > their scope and primary care as part of their standards of care, my sense is > that the majority of schools that aren¹t CA approved will stay with their > lean and mean acupuncture masters. An example of an exception would be > Tri-State in NY, which is already ramping up for the FPD. > > Why is Tri State doing this? They are training their students to be able to > function in an integrative medical setting and get jobs in hospitals. While > its unfortunate that the title ³doctor² carries an inordinate amount of > weight in hospital settings, the crucial aspect of the proposed FPD training > is that AOM practitioners would be learning competencies to speak the > language and function in mainstream bio-med culture. From what I¹ve heard in > terms of actual placement of grads in hospitals, Tri-State has been the most > successful of all the schools so far. In contrast, the other programs in NY > that don¹t ramp up and continue with the masters would continue to produce > grads with the competencies to provide acupuncture care as an independent > practitioner and spend a year less in school. > > I don¹t think that many schools would continue with both a masters and FPD, > it would be one or the other, and the competition would be between schools > lean and mean masters and other schools reaching for higher doctoral > standards. Some of the really large schools might try to keep both. > > As far as how much this would cost, I¹ll speak from my experience as a Dean > at AIMC Berkeley and use our tuition/faculty/admin costs to extrapolate what > the additional costs for the proposed FPD would be: > > As it stands with the current proposed FPD, a CAB approved AOM program needs > the same number of academic years (4), and requires 50 hours less clinic > (950 vs. 1,000). The increase of 50 clinic hours would cost about $790. > > A non-CAB approved ACAOM accredited Masters OM program needs the same number > of academic years (4) as the proposed FPD and requires 150 hours less of > clinic (850 vs. 1000). The increase of 150 hours would cost $2,370. > > There could well be additional costs for other programs, depending where > they are and what personnel they already have; this would include upgrading > an Admin to doctoral level (+$40K/year) and paying some faculty that teach > biomedicine more (+$25K/year). In terms of student tuition, my estimate is > that these additional admin/faculty costs increase student tuition by > $1,650, assuming 100 full time students attending for 3 calendar years. [= > (40K(3) + 25K)/100] > > Given that a majority of students receive financial aid, I¹ll assume that > debt amortization would double these costs. Given the criteria above, we end > up with the estimated additional costs of the FPD coming out to: > > For CAB approved programs the minimum student overall increase for proposed > FPD compliance: > $5080 > > For non-CAB but ACAOM approved programs the minimum student overall increase > for proposed FPD compliance: > $8000 > > As far as the societal cost goes as measured by the additional fees patients > would end up paying, we can look at a prototypical AOM practitioner that has > a 30 year career and sees 30 patients/week for 50 weeks per year and > calculate the additional cost per treatment. For those doing CAB approved > FPDs, this additional cost comes to a little more than 11 cents per patient > treatment. For those doing the non-CAB approved FPDs, the additional cost is > a little less than 18 cents per patient treatment. Given that the average > cost of treatment these days is about $70, we¹re looking at an increase of > 0.16% to 0.26%. > > For a prototypical CAN-style practitioner that has a 30 year career and > treats 100 patients/week, the additional cost per patient treatment is 3.4 > cents for the CAB approved FPDs and 5.3 cents for the non-CAB FPDs. If we > estimate that the typical CAN-style patient pays significantly less, say > $20/treatment, we¹re looking at an increase of 0.17 to 0.27% for patients. > > Both the current OM masters and proposed FPD would require 4 academic years > (= 12 quarters = 8 semesters = 9 trimesters = 36 months) to complete. As > outlined above the additional costs of the proposed FPD would be much less > than doing the 1,200 hour DAOM add-on, which, if the FPD were to be > established, would likely evolve into a post-graduate degree for those that > want to go really deep into the medicine. > > The FPD is a complex issue and I¹ve been working on it for over 15 years > from both the professional and academic sides, and I¹m still learning new > things about it. While I personally think the proposed FPD should have more > rigor, ACAOM has set the bar low enough so that the transition would be > relatively simple and inexpensive. Its very much a worthwhile investment > that I think will eventually play a key role in the transformation of health > care in this country, as will community acupuncture (we¹ve got 2 clinic > shifts at our school doing CA) and they don¹t have to be mutually > exclusive! > > Benjamin > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Great chart, but not sure what to do with it. I was on a panel discussion recently with a massage therapist who was a past board