Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Colleagues, ACAOM does need to hear from you about the FPD as a counter to the extremist position of the CAN leadership that doesn't want ACAOM to have any discussion about what the FPD might look like. For your convenience I'm including a draft letter that you're welcome to and should modify. Thanks, Benjamin ACAOM Maryland Trade Center #3 7501 Greenway Center Drive, Suite 760 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Dear ACAOM Commissioners, I'm writing to express my support for continuing the discussion on developing a First Professional Doctorate. I believe that the FPD is critical to the future growth and strategic positioning of the AOM profession for the following reasons: 1. The additional biomedical learning competencies would better position graduates to get jobs in integrative clinics and hospitals, providing more access to AOM care for patients who really need it. 2. In our culture the doctorate title provides a higher level of respectability to the AOM profession from both patients and other health care providers. 3. The FPD would help protect and better support our scope of practice in state legislative and regulatory bodies. 4. Besides opening the possibility for more jobs in the health care sector, a FPD opens access to seats at the table of policy-making bodies that make decisions on how our medicine fits into the health care system. 5. Future students would have a choice in whether to pursue the current three academic year acupuncture Masters, four academic year OM Masters or a four academic year FPD. 6. Future students that would otherwise be attracted to pursue a DC/ND/MD might choose an AOM career instead. I also support the development of a transitional FPD for currently licensed AOM professionals and students that takes into account such factors as the program from which they graduated, their professional experience, and post-graduate learning endeavors. A transitional FPD should be affordable, accessible (with distance learning options), and include challenge exams as part of the process. According to the recent AAAOM profession on the FPD, 65-70% of those who expressed an opinion were supportive of the FPD in Acupuncture-Oriental Medicine (http://acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=32093). This clearly demonstrates enough support to continue the discussion about developing the FPD, and I strongly encourage ACAOM to do so. Sincerely, Hua Tou, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Dear Ben, Thank you for your extreme spin. You stated that 65-70% of those polled by AAAOM are in favor of the FPD. Here's the analysis noted at on page 5 of the survey: " On each survey question AAAOM practitioners represented roughly 47% of the respondents, but nationally AAAOM members make up a much smaller percentage of the AOM population. If the results were weighted to better reflect the dominance of non-AAAOM professional practitioners, 56% vs. 44% support for the acupuncture FPD and 61% vs. 39% support for the OM FPD would be seen as more accurate indicators of AOM practitioners at large. " 56% (even if accurate) unfortunately does not = consensus. seems like things have hardly changed since the last survey of the profession in 2003, which was also about 50/50. And taking into account the plus/minus deviations of polling and survey results, at best we are left again with 50/50. As far as " no FPD " being an " extremist " position, that would be about the same as " yes FPD " being an extremist position. cheers, keith Chinese Medicine , " bdierauf " <bdierauf wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > ACAOM does need to hear from you about the FPD as a counter to the extremist position of the CAN leadership that doesn't want ACAOM to have any discussion about what the FPD might look like. For your convenience I'm including a draft letter that you're welcome to and should modify. > > Thanks, Benjamin > > > ACAOM > Maryland Trade Center #3 > 7501 Greenway Center Drive, Suite 760 > Greenbelt, MD 20770 > > Dear ACAOM Commissioners, > > I'm writing to express my support for continuing the discussion on developing a First Professional Doctorate. I believe that the FPD is critical to the future growth and strategic positioning of the AOM profession for the following reasons: > > 1. The additional biomedical learning competencies would better position graduates to get jobs in integrative clinics and hospitals, providing more access to AOM care for patients who really need it. > 2. In our culture the doctorate title provides a higher level of respectability to the AOM profession from both patients and other health care providers. > 3. The FPD would help protect and better support our scope of practice in state legislative and regulatory bodies. > 4. Besides opening the possibility for more jobs in the health care sector, a FPD opens access to seats at the table of policy-making bodies that make decisions on how our medicine fits into the health care system. > 5. Future students would have a choice in whether to pursue the current three academic year acupuncture Masters, four academic year OM Masters or a four academic year FPD. > 6. Future students that would otherwise be attracted to pursue a DC/ND/MD might choose an AOM career instead. > > I also support the development of a transitional FPD for currently licensed AOM professionals and students that takes into account such factors as the program from which they graduated, their professional experience, and post-graduate learning endeavors. A transitional FPD should be affordable, accessible (with distance learning options), and include challenge exams as part of the process. > > According to the recent AAAOM profession on the FPD, 65-70% of those who expressed an opinion were supportive of the FPD in Acupuncture-Oriental Medicine (http://acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=32093). This clearly demonstrates enough support to continue the discussion about developing the FPD, and I strongly encourage ACAOM to do so. > > Sincerely, > > Hua Tou, LAc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Benj, Thanks for your level-headed discourse on an emotional issue. I will be sending off an approval letter to ACAOM soon. