Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, Maybe you should think about volunteering to help ACAOM instead of complaining. In the end, ACAOM will decide if we are going to have the FPD, they also decided upon the master's degree and took away the post-graduate OMD (CA). Involvement is not simply about pointing out ACAOM's failures as they have helped us to become a profession and not a bunch of unruly individuals from the 60's. Creating more chaos does little to help. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:50:14 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M And I think ACAOM is NOT doing a fine job regardless of resources. Organizations such as ACAOM have a DUTY to PRODUCE everything and anything asked for. Just like any not-for-profit organization. Their detailed financial records and operational documents are WIDE OPEN to scrutiny for any of the public to request and investigate. That's the nature of being an accreditation granting organization. They come under the microscope just like they purportedly put the schools under same. You are incorrect - ACAOM does NOT decide FPD. Even ACAOM clearly delineated that it is CONSENSUS of ALL stakeholders which decide FPD. So why do YOU state something oddly different? You state you don't work for ACAOM but do you make money teaching at a school? I don't profit from running or teaching at a school. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:05:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it for them or they will leav e. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more forward. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M I am as much a stakeholder as the next person. Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all dealings. What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28 326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, Failure to respond to you is not a violation of anything. I do not consider that there is enough concern to ask for any sort of investigation. You have not provided enough data on violations up to this point. If there were, then I would say let the investigation begin. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:49:57 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M You can write till the cows fly over the moon and it will not change my opinion. What appears to have taken place needs investigation by USDE and THEY will be the ones who will decide to suspend accreditation granting status or not. And this is a BIG DEAL especially if they have violated their own stated procedures....just like schools get suspended by ACAOM. If a school has trouble running properly according to the procedures their status is pulled and the same should go for ACAOM. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:01:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, Students do cheat, even in our programs as much as in normal college. BTW,That still changes nothing. Suspension is not warranted at this time. I I would think that the Naturopathic organization had a more issues of a larger concern. That's stop making things larger then they really are. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:42:13 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M If one CHEATED in school and got caught........would it be way over the top to consider EXPELLING such a student? Actually suspending accreditation granting status is not much more than a slap on the wrists. It will send an appropriate message to get their house in order and keep it in order. Losing accreditation granting status would be way over the top and devastating. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID283 26::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Kim, From what I have seen, there were two studies undertaken on this issue. The latest one, showed support for the FPD and a large number of participants, especially current students, were in support of this. The FPD would not be a redundent degree but one that is deeper in many areas of study and clinical practice. The state of CA is considering a post-graduate residency to get students more clinical time as a requirement for licensure. At present time that would not make sense as there are no current situations that would work for us. Here the FPD would greatly help. As a former clinical supervisor, I have seen the level of students that enter the clinic at more then one OM program and I can say it is very low. We can argue about what the schools should be doing but adding in one more year of clinical training and select courses of deeper material is important. Some statistics were put forward previously about cost and it appears this would amount to a very small increase to students. A FPD would be entirely different from the DAOM, which we now see. I would suggest you read the post or article that William Morris on this issue. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine kuangguiyu Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:48:21 -0700 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Mike - I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to a). announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan. Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is hardly a witch hunt. I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process, but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way to move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly does it advance the profession? Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote: > > R, > > I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to > use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are > looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an > agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to > see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and > less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our > profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on > the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it > happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that > even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean > another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done > practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the > FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it > for them or they will leave. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is > not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal > comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more > forward. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > Chinese Medicine > acudoc11 > Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M > > > > I am as much a stakeholder as the next person. > > > > Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all > > dealings. > > > > What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide. > > > > R > > > > > > In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > naturaldoc1 writes: > > > > R, > > > > I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by > > USDE is way over the top for something like this. > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, First off those 27,000 had a chance to reply as well. At some point a study is simply a representation of the population. Let's work on making things better and not complaining so much. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:32:30 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M Obviously some simple math is being evade or made to not exist....... 30,000 stakeholders minus 3,000 responses equals 27,000 missing majority 3,000 response 2100 against (70% against) Bottom Line......ZERO CONSENSUS. Lets stop playing this broken record. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:09:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, You are welcome. Of course you can contribute but in the end we must also realize when things are changing. There have already been a couple of studies and likely there will be in the future, as nothing has yet been truly decided (this appears to be an issue for some). In reverse, where are the studies that show overwhelming rejection? I have not see any. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, Where are the facts that support this position? Some schools do a much better job of prepping their students then others. The real issue, as it appears, is why are lesser programs allowed to teach lower standards? Answer is that if we did not then we would have fewer schools (inside the profession and more outside teaching as rogue programs) and less of a profession. The post grad residencies would ONLY work if you have ample access to them, and our profession is not even close to this hurdle. It all comes back to the issue of our master degree being almost at doctoral level but needs some tweaking in rigor of theory and increased internship hours. The FPD is really an answer to many of these issues. There is only so much time that a school has to develop its students (four years is not enough). We also need to get quality students and raise the entry level. Educational expense is what it is. Students will decide if they ultimately feel that the cost of attendance is worth the expense. That is not something that you or I should be interfering with. I have encouraged many students to look at this factor and decide for themselves. They are the ones that will be paying it back. BTW, many in the post graduate DAOM's have mentioned that these additional hours of education have impacted their practices dramatically. I have found that a program, I attended, was more expensive then many others I have worked within and yet I received a much better educational experience then what I have been noticing. Costs for lower quality programs is raising, as well. Cost of program does still equate, to some extent, with better education. The ACAOM position paper does not support your supposition about the FPD. From the paper, " It is important to note that the development of these standards did not and do not mandate, or even propose, a transition from the master’s to the professional doctorate as the entry-level degree. Instead, these standards, if adopted by ACAOM will allow institutions to consider developing such programs if they feel that the educational marketplace will support them. An example of how this process might work is provided by the transition made by the physical therapy profession from the master's to the doctorate. This transition was not mandated, but driven entirely by student demand for a professional doctorate in physical therapy. Some professions that have developed professional doctorates have opted to support offering both the master’s and the doctorate degree as first professional degrees in their field. " ACAOM is allowing both the profession and the students to choose if they want to attend a FPD in lieu of a master's degree. I am unsure as to why the resistance to allowing students to make their own choice in attendance. This is not even a real issue. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:23:39 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M I just sat in on a graduating class for three weeks to help the instructor colleague evaluate his presentation. What I found was that even today.... these graduating students haven't a clue how to handle a patient in clinic. That's the FAULT of the schools. Post graduate residency would be a great idea for all grads who are struggling because their clinic experience was greatly deficient. It appears that this is a problem across the US with possibly a few exceptions. As to " some statistics put forth " for the FPD.....as I remember that was just ONE licensee's wishful thinking. The way it should be? Maybe. The way it will be? NOT if the night-trade-school cottage industry has anything to say about it. You can bet that the funky-Masters (really a triple PhD) will go from $50,000 to over $100,000. and how does that help the patient? R In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:32:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: Kim, From what I have seen, there were two studies undertaken on this issue. The latest one, showed support for the FPD and a large number of participants, especially current students, were in support of this. The FPD would not be a redundent degree but one that is deeper in many areas of study and clinical practice. The state of CA is considering a post-graduate residency to get students more clinical time as a requirement for licensure. At present time that would not make sense as there are no current situations that would work for us. Here the FPD would greatly help. As a former clinical supervisor, I have seen the level of students that enter the clinic at more then one OM program and I can say it is very low. We can argue about what the schools should be doing but adding in one more year of clinical training and select courses of deeper material is important. Some statistics were put forward previously about cost and it appears this would amount to a very small increas e to students. A FPD would be entirely different from the DAOM, which we now see. I would suggest you read the post or article that William Morris on this issue. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine kuangguiyu Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:48:21 -0700 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Mike - I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to a). announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan. Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is hardly a witch hunt. I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process, but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way to move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly does it advance the profession? Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote: > > R, > > I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to > use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are > looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an > agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to > see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and > less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our > profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on > the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it > happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that > even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean > another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done > practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the > FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it > for them or they will leave. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is > not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal > comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more > forward. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > Chinese Medicine > acudoc11 > Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M > > > > I am as much a stakeholder as the next person. > > > > Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all > > dealings. > > > > What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide. > > > > R > > > > > > In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > naturaldoc1 writes: > > > > R, > > > > I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by > > USDE is way over the top for something like this. > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with > Hotmail. > > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28326:\ :T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > --- > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and > acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia > > To change your email delivery settings, click, > and adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, Where do you get your numbers from? I have heard other estimates that put it less. Are you including those that do not practice or are retired or expired? My point is that people have the option to respond and no response really means no interest. ACAOM made many different efforts to contact members and ask for input. If only 5,000 of us are interested in our profession, then I guess we will be the ones that determine the future. If people choose not to respond that is their choice to not be included. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:14:11 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M You know what has been said? Liars figure and figures lie! Lets not consider that just because the 27,000 didn't speak out that their voices are worthless. And let's not monkey with the figures. 2,100 of the 3,000 replies were AGAINST FPD. You quote figures.......would you care to provide the actual reports and data? R In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:33:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, First off those 27,000 had a chance to reply as well. At some point a study is simply a representation of the population. Let's work on making things better and not complaining so much. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, By this logic then we really do not have a profession. If people do not speak, then they will not be included, plain and simple. That is how life works. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:10:42 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M NO excuse and NO room for conflict of interest! It's odd that you see exercising one's rights to be involved in the process as " complaining " . Too bad that more of the 27,000 silent majority don't speak out. Probably because they SEE how special interest groups work and that they feel it useless. As you can see.....I am,NOT one of them. R In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:11:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I understand the conflict of interest as we had a local president of an acupuncture school, which was bought by a chiro college, and this same person became the president of the acu association. We are very small profession and so it is almost impossible that at some point you will not have this occur. I, like you, would like not to see it but we must also remember that doing things for the " profession " may not always appear to be what is best for an individual. Before we some organized professional association, we were all over the map, no standards whatsoever. What we can do is help them to improve things and not just complain about it. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:03:40 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Furthermore it is not only ODD but highly SUSPECT that there are 3 Members of ACAOM who run and/or own schools or heavily involved with AOM schools. ACAOM is a quasi-governmental agency or at least an organization with a governmental delegated important duty. As such like state Acupuncture Boards it is highly unethical to have Director Members who OWN and RUN schools or even teach Continuing Education courses. This is yet another area of concern. The proverbial.... fox guarding the chicken coop? Also...no one answers the question that with 60 college credit prerequisite entrance requirement and approximately 200 credits for the ACAOM accredited AOM program (so called funky Masters) is actually equivalent to a Bachelors, Masters AND more importantly a TRIPLE PhD. YES...that's right a TRIPLE PhD! So the Masters is ALREADY a PhD by credits alone. The AOM schools need to stop bilking prospective students interested in the field with more costly and worthless dream degrees. THIS is what will SCARE away prospective students. Richard In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:48:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kuangguiyu writes: Mike - I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to a). announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan. Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is hardly a witch hunt. I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process, but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way to move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly does it advance the profession? Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 You mean the majority of the same students who come out of the Masters program being unable to do a clinic evaluation? Such students are apparently unable to evaluate very much. And you think that that's who should decide the future of the profession? All I can say is......WOW.....just amazing. Stakeholder does not mean students.....or certainly NOT only students and even if one includes students as stakeholders they are a very small part of ALL stakeholders. If what Mike calls " your leaders " ....were watching the professions back years ago the profession would not be being carved up by every other healthcare providers like MDs, PAs, PTs, RNs, etc. Especially the leaders who were first formers of ACAOM, CCAOM, NCCAOM and AAAOM. If I recall the position of such KEY person forming those organizations still has a vision of acupuncturists as ONLY NEEDLE STICKERS. The profession was COMPROMISED right from the beginning. Don't blame the poor situation on stakeholders who are against yet another dream-degree (called FPD). Standards are more than enough if the schools DID their jobs properly. The FPM which is really the equivalent of a TRIPLE PhD and is just fine with some very minor changes. Then just change the name from a ridiculous FP Masters to the PhD (FPD) entry level it is already. As to state legislatures......every state needs to address their own licensure requirements and scope of practice and not wait for anything on a national level which unlikely will never occur. That's why LAcs in the majority of states are needle stickers and only a few states are primary care with at least one being able to administer IV therapy and has a formulary. Even Colorado allows Acupuncture Injection therapy. And if the professional associations did their part we would ALL be like Hawaii where anyone INCLUDING MDs would have to go to the 4 year program before they were ALLOWED to use an acupuncture needle. Now that's being RESPONSIBLE and they did it with a much smaller contingency of licensees than for example California. Richard In a message dated 4/18/2010 2:51:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, acuman1 writes: This point is well taken. Let the market decide the issue. Students will vote with their money. If it is a bad bet, those with the FPD wil die on the vine. If it is a good idea, the others will bring their standards up or die on the vine. In either case it will take decades. If we put it off, it will take a decade to get around to it again. We will then see our profession taken over by PT's, NP's and ND's taking over our prime modality, acupuncture (calling it dry needling at first, as they are doing state legislature by state legislature) and us dying on the vine because we chose to keep a FPM. FPM, the twilight of our profession as we move softly into the night. By the way, when it was first proposed by insightful professionals in the early 90's, the colleges were dead set against it because they, to my observation and opinion, didn't want to spend the money. Now, I think they see that our profession will die and they will not have colleges to run and thus have chosen to change their view, albeit 15 years later. Can we afford as a profession to wait? Those speaking against the FPD will be close to retirement or death in the 20-30 years it will take this slow attrition to happen. In my view the choice is about the future of our profession, and being the only medical field without a FPD will provide those with academic backgrounds a job at medical history schools perhaps and we may be provided for continued practice when the state licensure boards are closed as they did with the old ND's in the 50's and 60's. We cannot survive without growth and the full practice of Oriental Medicine which is attainable only with an FPD after the dinosaurs like myself and other vocal pro-opponents die off. David Molony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, You might want to review the ACAOM website on this issue (http://acupuncture.edu/students/documents/docsurvey.html). If ACAOM is not the one making the decision on the FPD, as you mention, then why are fighting with them on this issue? I read over their position on the FPD (http://asny.org/FPD-12-18-09.pdf) and found their process makes a lot of sense, as it allows both schools and students to decide if this is what they want to have. Why are you so afraid to allow people to make their own decisions? This will NOT change any law or force anyone to get a FPD. I am involved and agree with ACAOM on this issue. This appears to be the soundest way to move our profession forward and allow for freedom of choice. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:06:11 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M As I responded to you before many times....I have been more than involved for the past 15 years. Instead of sitting on the sidelines why don't you involve yourself? Also.....this is not complaining! This is about being involved in the process. And again.....ACAOM does NOT determine FPD. Have you failed to read their documentation where even ACAOM states they do NOT? Such ideas are unfounded so why do you continue to present them? R In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:16:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, Maybe you should think about volunteering to help ACAOM instead of complaining. In the end, ACAOM will decide if we are going to have the FPD, they also decided upon the master's degree and took away the post-graduate OMD (CA). Involvement is not simply about pointing out ACAOM's failures as they have helped us to become a profession and not a bunch of unruly individuals from the 60's. Creating more chaos does little to help. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:50:14 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M And I think ACAOM is NOT doing a fine job regardless of resources. Organizations such as ACAOM have a DUTY to PRODUCE everything and anything asked for. Just like any not-for-profit organization. Their detailed financial records and operational documents are WIDE OPEN to scrutiny for any of the public to request and investigate. That's the nature of being an accreditation granting organization. They come under the microscope just like they purportedly put the schools under same. You are incorrect - ACAOM does NOT decide FPD. Even ACAOM clearly delineated that it is CONSENSUS of ALL stakeholders which decide FPD. So why do YOU state something oddly different? You state you don't work for ACAOM but do you make money teaching at a school? I don't profit from running or teaching at a school. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:05:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it for them or they will leav e. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more forward. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M I am as much a stakeholder as the next person. Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all dealings. What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28 326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, Again, I see no reason for any investigation of ACAOM. You have failed to present anything substantial that supports your opinion, other then your opinion. I think they are doing an admirable job with trying to guide our profession forward. Even the FPD process is not binding but it allows schools that want to develop this to begin to create the future. This is a choice for students and administrators to make and will not make any change to your current state laws that determine licensure. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:01:41 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M Thank the system that this kind of thinking is not the order of the day. Enough is already in evidence. Let the investigation begin. R In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:21:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, Failure to respond to you is not a violation of anything. I do not consider that there is enough concern to ask for any sort of investigation. You have not provided enough data on violations up to this point. If there were, then I would say let the investigation begin. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:49:57 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M You can write till the cows fly over the moon and it will not change my opinion. What appears to have taken place needs investigation by USDE and THEY will be the ones who will decide to suspend accreditation granting status or not. And this is a BIG DEAL especially if they have violated their own stated procedures....just like schools get suspended by ACAOM. If a school has trouble running properly according to the procedures their status is pulled and the same should go for ACAOM. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:01:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, Students do cheat, even in our programs as much as in normal college. BTW,That still changes nothing. Suspension is not warranted at this time. I I would think that the Naturopathic organization had a more issues of a larger concern. That's stop making things larger then they really are. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:42:13 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M If one CHEATED in school and got caught........would it be way over the top to consider EXPELLING such a student? Actually suspending accreditation granting status is not much more than a slap on the wrists. It will send an appropriate message to get their house in order and keep it in order. Losing accreditation granting status would be way over the top and devastating. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID283 26::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Mike - Where are your numbers? You claim that the latest study " showed support for the FPD and a large number of participants, especially current students, were in support of this. " How do you figure? The latest study that I am familiar with showed a two-to-one vote against the FPD. And if approximately 70% of acupuncturists who were interested enough to respond did so negatively, how does that possibly qualify as support? I would be interested to see the figures you mention that suggest the cost increase to students for the FPD would be minimal. Could you also please provide a little more information on the piece by Will Morris - I would like to read it. Thanks. Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote: > > R, > > Where do you get your numbers from? I have heard other estimates that put > it less. Are you including those that do not practice or are retired or > expired? My point is that people have the option to respond and no response > really means no interest. ACAOM made many different efforts to contact > members and ask for input. If only 5,000 of us are interested in our > profession, then I guess we will be the ones that determine the future. If > people choose not to respond that is their choice to not be included. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > Chinese Medicine > acudoc11 > Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:14:11 -0400 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M > > > > You know what has been said? > > Liars figure and figures lie! > > > > Lets not consider that just because the 27,000 didn't speak out that their > > voices are worthless. > > And let's not monkey with the figures. > > 2,100 of the 3,000 replies were AGAINST FPD. > > > > You quote figures.......would you care to provide the actual reports and > > data? > > R > > > > > > In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:33:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > naturaldoc1 writes: > > > > R, > > > > First off those 27,000 had a chance to reply as well. At some point a > > study is simply a representation of the population. Let's work on making > > things better and not complaining so much. > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 This point is well taken. Let the market decide the issue. Students will vote with their money. If it is a bad bet, those with the FPD wil die on the vine. If it is a good idea, the others will bring their standards up or die on the vine. In either case it will take decades. If we put it off, it will take a decade to get around to it again. We will then see our profession taken over by PT's, NP's and ND's taking over our prime modality, acupuncture (calling