pres. He quoted an interesting stat that I would love to know in the field of acup. He said that one third of MTs in Florida did not renew their licence. I think this is perhaps a more vital stat. I'm sure this info can be gleaned from the various state boards. This number tells us how many are choosing to leave the profession (but not why they are leaving). Personally I think a decent number should leave or never enter the profession (but that is another flame laden chain of ranting I'm sure) Be well, Bob Robert Linde, AP, RH Professional Herbalists Training Program Acupuncture & Herbal Therapies 901 Central Ave St. Petersburg, FL 33705 www.acuherbals.com 727-551-0857 --- On Thu, 11/26/09, < wrote: < Re: Societal cost of the FPD Chinese Medicine Thursday, November 26, 2009, 11:33 AM  Hi Ben, Thanks for laying down your cost estimates. Makes for good conversation. For me what is hard to ignore is that the trends over the years at American TCM schools have been consistent with increasing didactic and clinical hours, which amount to increased cost. Also, the cost per didactic or clinical unit has consistently been increased across the country at all schools, even if the hours have remained steady. Not so great for the students, quite a few of whom are now leaving school with 100,000 or more in debt. Maybe not so great for the profession as a whole, as this could impact a potential student's decision to go to school. Right now the profession is at a standstill growth wise, as shown here in the latest census count. ( http://www.communit yacupuncturenetw ork.org/blog/ survey-says- 27965-licensed- acupuncturists- us-july-2009 ) Also, it's easy to see schools moving towards 4200-4500 hour programs in the near future, all rolled into one. What incentive do schools have to stay " lean and mean " when student loans are available? Which means higher cost, and most likely will discourage more practitioners from entering a profession with very high debt load and very, very few jobs. Lots to think about. Keith Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , Benjamin Dierauf <bdierauf@.. .> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I wrote this post for another site that is relevant to the discussion here, > and particularly for countering some of the hyperbole and hysteria around > this issue. And just so you don't have to spend time looking it up yourself, > the address to send your letters: > > ACAOM > Maryland Trade Center #3 > 7501 Greenway Center Drive, Suite 760 > Greenbelt, MD 20770 > > If the FPD were adopted, my sense is that most of the schools in CA would > drop their masters and go with the FPD because they already have a bloated > 3,000+ hour program and it wouldn¹t take that much more to ramp it up to a > FPD. In other states, especially those that don¹t have herbs as part of > their scope and primary care as part of their standards of care, my sense is > that the majority of schools that aren¹t CA approved will stay with their > lean and mean acupuncture masters. An example of an exception would be > Tri-State in NY, which is already ramping up for the FPD. > > Why is Tri State doing this? They are training their students to be able to > function in an integrative medical setting and get jobs in hospitals. While > its unfortunate that the title ³doctor² carries an inordinate amount of > weight in hospital settings, the crucial aspect of the proposed FPD training > is that AOM practitioners would be learning competencies to speak the > language and function in mainstream bio-med culture. From what I¹ve heard in > terms of actual placement of grads in hospitals, Tri-State has been the most > successful of all the schools so far. In contrast, the other programs in NY > that don¹t ramp up and continue with the masters would continue to produce > grads with the competencies to provide acupuncture care as an independent > practitioner and spend a year less in school. > > I don¹t think that many schools would continue with both a masters and FPD, > it would be one or the other, and the competition would be between schools > lean and mean masters and other schools reaching for higher doctoral > standards. Some of the really large schools might try to keep both. > > As far as how much this would cost, I¹ll speak from my experience as a Dean > at AIMC Berkeley and use our tuition/faculty/ admin costs to extrapolate what > the additional costs for the proposed FPD would be: > > As it stands with the current proposed FPD, a CAB approved AOM program needs > the same number of academic years (4), and requires 50 hours less clinic > (950 vs. 1,000). The increase of 50 clinic hours would cost about $790. > > A non-CAB approved ACAOM accredited Masters OM program needs the same number > of academic years (4) as the proposed FPD and requires 150 hours less of > clinic (850 vs. 1000). The increase of 150 hours would cost $2,370. > > There could well be additional costs for other programs, depending where > they are and what personnel they already have; this would include upgrading > an Admin to doctoral level (+$40K/year) and paying some faculty that teach > biomedicine more (+$25K/year) . In terms of student tuition, my estimate is > that these additional