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine bdierauf Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:35:36 +0000 Draft FPD Letter of Support Dear Colleagues, ACAOM does need to hear from you about the FPD as a counter to the extremist position of the CAN leadership that doesn't want ACAOM to have any discussion about what the FPD might look like. For your convenience I'm including a draft letter that you're welcome to and should modify. Thanks, Benjamin _______________ Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free,exclusive gift. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?ocid=P\ ID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_7:092009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 As always, there is spin on both sides, as if the support and development of a FPD would magically make is to that no one could afford to take a full program and then treat for cheap, or for that matter if the acupuncture only license would die once a FPD was developed. Do these people wish to kill Chinese medicine as a whole in order to treat people cheaply? Incidentally, how does one make a living treating people so cheaply or free unless they are either single or have groups of single folks who can live on subsistence kicking back in the form of training, publishing, or franchise fees? Do the people who get these perks provide scholarships to those who they hire or do they pay off student loans? It is my impression that the vast majority of the practitioners I know, and I know hundreds, do provide discounted or free care at a certain percentage of their case load so that it is economically feasible to do so and survive and possibly support a family. Are these people somehow lesser beings? Do they not provide services to the indigent if asked? In most cases , yes. They may ask for in-kind support, because they feel that cheap treatment gets cheap results, and that the patient earning the treatment is an important part of the equation. The premise here is that I do not believe the proposition that someone who pays $10,000 or whatever less for a medical vocation that allows the patient to be seen without an intermediary is really more predisposed to provide care to the indigent population than someone who pays for a complete education. We are not looking at the difference between an MD and a PA here. DAvid Molony On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:12:15 PM, < wrote: Dear Ben, Thank you for your extreme spin. You stated that 65-70% of those polled by AAAOM are in favor of the FPD. Here's the analysis noted at on page 5 of the survey: " On each survey question AAAOM practitioners represented roughly 47% of the respondents, but nationally AAAOM members make up a much smaller percentage of the AOM population. If the results were weighted to better reflect the dominance of non-AAAOM professional practitioners, 56% vs. 44% support for the acupuncture FPD and 61% vs. 39% support for the OM FPD would be seen as more accurate indicators of AOM practitioners at large. " 56% (even if accurate) unfortunately does not = consensus. seems like things have hardly changed since the last survey of the profession in 2003, which was also about 50/50. And taking into account the plus/minus deviations of polling and survey results, at best we are left again with 50/50. As far as " no FPD " being an " extremist " position, that would be about the same as " yes FPD " being an extremist position. cheers, keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Right-on Keith and you stand your ground as I do. WHEN the ACAOM and all the 50% FPD supporters stop this end-run to attempt force the FPD (as I believe Jessica and others have said) THEN and ONLY THEN can we ALL sit down at the table and chew the fat and discuss this ad-nauseum. Richard In a message dated 12/2/2009 11:44:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, writes: There is no consensus currently in the profession. I stand by my post. The AAAOM survey analysis itself stated that the current weighted poll numbers in the practitioner population are at best 56-44 pro-FPD. This is not a consensus of the profession. ACAOM made a resolution instructing the profession to attempt consensus, and we wind up with one poll of TSCA grads/almuni and one 50/50 poll from AAAOM and another attempt to ram this thing through. Again, there is not a current consensus to move forward with FPD pilot programs. Doesn't matter if I am pro FPD or no FPD. The numbers are 50/50. But as for what I believe, contrary to what is being said publicly, I do believe that the goal is for the FPD to become the de-facto new standard within 5 years, maybe a little longer because of piloting and state legislation, ultimately replacing the 3 degrees ( masters, DAOM, FPD). But it can only survive when fueled by student loans. Do you think that a new AOM student needs more than 2500-3000 hours in school to be competent in practice and serve her/his community (no matter where/how they choose to practice) ? Are current graduates unskilled or untrained? Isn't it reasonable to allow students to choose to go on for more (current DAOM) if they see that this best serves their life/practice goals once they get out and start practicing? It's definitely a hot button issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 There is no consensus currently in the profession. I stand by my post. The AAAOM survey analysis itself stated that the current weighted poll numbers in the practitioner population are at best 56-44 pro-FPD. This is not a consensus of the profession. ACAOM made a resolution instructing the profession to attempt consensus, and we wind up with one poll of TSCA grads/almuni and one 50/50 poll from AAAOM and another attempt to ram this thing through. Again, there is not a current consensus to move forward with FPD pilot programs. Doesn't