it dry needling at first, as they are doing state legislature by state legislature) and us dying on the vine because we chose to keep a FPM. FPM, the twilight of our profession as we move softly into the night. By the way, when it was first proposed by insightful professionals in the early 90's, the colleges were dead set against it because they, to my observation and opinion, didn't want to spend the money. Now, I think they see that our profession will die and they will not  have colleges to run and thus have chosen to change their view, albeit 15 years later. Can we afford as a profession to wait? Those speaking against the FPD  will be close to retirement or death in the 20-30 years it will take this slow attrition to happen. In my view the choice is about the future of our profession, and being the only medical field without a FPD will provide those with academic backgrounds a job at medical history schools perhaps and we may be provided for continued practice when the state licensure boards are closed as they did with the old ND's in the 50's and 60's. We cannot survive without growth and the full practice of Oriental Medicine which is attainable only with an FPD after the dinosaurs like myself and other vocal pro-opponents die off. David Molony On Apr 18, 2010, at 1:32:41 PM, " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1 wrote: The ACAOM position paper does not support your supposition about the FPD. From the paper, " It is important to note that the development of these standards did not and do not mandate, or even propose, a transition from the master’s to the professional doctorate as the entry-level degree. Instead, these standards, if adopted by ACAOM will allow institutions to consider developing such programs if they feel that the educational marketplace will support them. An example of how this process might work is provided by the transition made by the physical therapy profession from the master's to the doctorate. This transition was not mandated, but driven entirely by student demand for a professional doctorate in physical therapy. Some professions that have developed professional doctorates have opted to support offering both the master’s and the doctorate degree as first professional degrees in their field. " ACAOM is allowing both the profession and the students to choose if they want to attend a FPD in lieu of a master's degree. I am unsure as to why the resistance to allowing students to make their own choice in attendance. This is not even a real issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Kim Excellent points. I have asked and never received any response from David while he was still at AAAOM as to WHY not ONE state association or for that matter even the AAAOM ever sued in a Class Action RICO lawsuit.... ALL of the top insurance reimbursement carriers for practicing discriminatory reimbursement practices AGAINST the only truly qualified licensed acupuncturists? Why was I the ONLY one who ever even tried? And maybe more importantly - WHY was there not one state association or the AAAOM to have JOINED in on my class action Anti-Racketeering lawsuit? The system SAW that the leadership was as apathetic as the rank and file. Just like we have seen that 27,000 stakeholders out of 30,000 failed to respond to ACAOM's call regarding FPD. Apathy from top to bottom. As to a 2010 attempt by the PTs in Florida during this current legislative session to practice acupuncture by removing PROHIBITIVE language in their statute...........I made sure that bill was KILLED. Richard In a message dated 4/18/2010 6:55:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kuangguiyu writes: David - You appear to be suggesting that if we don't create an FPD then within a decade practitioners of other modalities will take over acupuncture. To my knowledge this process is already well under way - and the fact that this is already occurring has way more to do with a lack of opposition on the part of our leadership than the fact that we don't have an FPD. (Please enlighten me and accept my apology if I am in error in my belief that there is no concerted defense of our profession at the national and state levels as I may be out of the loop here. I seem to remember hearing of some successful opposition at the state level, but don't have that info at hand now.) And how exactly will a new degree within our profession stop the subsumption of acupuncture by PTs, etc.? I agree that we cannot survive without growth, but cannot agree that the full practice of Chinese medicine is only attainable through the FPD. I believe that there are plenty of people employing the full practice of OM now without the benefit of the FPD. In what way do you feel that the FPD will somehow complete the full practice of Chinese medicine? What's missing and what will it add? Thanks. Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, acuman1 <acuman1 wrote: > > > This point is well taken. Let the market decide the issue. Students will > vote with their money. If it is a bad bet, those with the FPD wil die on the > vine. If it is a good idea, the others will bring their standards up or die > on the vine. In either case it will take decades. If we put it off, it will > take a decade to get around to it again. We will then see our profession > taken over by PT's, NP's and ND's taking over our prime modality, > acupuncture (calling it dry needling at first, as they are doing state > legislature by state legislature) and us dying on the vine because we chose > to keep a FPM. > FPM, the twilight of our profession as we move softly into the night. > By the way, when it was first proposed by insightful professionals in the > early 90's, the colleges were dead set against it because they, to my > observation and opinion, didn't want to spend the money. Now, I think they > see that our profession will die and they will not have colleges to run and > thus have chosen to change their view, albeit 15 years later. Can we afford > as a profession to wait? Those speaking against the FPD will be close to > retirement or death in the 20-30 years it will take this slow attrition to > happen. In my view the choice is about the future of our profession, and > being the only medical field without a FPD will provide those with academic > backgrounds a job at medical history schools perhaps and we may be provided > for continued practice when the state licensure boards are closed as they > did with the old ND's in the 50's and 60's. We cannot survive without growth > and the full practice of Oriental Medicine which is attainable