admin/faculty costs increase student tuition by > $1,650, assuming 100 full time students attending for 3 calendar years. [= > (40K(3) + 25K)/100] > > Given that a majority of students receive financial aid, I¹ll assume that > debt amortization would double these costs. Given the criteria above, we end > up with the estimated additional costs of the FPD coming out to: > > For CAB approved programs the minimum student overall increase for proposed > FPD compliance: > $5080 > > For non-CAB but ACAOM approved programs the minimum student overall increase > for proposed FPD compliance: > $8000 > > As far as the societal cost goes as measured by the additional fees patients > would end up paying, we can look at a prototypical AOM practitioner that has > a 30 year career and sees 30 patients/week for 50 weeks per year and > calculate the additional cost per treatment. For those doing CAB approved > FPDs, this additional cost comes to a little more than 11 cents per patient > treatment. For those doing the non-CAB approved FPDs, the additional cost is > a little less than 18 cents per patient treatment. Given that the average > cost of treatment these days is about $70, we¹re looking at an increase of > 0.16% to 0.26%. > > For a prototypical CAN-style practitioner that has a 30 year career and > treats 100 patients/week, the additional cost per patient treatment is 3.4 > cents for the CAB approved FPDs and 5.3 cents for the non-CAB FPDs. If we > estimate that the typical CAN-style patient pays significantly less, say > $20/treatment, we¹re looking at an increase of 0.17 to 0.27% for patients. > > Both the current OM masters and proposed FPD would require 4 academic years > (= 12 quarters = 8 semesters = 9 trimesters = 36 months) to complete. As > outlined above the additional costs of the proposed FPD would be much less > than doing the 1,200 hour DAOM add-on, which, if the FPD were to be > established, would likely evolve into a post-graduate degree for those that > want to go really deep into the medicine. > > The FPD is a complex issue and I¹ve been working on it for over 15 years > from both the professional and academic sides, and I¹m still learning new > things about it. While I personally think the proposed FPD should have more > rigor, ACAOM has set the bar low enough so that the transition would be > relatively simple and inexpensive. Its very much a worthwhile investment > that I think will eventually play a key role in the transformation of health > care in this country, as will community acupuncture (we¹ve got 2 clinic > shifts at our school doing CA)  and they don¹t have to be mutually > exclusive! > > Benjamin > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 True, we don't know why folks are leaving AOM, and a survey of those who left the profession would be difficult to conduct. Presumably, some combination of retirement, inability to make it in practice, etc. In 2003, the average career " lifespan " of an AOM'er in the U.S. was polled at 7.9 years. (from NCCAOM job task analysis report 2003, still waiting patiently for last year's JTA to be released with the new numbers) Looking at the number of licensees state by state and nationally, the growth trends over time gives us an overall idea how many are not renewing (for any number of reasons), because the number of new grads/licensees has been mostly steady at around 2000 nationally for a number of years. What's noteworthy to me about these trends is the how the implementation of an FPD is likely to affect a further decrease in the number AOM professionals in the United states in the years to come, by increasing barriers to education, eventually further decreasing access in our communities. -keith Chinese Medicine , " Bob Linde, AP, Herbalist " <boblindeherbalist wrote: > > Great chart, but not sure what to do with it. I was on a panel discussion recently with a massage therapist who was a past board pres. He quoted an interesting stat that I would love to know in the field of acup. > He said that one third of MTs in Florida did not renew their licence. I think this is perhaps a more vital stat. I'm sure this info can be gleaned from the various state boards. This number tells us how many are choosing to leave the profession (but not why they are leaving). Personally I think a decent number should leave or never enter the profession (but that is another flame laden chain of ranting I'm sure) > > Be well, > Bob > Robert Linde, AP, RH > Professional Herbalists Training Program > Acupuncture & Herbal Therapies > 901 Central Ave > St. Petersburg, FL 33705 > www.acuherbals.com > 727-551-0857 > > --- On Thu, 11/26/09, < wrote: > > > < > Re: Societal cost of the FPD > Chinese Medicine > Thursday, November 26, 2009, 11:33 AM > > >  > > > > > > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for laying down your cost estimates. Makes for good conversation. > > For me what is hard to ignore is that the trends over the years at American TCM schools have been consistent with increasing didactic and clinical hours, which amount to increased cost. Also, the cost per didactic or clinical unit has consistently been increased across the country at all schools, even if the hours have remained steady. > > Not