matter if I am pro FPD or no FPD. The numbers are 50/50. But as for what I believe, contrary to what is being said publicly, I do believe that the goal is for the FPD to become the de-facto new standard within 5 years, maybe a little longer because of piloting and state legislation, ultimately replacing the 3 degrees ( masters, DAOM, FPD). But it can only survive when fueled by student loans. Do you think that a new AOM student needs more than 2500-3000 hours in school to be competent in practice and serve her/his community (no matter where/how they choose to practice) ? Are current graduates unskilled or untrained? Isn't it reasonable to allow students to choose to go on for more (current DAOM) if they see that this best serves their life/practice goals once they get out and start practicing? It's definitely a hot button issue. Chinese Medicine , acuman1 <acuman1 wrote: > > As always, there is spin on both sides, as if the support and development of a FPD would magically make is to that no one could afford to take a full program and then treat for cheap, or for that matter if the acupuncture only license would die once a FPD was developed. Do these people wish to kill Chinese medicine as a whole in order to treat people cheaply? > > Incidentally, how does one make a living treating people so cheaply or free unless they are either single or have groups of single folks who can live on subsistence kicking back in the form of training, publishing, or franchise fees?� > Do the people who get these perks provide scholarships to those who they hire or do they pay off student loans?� > > It is my impression that the vast majority �of the practitioners I know, and I know hundreds, do provide discounted or free care at a certain percentage of their case load so that it is economically feasible to do so and survive and possibly support a family. Are these people somehow lesser beings? Do they not provide services to the indigent if asked? In most cases , yes. They may ask for in-kind support, because they feel that cheap treatment gets cheap results, and that the patient earning the treatment is an important part of the equation. > > The premise here is that I do not believe the proposition that someone who pays $10,000 or whatever �less for a medical vocation that allows the patient to be seen without an intermediary is really more predisposed to provide care to the indigent population than someone who pays for a complete education. We are not looking at the difference between an MD and a PA here. > > DAvid Molony > > > On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:12:15 PM, < wrote: > > Dear Ben, > > Thank you for your extreme spin. You stated that 65-70% of those polled by AAAOM are in favor of the FPD. > > Here's the analysis noted at on page 5 of the survey: > > " On each survey question AAAOM practitioners represented roughly 47% of the respondents, but nationally AAAOM members make up a much smaller percentage of the AOM population. If the results were weighted to better reflect the dominance of non-AAAOM professional practitioners, 56% vs. 44% support for the acupuncture FPD and 61% vs. 39% support for the OM FPD would be seen as more accurate indicators of AOM practitioners at large. " > > 56% (even if accurate) unfortunately does not = consensus. seems like things have hardly changed since the last survey of the profession in 2003, which was also about 50/50. And taking into account the plus/minus deviations of polling and survey results, at best we are left again with 50/50.� > > As far as " no FPD " being an " extremist " position, that would be about the same as " yes FPD " being an extremist position.� > > cheers, keith > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Keith FACT which is easy for any doubting Thomas' to verify by simply LOOKING up Florida LAW year by year....... In 1980 Floria CAs/LAcs were needle technicians moving qi but in 1986 Florida AP's were legislatively granted PRIMARY CARE status diagnosing and treating illness and injury. The education from the inception of the Florida practice act in 1980 was a mere two year program consisting of 1900 hrs right up through 1997 when it became 2738 hrs +/-. I suspect you were asking rhetorically but in any event there you have the TRUTH. For twelve years Florida APs were quite capable at 1900 hrs being PRIMARY CARE providers And have been ceratinly more than capable at 2800 hrs. Richard In a message dated 12/2/2009 12:56:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, acudoc11 writes: Do you think that a new AOM student needs more than 2500-3000 hours in school to be competent in practice and serve her/his community (no matter where/how they choose to practice) ? Are current graduates unskilled or untrained? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Options only come with education. If you want to see the most options for graduates, then you must address the possibilities to practice in the situations that graduates are wanting. It seems rather obvious that the trend of the two studies, which may be slanted, show a propensity toward wanting greater ops, not lesser. From what I have seen as faculty, is many students are lacking in one or more aspects of OM. They are also lacking in life experience, not like the previous generation of OM practitioners where this was a second or third career. The profession is a changing, going backwards is not an option. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:02:38 -0500 Re: Re: Draft FPD Letter of Support Keith FACT which is easy for any doubting Thomas' to verify by simply LOOKING up Florida LAW year by year....... In 1980 Floria CAs/LAcs were needle technicians moving qi but in 1986 Florida AP's were legislatively granted PRIMARY CARE status diagnosing and treating illness and injury. The education from the inception of the Florida practice act in 1980 was a mere two year program consisting of 1900 hrs right up through 1997 when it became 2738 hrs +/-. I suspect you were asking rhetorically but in any event there you have the TRUTH. For twelve years Florida APs were quite capable at 1900 hrs being PRIMARY CARE providers And have been ceratinly more than capable at 2800 hrs. Richard In a message dated 12/2/2009 12:56:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, acudoc11 writes: Do you think that a new AOM student needs more than 2500-3000 hours in school to be competent in practice and serve her/his community (no matter where/how they choose to practice) ? Are current graduates unskilled or untrained? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 As many of you are aware, the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine ( " ACAOM " ) is accepting written feedback until January 15, 2009 on the subject of whether ACAOM should renew its efforts to develop and pilot standards for first professional doctoral programs in acupuncture and Oriental medicine. However, before considering whether or not to move forward, ACAOM must periodically assess the level of consensus on this subject, which appears to have evolved over time. Based on the comments received on or before January 15, the Commission will gauge the level of support or opposition to this question at its February 2009 meeting. The Commission is interested in receiving feedback from all its communities of interest on this subject and will in addition to accepting comments via FAX and snail mail, will now also be accepting comments via email that should be sent to coordinator. The most effective comments will be those that indicate what category of stakeholder you represent (practitioner, student, prospective student, AOM educator, etc), your organizational affiliations, if any, whether you support or oppose moving forward, and a BRIEF statement of your reasons. For those of you who have not had a chance to review the first DRAFT FPD standards previously posted to the ACAOM website, we have recently uploaded them to the forum page of the TCM website. To access the document, click the " Files " section of the site on the left hand side of the group home page, click the " Misc " sub-link and open the document titled " ACAOM DRAFT First Professional Doctoral Standards.pdf. " Sincerely, Dort S. Bigg, JD, Executive Director Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine Maryland Trade Center #3 7501 Greenway Center Dr., #760 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Phone: 301-313-0855 FAX: 301-313-0912 www.acaom.org This note contains information from the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine (ACAOM), which is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the planned recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately. Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of mike Bowser Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:15 AM Chinese Traditional Medicine RE: Re: Draft FPD Letter of Support Options only come with education. If you want to see the most options for graduates, then you must address the possibilities to practice in the situations that graduates are wanting. It seems rather obvious that the trend of the two studies, which may be slanted, show a propensity toward wanting greater ops, not lesser. From what I have seen as faculty, is many students are lacking in one or more aspects of OM. They are also lacking in life experience, not like the previous generation of OM practitioners where this was a second or third career. The profession is a changing, going backwards is not an option. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:02:38 -0500 Re: Re: Draft FPD Letter of Support Keith FACT which is easy for any doubting Thomas' to verify by simply LOOKING up Florida LAW year by year....... In 1980 Floria CAs/LAcs were needle technicians moving qi but in 1986 Florida AP's were legislatively granted PRIMARY CARE status diagnosing and treating illness and injury. The education from the inception of the Florida practice act in 1980 was a mere two year program consisting of 1900 hrs right up through 1997 when it became 2738 hrs +/-. I suspect you were asking rhetorically but in any event there you have the TRUTH. For twelve years Florida APs were quite capable at 1900 hrs being PRIMARY CARE providers And have been ceratinly more than capable at 2800 hrs. Richard In a message dated 12/2/2009 12:56:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, acudoc11 writes: Do you think that a new AOM student needs more than 2500-3000 hours in school to be competent in practice and serve her/his community (no matter where/how they choose to practice) ? Are current graduates unskilled or untrained? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Fear mongering only tends to bring out those who are fearful, not those with a positive view. Fear usually comes with a lack of education on what is happening, and it is interesting that those who wish us to retain the least education seem to be the most interested in seeing things fail. Another thing that is interesting is that the last go around, it was the schools that were fearing change and who brought all their troops to bear. Now they are on board. Maybe they have seen that our professions survival is at stake here. Grow or die. All the old **rts don't much care as they have their niches set up for life. The students seem to be interested, and they are the most likely to be affected. They want the freedom that comes from knowledge. David Molony On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:33:33 AM, < wrote: There is no consensus currently in the profession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Hi Keith, Your cogent analysis and respectful tone are much appreciated. While the numbers on the draft acupuncture FPD are much closer, I think the spread on the OM FPD (61% vs. 39%) demonstrates clear support. This dovetails with the fact that the time requirements for the OM FPD are the same as the OM Masters, whereas the acupuncture FPD increases this requirement by one academic year. This will be perplexing for ACAOM, as acupuncture is the main AOM modality that hospitals seem interested in now (although I believe