so great for the students, quite a few of whom are now leaving school with 100,000 or more in debt. > > Maybe not so great for the profession as a whole, as this could impact a potential student's decision to go to school. > > Right now the profession is at a standstill growth wise, as shown here in the latest census count. ( http://www.communit yacupuncturenetw ork.org/blog/ survey-says- 27965-licensed- acupuncturists- us-july-2009 ) > > Also, it's easy to see schools moving towards 4200-4500 hour programs in the near future, all rolled into one. What incentive do schools have to stay " lean and mean " when student loans are available? Which means higher cost, and most likely will discourage more practitioners from entering a profession with very high debt load and very, very few jobs. > > Lots to think about. > > Keith > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , Benjamin Dierauf <bdierauf@ .> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I wrote this post for another site that is relevant to the discussion here, > > and particularly for countering some of the hyperbole and hysteria around > > this issue. And just so you don't have to spend time looking it up yourself, > > the address to send your letters: > > > > ACAOM > > Maryland Trade Center #3 > > 7501 Greenway Center Drive, Suite 760 > > Greenbelt, MD 20770 > > > > If the FPD were adopted, my sense is that most of the schools in CA would > > drop their masters and go with the FPD because they already have a bloated > > 3,000+ hour program and it wouldn¹t take that much more to ramp it up to a > > FPD. In other states, especially those that don¹t have herbs as part of > > their scope and primary care as part of their standards of care, my sense is > > that the majority of schools that aren¹t CA approved will stay with their > > lean and mean acupuncture masters. An example of an exception would be > > Tri-State in NY, which is already ramping up for the FPD. > > > > Why is Tri State doing this? They are training their students to be able to > > function in an integrative medical setting and get jobs in hospitals. While > > its unfortunate that the title ³doctor² carries an inordinate amount of > > weight in hospital settings, the crucial aspect of the proposed FPD training > > is that AOM practitioners would be learning competencies to speak the > > language and function in mainstream bio-med culture. From what I¹ve heard in > > terms of actual placement of grads in hospitals, Tri-State has been the most > > successful of all the schools so far. In contrast, the other programs in NY > > that don¹t ramp up and continue with the masters would continue to produce > > grads with the competencies to provide acupuncture care as an independent > > practitioner and spend a year less in school. > > > > I don¹t think that many schools would continue with both a masters and FPD, > > it would be one or the other, and the competition would be between schools > > lean and mean masters and other schools reaching for higher doctoral > > standards. Some of the really large schools might try to keep both. > > > > As far as how much this would cost, I¹ll speak from my experience as a Dean > > at AIMC Berkeley and use our tuition/faculty/ admin costs to extrapolate what > > the additional costs for the proposed FPD would be: > > > > As it stands with the current proposed FPD, a CAB approved AOM program needs > > the same number of academic years (4), and requires 50 hours less clinic > > (950 vs. 1,000). The increase of 50 clinic hours would cost about $790. > > > > A non-CAB approved ACAOM accredited Masters OM program needs the same number > > of academic years (4) as the proposed FPD and requires 150 hours less of > > clinic (850 vs. 1000). The increase of 150 hours would cost $2,370. > > > > There could well be additional costs for other programs, depending where > > they are and what personnel they already have; this would include upgrading > > an Admin to doctoral level (+$40K/year) and paying some faculty that teach > > biomedicine more (+$25K/year) . In terms of student tuition, my estimate is > > that these additional admin/faculty costs increase student tuition by > > $1,650, assuming 100 full time students attending for 3 calendar years. [= > > (40K(3) + 25K)/100] > > > > Given that a majority of students receive financial aid, I¹ll assume that > > debt amortization would double these costs. Given the criteria above, we end > > up with the estimated additional costs of the FPD coming out to: > > > > For CAB approved programs the minimum student overall increase for proposed > > FPD compliance: > > $5080 > > > > For non-CAB but ACAOM approved programs the minimum student overall increase > > for proposed FPD compliance: > > $8000 > > > > As far as the societal cost goes as measured by the additional fees patients > > would end up paying, we can look at a prototypical AOM practitioner that has > > a 30 year career and sees 30 patients/week for 50 weeks per year and > > calculate the additional cost per treatment. For those doing CAB approved > > FPDs, this additional cost comes to a little more than 11 cents per patient > > treatment. For those doing the non-CAB approved FPDs, the additional cost is > > a little less than 18 cents per patient treatment. Given that the average > > cost of treatment these days is about $70, we¹re looking at an increase of > > 0.16% to 0.26%. > > > > For a prototypical CAN-style practitioner that has a 30 year career and > > treats 100 patients/week, the additional cost per patient treatment is 3.4 > > cents for the CAB approved FPDs and 5.3 cents for the non-CAB FPDs. If we > > estimate that the typical CAN-style patient pays significantly less, say > > $20/treatment, we¹re looking at an increase of 0.17 to 0.27% for patients. > > > > Both the current OM masters and proposed FPD would require 4 academic years > > (= 12 quarters = 8 semesters = 9 trimesters = 36 months) to complete. As > > outlined above the additional costs of the proposed FPD would be much less > > than doing the 1,200 hour DAOM add-on, which, if the FPD were to be > > established, would likely evolve into a post-graduate degree for those that > > want to go really deep into the medicine. > > > > The FPD is a complex issue and I¹ve been working on it for over 15 years > > from both the professional and academic sides, and I¹m still learning new > > things about it. While I personally think the proposed FPD should have more > > rigor, ACAOM has set the bar low enough so that the transition would be > > relatively simple and inexpensive. Its very much a worthwhile investment > > that I think will eventually play a key role in the transformation of health > > care in this country, as will community acupuncture (we¹ve got 2 clinic > > shifts at our school doing CA)  and they don¹t have to be mutually > > exclusive! > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Seems all a guess, do we know how the rates compare to other medical professions? People sell businesses, retire, get married, get sick and stop the profession no evil intent, just life. Please lets get some real numbers before we make more stuff up. I an everyone in my clinic make a nice living, do good TCM, have happy lives and paying down easily our student loans and are not the first kids on the block, St. Pete is " saturated with APs " . A school opened here 25 years ago and has cranked them out. Some make it some don't. I here alot of MDs don't make it because of bad biz choices....main reason APs don't make it...for some reason everyone thinks they would make a good biz owner and large numbers of biz fails in the first few years. This is a great profession, the training is what you make of it and it could be better...standards are getting better, that's good. Its not cheap and that means you better really want it. I think anyone who plays with folks qi and life should really want it. Change is slow, no one likes it and you will never please everyone. But change is gonna happen. Remember day one? the 4 aspects of Yin and yang? So I'm gonna take a wild guess to say Richard or anyone else is going to change anyones mind as to what is " Right " Can we please cut back a tad bit on the emails or take this off list? In-boxes will soon be full on this long weekend and my delete button is almost broken. Good people will be signing off this group because of this type of rant. I do not want this to be an example of how this profession presents itself. Each of us is a representative of our profession and these comments are permanent on the Internet. We are such a small group, please show your best face to the public eye(this is all public). All the views have now been stated, links provided, language dissected and now we can all choose which camp to stake our claim....but lets keep our smelly laundry indoors please and not make our neighbors smell it. Be well, Bob Robert Linde, AP, RH Professional Herbalists Training Program Acupuncture & Herbal Therapies 901 Central Ave St. Petersburg, FL 33705 www.acuherbals.com 727-551-0857 --- On Thu, 11/26/09, < wrote: < Re: Societal cost of the FPD Chinese Medicine Thursday, November 26, 2009, 1:56 PM  True, we don't know why folks are leaving AOM, and a survey of those who left the profession would be difficult to conduct. Presumably, some combination of retirement, inability to make it in practice, etc. In 2003, the average career " lifespan " of an AOM'er in the U.S. was polled at 7.9 years. (from NCCAOM job task analysis report 2003, still waiting patiently for last year's JTA to be released with the new numbers) Looking at the number of licensees state by state and nationally, the growth trends over time gives us an overall idea how many are not renewing (for any number of reasons), because the number of new grads/licensees has been mostly steady at around 2000 nationally for a number of years. What's noteworthy to me about these trends is the how the implementation of an FPD is likely to affect a further decrease in the number AOM professionals in the United states in the years to come, by increasing barriers to education, eventually further decreasing access in our communities. -keith Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " Bob Linde, AP, Herbalist " <boblindeherbalist@ ...