there is a pilot herb program happening at one of the No. CA Kaisers). If the acupuncture FPD goes through, I see a clear tiering of the profession developing, given the one year difference in time, and it will be up to students (the free market) and state boards and legislatures (the system) to decide. While the free market thrives on competition, the system abhors it and it would be very difficult to get rid of the entry-level Masters and make it the FPD. Unfortunately in my opinion, as opposed to other more developed countries in Europe, the whole system of higher education relies on federal student loans, not just AOM colleges. Your last question is a good but complicated, and something that we've been asked before by the CA legislature: " Do you think that a new AOM student needs more than 2500-3000 hours in school to be competent in practice and serve her/his community (no matter where/how they choose to practice)? Are current graduates unskilled or untrained? " For the first part, with acupuncture the answer if No, and I think the acupuncture FPDs would easily come out to be under 3,000 hours. And if the student is going to go into a detox or community style acupuncture setting, they would probably need less. For the OM FPD its harder to say, but there are schools that say they think they can integrate and cover the OM FPD competencies in the same number of academic years as the OM Masters, and ACAOM is proposing that they be given a chance to do so. This means tightening up their current Masters and making it more lean and efficient (the corollary being that current programs are not) in order to include the bio-med and systems based competencies that differentiate the Masters from the FPD. For the second question, the answer is also No if they are practicing as independent providers. But if we want to position our profession for the coming changes in the health care system that are focusing more on preventative and integrative medicine, we can do better, and this is what the FPD attempts to do. How well does it do it? This is why ACAOM is asking for feedback. To review the draft standards, go to http://health.Chinese MedicineMisc / Respectfully, Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Benjamin - Good points. The documents as they stand suggest that a majority of the field seeks a first professional doctorate (FPD). This is a significant change from the previous study conducted by ACAOM which suggested a 50-50 interest. The Chinese community in California did not weigh in on this study. The California Chinese community has in the past, and continues to express solidarity in their desire for an FPD. When I was president of the AAAOM, their leadership expressed at banquets 700 strong that they sought the FPD since they came to this country, losing that title and role in society. What the survey suggests at this stage is that there has been a change in support of the FPD within the Caucasian community. By a substantial majority of respondents, the Caucasians now want an FPD. Add that to the Chinese and there is a sea change. The maturation and transformation of a profession takes time. It is complex and does not occur in a linear fashion. The process at the accreditation level is likely to take 10 years. After that, there will still be schools operating in states where they do not offer a first professional doctorate. There is no way that a four year master degree as entry is correct. Our title should be - right now - doctors and physicians. But no. We buy into the social and economic control that the conventional medical doctorate has foisted upon this country since the 1910s through the Flexner report. That was a conspiracy then and the country has remained under the influence of the dominant medical culture since. That is, until the release of the Eisenberg study in the late 1990s which showed Americans spending more out of pocket on complimentary medicine than conventional medicine. The post Flexner climate of authority and economic control set the stage so that when this profession achieved accreditation processes in the late 1980s, it was built as a master degree instead of a doctorate - big mistake. We have an opportunity to rectify that now. Make the current master degree an FPD. Add some relevant competencies and gain efficiency. Don't make it take longer or cost more. Support the rightful title for the generations of practitioners to come. We have always been doctors (teachers) and physicians. We should take a stand for the truth of who we are and what we do. We should no longer roll one dog down, or buy into social pressures from dominant and privileged classes. A major issue here, will be a relatively painless upgrade path. I believe people should get more education. And our input into the standards should be to request that ACAOM achieve recognition from the DOE to accredit distance and online learning so that people in the field do not have to change their lives and spend money on travel for the upgrade path. Most importantly, regardless of where we stand on the FPD, ACAOM needs to hear your voice. Email, snail mail or what works - send the message. Warmly, Will William R. Morris, PhD, DAOM, LAc http://pulsediagnosis.com/ http://www.aoma.edu/ http://taaom.org/ Chinese Medicine , Benjamin Dierauf <bdierauf wrote: > > Hi Keith, > > Your cogent analysis and respectful tone are much appreciated. > > While the numbers on the draft acupuncture FPD are much closer, I think the > spread on the OM FPD (61% vs. 39%) demonstrates clear support. > > This dovetails with the fact that the time requirements for the OM FPD are > the same as the OM Masters, whereas the acupuncture FPD increases this > requirement by one academic year. > > This will be perplexing for ACAOM, as acupuncture is the main AOM modality > that hospitals seem interested in now (although I believe there is a pilot > herb program happening at one of the No. CA Kaisers). > > If the acupuncture FPD goes through, I see a clear tiering of the profession > developing, given the one year difference in time, and