> wrote: > > Great chart, but not sure what to do with it. I was on a panel discussion recently with a massage therapist who was a past board pres. He quoted an interesting stat that I would love to know in the field of acup. > He said that one third of MTs in Florida did not renew their licence. I think this is perhaps a more vital stat. I'm sure this info can be gleaned from the various state boards. This number tells us how many are choosing to leave the profession (but not why they are leaving). Personally I think a decent number should leave or never enter the profession (but that is another flame laden chain of ranting I'm sure) > > Be well, > Bob > Robert Linde, AP, RH > Professional Herbalists Training Program > Acupuncture & Herbal Therapies > 901 Central Ave > St. Petersburg, FL 33705 > www.acuherbals. com > 727-551-0857 > > --- On Thu, 11/26/09, <@.. .> wrote: > > > <@.. .> > Re: Societal cost of the FPD > > Thursday, November 26, 2009, 11:33 AM > > >  > > > > > > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for laying down your cost estimates. Makes for good conversation. > > For me what is hard to ignore is that the trends over the years at American TCM schools have been consistent with increasing didactic and clinical hours, which amount to increased cost. Also, the cost per didactic or clinical unit has consistently been increased across the country at all schools, even if the hours have remained steady. > > Not so great for the students, quite a few of whom are now leaving school with 100,000 or more in debt. > > Maybe not so great for the profession as a whole, as this could impact a potential student's decision to go to school. > > Right now the profession is at a standstill growth wise, as shown here in the latest census count. ( http://www.communit yacupuncturenetw ork.org/blog/ survey-says- 27965-licensed- acupuncturists- us-july-2009 ) > > Also, it's easy to see schools moving towards 4200-4500 hour programs in the near future, all rolled into one. What incentive do schools have to stay " lean and mean " when student loans are available? Which means higher cost, and most likely will discourage more practitioners from entering a profession with very high debt load and very, very few jobs. > > Lots to think about. > > Keith > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , Benjamin Dierauf <bdierauf@ .> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I wrote this post for another site that is relevant to the discussion here, > > and particularly for countering some of the hyperbole and hysteria around > > this issue. And just so you don't have to spend time looking it up yourself, > > the address to send your letters: > > > > ACAOM > > Maryland Trade Center #3 > > 7501 Greenway Center Drive, Suite 760 > > Greenbelt, MD 20770 > > > > If the FPD were adopted, my sense is that most of the schools in CA would > > drop their masters and go with the FPD because they already have a bloated > > 3,000+ hour program and it wouldn¹t take that much more to ramp it up to a > > FPD. In other states, especially those that don¹t have herbs as part of > > their scope and primary care as part of their standards of care, my sense is > > that the majority of schools that aren¹t CA approved will stay with their > > lean and mean acupuncture masters. An example of an exception would be > > Tri-State in NY, which is already ramping up for the FPD. > > > > Why is Tri State doing this? They are training their students to be able to > > function in an integrative medical setting and get jobs in hospitals. While > > its unfortunate that the title ³doctor² carries an inordinate amount of > > weight in hospital settings, the crucial aspect of the proposed FPD training > > is that AOM practitioners would be learning competencies to speak the > > language and function in mainstream bio-med culture. From what I¹ve heard in > > terms of actual placement of grads in hospitals, Tri-State has been the most > > successful of all the schools so far. In contrast, the other programs in NY > > that don¹t ramp up and continue with the masters would continue to produce > > grads with the competencies to provide acupuncture care as an independent > > practitioner and spend a year less in school. > > > > I don¹t think that many schools would continue with both a masters and FPD, > > it would be one or the other, and the competition would be between schools > > lean and mean masters and other schools reaching for higher doctoral > > standards. Some of the really large schools might try to keep both. > > > > As far as how much this would cost, I¹ll speak from my experience as a Dean > > at AIMC Berkeley and use our tuition/faculty/ admin costs to extrapolate what > > the additional costs for the proposed FPD would be: > > > > As it stands with the current proposed FPD, a CAB approved AOM program needs > > the same number of academic years (4), and requires 50 hours less clinic > > (950 vs. 1,000). The increase of 50 clinic hours would cost about $790. > > > > A non-CAB approved ACAOM accredited Masters OM program needs the same number > > of academic years (4) as the proposed FPD and requires 150 hours less of > > clinic (850 vs. 1000). The increase of 150 hours would cost $2,370. > > > > There could well be additional costs for other programs, depending where > > they are and what personnel they already have; this would