it will be up to > students (the free market) and state boards and legislatures (the system) to > decide. While the free market thrives on competition, the system abhors it > and it would be very difficult to get rid of the entry-level Masters and > make it the FPD. > > Unfortunately in my opinion, as opposed to other more developed countries in > Europe, the whole system of higher education relies on federal student > loans, not just AOM colleges. > > Your last question is a good but complicated, and something that we've been > asked before by the CA legislature: " Do you think that a new AOM student > needs more than 2500-3000 hours in school to be competent in practice and > serve her/his community (no matter where/how they choose to practice)? Are > current graduates unskilled or untrained? " > > For the first part, with acupuncture the answer if No, and I think the > acupuncture FPDs would easily come out to be under 3,000 hours. And if the > student is going to go into a detox or community style acupuncture setting, > they would probably need less. > > For the OM FPD its harder to say, but there are schools that say they think > they can integrate and cover the OM FPD competencies in the same number of > academic years as the OM Masters, and ACAOM is proposing that they be given > a chance to do so. This means tightening up their current Masters and making > it more lean and efficient (the corollary being that current programs are > not) in order to include the bio-med and systems based competencies that > differentiate the Masters from the FPD. > > For the second question, the answer is also No if they are practicing as > independent providers. But if we want to position our profession for the > coming changes in the health care system that are focusing more on > preventative and integrative medicine, we can do better, and this is what > the FPD attempts to do. > > How well does it do it? This is why ACAOM is asking for feedback. To review > the draft standards, go to > http://health.Chinese MedicineMisc > / > > Respectfully, Benjamin > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Will Consensus is quite a bit different than majority. If ACAOM truly seeks a CONSENSUS -- there is a long way to go as even 60-40 doesn't equal a solidarity. Why is it that ALL including ACAOM are ignoring the FACT that Florida licensees were LEGISLATIVELY mandated as primary healthcare providers diagnosing and treating illness and injury for 11 years (circa 1986) while the didactic & clinical education was the old two year (1,900 hr) program and subsequently the Masters program consisting of 2,800 hrs for an additional twelve years...for a total of 23 years??? Yes, the four year Masters is not the correct title and never was. The proper title for such education is a PhD or entry level doctor degree. I recall posting in the past that I was aggressively attacked with bogus legal claims in 2002-03 because amongst other advances in the practice scope, I had moved for a Florida bill in the House & the Senate to raise the education just to 3,200 hrs and the State of Florida was willing to entertain the licensure title of Doctor. The legislative proposed increase of only 400 hrs (didactic or clinic or both) was the ceiling suggested by the prime Senator supporting such a change. So it be done legislatively. Florida provides such a history. Regards, Richard Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc In a message dated 12/6/2009 10:25:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, wmorris33 writes: Benjamin - Good points. The documents as they stand suggest that a majority of the field seeks a first professional doctorate (FPD). This is a significant change from the previous study conducted by ACAOM which suggested a 50-50 interest. The Chinese community in California did not weigh in on this study. The California Chinese community has in the past, and continues to express solidarity in their desire for an FPD. When I was president of the AAAOM, their leadership expressed at banquets 700 strong that they sought the FPD since they came to this country, losing that title and role in society. What the survey suggests at this stage is that there has been a change in support of the FPD within the Caucasian community. By a substantial majority of respondents, the Caucasians now want an FPD. Add that to the Chinese and there is a sea change. The maturation and transformation of a profession takes time. It is complex and does not occur in a linear fashion. The process at the accreditation level is likely to take 10 years. After that, there will still be schools operating in states where they do not offer a first professional doctorate. There is no way that a four year master degree as entry is correct. Our title should be - right now - doctors and physicians. But no. We buy into the social and economic control that the conventional medical doctorate has foisted upon this country since the 1910s through the Flexner report. That was a conspiracy then and the country has remained under the influence of the dominant medical culture since. That is, until the release of the Eisenberg study in the late 1990s which showed Americans spending more out of pocket on complimentary medicine than conventional medicine. The post Flexner climate of authority and economic control set the stage so that when this profession achieved accreditation processes in the late 1980s, it was built as a master degree instead of a doctorate - big mistake. We have an opportunity to rectify that now. Make the current master degree an FPD. Add some relevant competencies and gain efficiency. Don't make it take longer or cost more. Support the rightful title for the generations of practitioners to come. We have always been doctors (teachers) and physicians. We should take a stand for the truth of who we are and what we do. We should no longer roll one dog down, or buy into social pressures from dominant and privileged classes. A major issue here, will be a relatively painless upgrade path. I believe people should get more education. And