include upgrading > > an Admin to doctoral level (+$40K/year) and paying some faculty that teach > > biomedicine more (+$25K/year) . In terms of student tuition, my estimate is > > that these additional admin/faculty costs increase student tuition by > > $1,650, assuming 100 full time students attending for 3 calendar years. [= > > (40K(3) + 25K)/100] > > > > Given that a majority of students receive financial aid, I¹ll assume that > > debt amortization would double these costs. Given the criteria above, we end > > up with the estimated additional costs of the FPD coming out to: > > > > For CAB approved programs the minimum student overall increase for proposed > > FPD compliance: > > $5080 > > > > For non-CAB but ACAOM approved programs the minimum student overall increase > > for proposed FPD compliance: > > $8000 > > > > As far as the societal cost goes as measured by the additional fees patients > > would end up paying, we can look at a prototypical AOM practitioner that has > > a 30 year career and sees 30 patients/week for 50 weeks per year and > > calculate the additional cost per treatment. For those doing CAB approved > > FPDs, this additional cost comes to a little more than 11 cents per patient > > treatment. For those doing the non-CAB approved FPDs, the additional cost is > > a little less than 18 cents per patient treatment. Given that the average > > cost of treatment these days is about $70, we¹re looking at an increase of > > 0.16% to 0.26%. > > > > For a prototypical CAN-style practitioner that has a 30 year career and > > treats 100 patients/week, the additional cost per patient treatment is 3.4 > > cents for the CAB approved FPDs and 5.3 cents for the non-CAB FPDs. If we > > estimate that the typical CAN-style patient pays significantly less, say > > $20/treatment, we¹re looking at an increase of 0.17 to 0.27% for patients. > > > > Both the current OM masters and proposed FPD would require 4 academic years > > (= 12 quarters = 8 semesters = 9 trimesters = 36 months) to complete. As > > outlined above the additional costs of the proposed FPD would be much less > > than doing the 1,200 hour DAOM add-on, which, if the FPD were to be > > established, would likely evolve into a post-graduate degree for those that > > want to go really deep into the medicine. > > > > The FPD is a complex issue and I¹ve been working on it for over 15 years > > from both the professional and academic sides, and I¹m still learning new > > things about it. While I personally think the proposed FPD should have more > > rigor, ACAOM has set the bar low enough so that the transition would be > > relatively simple and inexpensive. Its very much a worthwhile investment > > that I think will eventually play a key role in the transformation of health > > care in this country, as will community acupuncture (we¹ve got 2 clinic > > shifts at our school doing CA)  and they don¹t have to be mutually > > exclusive! > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Keith, Education in most fields is going up as this is part of our current economics. Yes, it is a sad thing but little can be done if we want programs to remain in business. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:33:46 +0000 Re: Societal cost of the FPD Hi Ben, Thanks for laying down your cost estimates. Makes for good conversation. For me what is hard to ignore is that the trends over the years at American TCM schools have been consistent with increasing didactic and clinical hours, which amount to increased cost. Also, the cost per didactic or clinical unit has consistently been increased across the country at all schools, even if the hours have remained steady. Not so great for the students, quite a few of whom are now leaving school with 100,000 or more in debt. Maybe not so great for the profession as a whole, as this could impact a potential student's decision to go to school. Right now the profession is at a standstill growth wise, as shown here in the latest census count. ( http://www.communityacupuncturenetwork.org/blog/survey-says-27965-licensed-acupu\ ncturists-us-july-2009 ) Also, it's easy to see schools moving towards 4200-4500 hour programs in the near future, all rolled into one. What incentive do schools have to stay " lean and mean " when student loans are available? Which means higher cost, and most likely will discourage more practitioners from entering a profession with very high debt load and very, very few jobs. Lots to think about. Keith Chinese Medicine , Benjamin Dierauf <bdierauf wrote: > > Hi All, > > I wrote this post for another site that is relevant to the discussion here, > and particularly for countering some of the hyperbole and hysteria around > this issue. And just so you don't have to spend time looking it up yourself, > the address to send your letters: > > ACAOM > Maryland Trade Center #3 > 7501 Greenway Center Drive, Suite 760 > Greenbelt, MD 20770 > > If the FPD were adopted, my sense is that most of the schools in CA would > drop their masters and go with the FPD because they already have a bloated > 3,000+ hour program and it wouldn¹t take that much more to ramp it up to a > FPD. In other states, especially those that don¹t have herbs as part of > their