our input into the standards should be to request that ACAOM achieve recognition from the DOE to accredit distance and online learning so that people in the field do not have to change their lives and spend money on travel for the upgrade path. Most importantly, regardless of where we stand on the FPD, ACAOM needs to hear your voice. Email, snail mail or what works - send the message. Warmly, Will William R. Morris, PhD, DAOM, LAc _http://pulsediagnoshttp://_ (http://pulsediagnosis.com/) _http://www.aoma.http_ (http://www.aoma.edu/) _http://taaom.http_ (http://taaom.org/) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I agree. To remain the underclass because we prefer it is to remain a trade instead of a profession. We used to be taught by trade schools and now they are colleges. If, after we have a first professional pathway that is accepted by the DOE, there is enough of a call for a trade school process of education, it can be developed by the profession. I don't see many people asking for it, however. It was a tragic mistake not to start with a doctoral degree and expand on it as responsible education required, as EVERY other profession has. David Molony On Dec 5, 2009, at 8:09:39 AM, William <wmorris33 wrote: The post Flexner climate of authority and economic control set the stage so that when this profession achieved accreditation processes in the late 1980s, it was built as a master degree instead of a doctorate - big mistake. We have an opportunity to rectify that now. Make the current master degree an FPD. Add some relevant competencies and gain efficiency. Don't make it take longer or cost more. Support the rightful title for the generations of practitioners to come. We have always been doctors (teachers) and physicians. We should take a stand for the truth of who we are and what we do. We should no longer roll one dog down, or buy into social pressures from dominant and privileged classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 The hard part over the years has been to have people with truncated education stay within the confines of their education. Acupuncture only grads, and many acu-detox people, wish to prescribe herbs and dietary changes as well as other modalities which they are not fully trained in because it is human nature to do so. However, they dont' want to take the education or examinations to allow them to have competency in these additional processes, just as other medical professions don't want to take full courses in acupuncture. DAvid Molony On Dec 4, 2009, at 8:24:46 AM, " Benjamin Dierauf " <bdierauf wrote: For the first part, with acupuncture the answer if No, and I think the acupuncture FPDs would easily come out to be under 3,000 hours. And if the student is going to go into a detox or community style acupuncture setting, they would probably need less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 So true. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acuman1 Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:07:39 -0500 Re: Re: Draft FPD Letter of Support The hard part over the years has been to have people with truncated education stay within the confines of their education. Acupuncture only grads, and many acu-detox people, wish to prescribe herbs and dietary changes as well as other modalities which they are not fully trained in because it is human nature to do so. However, they dont' want to take the education or examinations to allow them to have competency in these additional processes, just as other medical professions don't want to take full courses in acupuncture. DAvid Molony On Dec 4, 2009, at 8:24:46 AM, " Benjamin Dierauf " <bdierauf wrote: For the first part, with acupuncture the answer if No, and I think the acupuncture FPDs would easily come out to be under 3,000 hours. And if the student is going to go into a detox or community style acupuncture setting, they would probably need less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 David, your concerns of people taking the acupuncture course of training without herbs, but practicing herbal therapies can be reduced if we have a two-tiered system: 1. FPD (DAOM) 4 years= 4200 hours includes herbal therapy and bio-medical-integration training 2. (MS) 2 years = 2400 hours w/o herbal therapy and minimal bio-med training Would this suffice as a compromise to both sides of the argument? I do agree that the FPD should be an option for those who want the full-pledged doctorate, and I also see that there are others who view a 3000 hour program (CA minimum) as more hours than needed to practice community-style acupuncture without herbs and biomedical integration. There needs to be a greater gap between the MS and DAOM programs, so that both the inner circle of the acupuncture world and the outer circle of the immediate public know the difference in these education levels. These hour requirements/ degree titles should be consistent from state-to-state across the board. Of course, there aren't any regulations for anyone to use herbs as food/dietary supplements, but those without the training won't ever be able to go beyond pills per indication as vitamin substitutes, just as any of our patients currently can do by buying a book on amazon.com. What needs to be taught in the FPD is using concentrated powders and compounding measures that are exact by percentage, in line with classical dosages as they do in Kampo by MDs in Japan for instance. We need the herbal companies to be transparent with all fillers and discrepancies with concentration of herbal ingredients inside of a given concentrated powder formula. We also need more research on drug/herb interactions (less on how acupuncture works, which has been defined by many perspectives for the last 20 years). Then, we might be able to make some head-way into using herbal medicine in hospital/ out-patient/ hospice settings, as well as for private patients who are on multiple medications. For those who opt for the MS-acupuncture only program, not having herbal training will actually make it safer for the public, since a little knowledge can be very dangerous, while the extra 1800 hours in the DAOM program would properly train a practitioner to use herbal therapies in clinical settings. Thoughts? K > > The hard part over the years has been to have people with truncated > education stay within the confines of their education. Acupuncture only > grads, and many acu-detox people, wish to prescribe herbs and dietary > changes as well as other modalities which they are not fully trained in > because it is human nature to do so. However, they dont' want to take the > education or examinations to allow them to have competency in these > additional processes, just as other medical professions don't want to take > full courses in acupuncture. > DAvid Molony > > -- www.tcmreview.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I do not think we should be making educational changes because of a business model (community acupuncture) that seeks to reduce education to a technician level. We also need to understand when red flags occur and referral is needed.. This can be a slippery slope, when people start cherry picking. If we should listen to any group, it should be the current and future students that are showing a dramatic trend towards wanting a FPD, which could be in either acupuncture or OM. These are the ones that will be taking on the cost of their education and not us. The real issue is how to go about changing the education and the degree to reflect our desire to be the professional in this field. Current practitioners are not likely to see any changes to state license designations. States can allow the remaining practitioners to be licensed as they currently are and then newer ones would be at another designation. This has happened with the PT's so there is precedent. The CA regulations are not likely to go along with this, simply due to the fact that the Asian practitioners are wanting more western medical inclusion and doctor status. The real albatross is the limited education that we already have with some schools teaching reduced aspects of OM. At some point, we might want to consider that we have less of an argument with the abbreviated programs teaching 100-300 hours. Maybe we need to put acupuncture back into OM and so do the schools. Students should learn about the various methods of treatment and be able to choose those that apply to the situation. So how do we handle the apparent issues that can exist between the master student that excels at acupuncture and the doctor that does not? There have been some thoughts about making the master more of a technician designation along with limited licensure. If a two-tiered licensure happens, more students will seek out the doctorate if it comes with the ability to designate the technicians as opposed to having to work with a limited license under someone else. How would the two year program be different from say, a detox technician? It seems like this is what CAN is wanting with this effort to reduce our education. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine johnkokko Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:57:42 -0800 Re: Re: Draft FPD Letter of Support David, your concerns of people taking the acupuncture course of training without herbs, but practicing herbal therapies can be reduced if we have a two-tiered system: 1. FPD (DAOM) 4 years= 4200 hours includes herbal therapy and bio-medical-integration training 2. (MS) 2 years = 2400 hours w/o herbal therapy and minimal bio-med training Would this suffice as a compromise to both sides of the argument? I do agree that the FPD should be an option for those who want the full-pledged doctorate, and I also see that there are others who view a 3000 hour program (CA minimum) as more hours than needed to practice community-style acupuncture without herbs and biomedical integration. There needs to be a greater gap between the MS and DAOM programs, so that both the inner circle of the acupuncture world and the outer circle of the immediate public know the difference in these education levels. These hour requirements/ degree titles should be consistent from state-to-state across the board. Of course, there aren't any regulations for anyone to use herbs as food/dietary supplements, but those without the training won't ever be able to go beyond pills per indication as vitamin substitutes, just as any of our patients currently can do by buying a book on amazon.com. What needs to be taught in the FPD is using concentrated powders and compounding measures that are exact by percentage, in line with classical dosages as they do in Kampo by MDs in Japan for instance. We need the herbal companies to be transparent with all fillers and discrepancies with concentration of herbal ingredients inside of a given concentrated powder formula. We also need more research on drug/herb interactions (less on how acupuncture works, which has been defined by many perspectives for the last 20 years). Then, we might be able to make some head-way into using herbal medicine in hospital/ out-patient/ hospice settings, as well as for private patients who are on multiple medications. For those who opt for the MS-acupuncture only program, not having herbal training will actually make it safer for the public, since a little knowledge can be very dangerous, while the extra 1800 hours in the DAOM program would properly train a practitioner to use herbal therapies in clinical settings. Thoughts? K > > The hard part over the years has been to have people with truncated > education stay within the confines of their education. Acupuncture only > grads, and many acu-detox people, wish to prescribe herbs and dietary > changes as well as other modalities which they are not fully trained in > because it is human nature to do so. However, they dont' want to take the > education or examinations to allow them to have competency in these > additional processes, just as other medical professions don't want to take > full courses in acupuncture. > DAvid Molony > > -- www.tcmreview.com 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.