scope and primary care as part of their standards of care, my sense is > that the majority of schools that aren¹t CA approved will stay with their > lean and mean acupuncture masters. An example of an exception would be > Tri-State in NY, which is already ramping up for the FPD. > > Why is Tri State doing this? They are training their students to be able to > function in an integrative medical setting and get jobs in hospitals. While > its unfortunate that the title ³doctor² carries an inordinate amount of > weight in hospital settings, the crucial aspect of the proposed FPD training > is that AOM practitioners would be learning competencies to speak the > language and function in mainstream bio-med culture. From what I¹ve heard in > terms of actual placement of grads in hospitals, Tri-State has been the most > successful of all the schools so far. In contrast, the other programs in NY > that don¹t ramp up and continue with the masters would continue to produce > grads with the competencies to provide acupuncture care as an independent > practitioner and spend a year less in school. > > I don¹t think that many schools would continue with both a masters and FPD, > it would be one or the other, and the competition would be between schools > lean and mean masters and other schools reaching for higher doctoral > standards. Some of the really large schools might try to keep both. > > As far as how much this would cost, I¹ll speak from my experience as a Dean > at AIMC Berkeley and use our tuition/faculty/admin costs to extrapolate what > the additional costs for the proposed FPD would be: > > As it stands with the current proposed FPD, a CAB approved AOM program needs > the same number of academic years (4), and requires 50 hours less clinic > (950 vs. 1,000). The increase of 50 clinic hours would cost about $790. > > A non-CAB approved ACAOM accredited Masters OM program needs the same number > of academic years (4) as the proposed FPD and requires 150 hours less of > clinic (850 vs. 1000). The increase of 150 hours would cost $2,370. > > There could well be additional costs for other programs, depending where > they are and what personnel they already have; this would include upgrading > an Admin to doctoral level (+$40K/year) and paying some faculty that teach > biomedicine more (+$25K/year). In terms of student tuition, my estimate is > that these additional admin/faculty costs increase student tuition by > $1,650, assuming 100 full time students attending for 3 calendar years. [= > (40K(3) + 25K)/100] > > Given that a majority of students receive financial aid, I¹ll assume that > debt amortization would double these costs. Given the criteria above, we end > up with the estimated additional costs of the FPD coming out to: > > For CAB approved programs the minimum student overall increase for proposed > FPD compliance: > $5080 > > For non-CAB but ACAOM approved programs the minimum student overall increase > for proposed FPD compliance: > $8000 > > As far as the societal cost goes as measured by the additional fees patients > would end up paying, we can look at a prototypical AOM practitioner that has > a 30 year career and sees 30 patients/week for 50 weeks per year and > calculate the additional cost per treatment. For those doing CAB approved > FPDs, this additional cost comes to a little more than 11 cents per patient > treatment. For those doing the non-CAB approved FPDs, the additional cost is > a little less than 18 cents per patient treatment. Given that the average > cost of treatment these days is about $70, we¹re looking at an increase of > 0.16% to 0.26%. > > For a prototypical CAN-style practitioner that has a 30 year career and > treats 100 patients/week, the additional cost per patient treatment is 3.4 > cents for the CAB approved FPDs and 5.3 cents for the non-CAB FPDs. If we > estimate that the typical CAN-style patient pays significantly less, say > $20/treatment, we¹re looking at an increase of 0.17 to 0.27% for patients. > > Both the current OM masters and proposed FPD would require 4 academic years > (= 12 quarters = 8 semesters = 9 trimesters = 36 months) to complete. As > outlined above the additional costs of the proposed FPD would be much less > than doing the 1,200 hour DAOM add-on, which, if the FPD were to be > established, would likely evolve into a post-graduate degree for those that > want to go really deep into the medicine. > > The FPD is a complex issue and I¹ve been working on it for over 15 years > from both the professional and academic sides, and I¹m still learning new > things about it. While I personally think the proposed FPD should have more > rigor, ACAOM has set the bar low enough so that the transition would be > relatively simple and inexpensive. Its very much a worthwhile investment > that I think will eventually play a key role in the transformation of health > care in this country, as will community acupuncture (we¹ve got 2 clinic > shifts at our school doing CA) and they don¹t have to be mutually > exclusive! > > Benjamin > _______________ Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL\ :ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen:112009v2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.