only with an > FPD after the dinosaurs like myself and other vocal pro-opponents die off. > > David Molony > > > On Apr 18, 2010, at 1:32:41 PM, " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1<naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com>> > wrote: > > The ACAOM position paper does not support your supposition about the FPD. > From the paper, " It is important to note that the development of these > standards did not and do not mandate, or even propose, a transition from the > master’s to the professional doctorate as the entry-level degree. Instead, > these standards, if adopted by ACAOM will allow institutions to consider > developing such programs if they feel that the educational marketplace will > support them. An example of how this process might work is provided by the > transition made by the physical therapy profession from the master's to the > doctorate. This transition was not mandated, but driven entirely by student > demand for a professional doctorate in physical therapy. Some professions > that have developed professional doctorates have opted to support offering > both the master’s and the doctorate degree as first professional degrees > in their field. " > > ACAOM is allowing both the profession and the students to choose if they > want to attend a FPD in lieu of a master's degree. I am unsure as to why the > resistance to allowing students to make their own choice in attendance. This > is not even a real issue. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 David - You appear to be suggesting that if we don't create an FPD then within a decade practitioners of other modalities will take over acupuncture. To my knowledge this process is already well under way - and the fact that this is already occurring has way more to do with a lack of opposition on the part of our leadership than the fact that we don't have an FPD. (Please enlighten me and accept my apology if I am in error in my belief that there is no concerted defense of our profession at the national and state levels as I may be out of the loop here. I seem to remember hearing of some successful opposition at the state level, but don't have that info at hand now.) And how exactly will a new degree within our profession stop the subsumption of acupuncture by PTs, etc.? I agree that we cannot survive without growth, but cannot agree that the full practice of Chinese medicine is only attainable through the FPD. I believe that there are plenty of people employing the full practice of OM now without the benefit of the FPD. In what way do you feel that the FPD will somehow complete the full practice of Chinese medicine? What's missing and what will it add? Thanks. Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, acuman1 <acuman1 wrote: > > > This point is well taken. Let the market decide the issue. Students will > vote with their money. If it is a bad bet, those with the FPD wil die on the > vine. If it is a good idea, the others will bring their standards up or die > on the vine. In either case it will take decades. If we put it off, it will > take a decade to get around to it again. We will then see our profession > taken over by PT's, NP's and ND's taking over our prime modality, > acupuncture (calling it dry needling at first, as they are doing state > legislature by state legislature) and us dying on the vine because we chose > to keep a FPM. > FPM, the twilight of our profession as we move softly into the night. > By the way, when it was first proposed by insightful professionals in the > early 90's, the colleges were dead set against it because they, to my > observation and opinion, didn't want to spend the money. Now, I think they > see that our profession will die and they will not have colleges to run and > thus have chosen to change their view, albeit 15 years later. Can we afford > as a profession to wait? Those speaking against the FPD will be close to > retirement or death in the 20-30 years it will take this slow attrition to > happen. In my view the choice is about the future of our profession, and > being the only medical field without a FPD will provide those with academic > backgrounds a job at medical history schools perhaps and we may be provided > for continued practice when the state licensure boards are closed as they > did with the old ND's in the 50's and 60's. We cannot survive without growth > and the full practice of Oriental Medicine which is attainable only with an > FPD after the dinosaurs like myself and other vocal pro-opponents die off. > > David Molony > > > On Apr 18, 2010, at 1:32:41 PM, " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1<naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com>> > wrote: > > The ACAOM position paper does not support your supposition about the FPD. > From the paper, " It is important to note that the development of these > standards did not and do not mandate, or even propose, a transition from the > master’s to the professional doctorate as the entry-level degree. Instead, > these standards, if adopted by ACAOM will allow institutions to consider > developing such programs if they feel that the educational marketplace will > support them. An example of how this process might work is provided by the > transition made by the physical therapy profession from the master's to the > doctorate. This transition was not mandated, but driven entirely by student > demand for a professional doctorate in physical therapy. Some professions > that have developed professional doctorates have opted to support offering > both the master’s and the doctorate degree as first professional degrees > in their field. " > > ACAOM is allowing both the profession and the students to choose if they > want to attend a FPD in lieu of a master's degree. I am unsure as to why the > resistance to allowing students to make their own choice in attendance. This > is not even a real issue. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 Everyone has their windmills........ Ours was to hold the schools and the powers that be (NCCA, NASCAOM and etc) feet to the fire regarding our profession. You know, those with the money in our profession at the time. As usual, with little money and relatively few members to provide any (we did charge membership fees so we had fewer members, bless everyone who cared enough to participate) we had to work to stimulate the others to get ethical. The RICO deal was perhaps not considered to be a useful use of our very limited time and or money, I guess. I don't even remember much discussion about it. Sorry that others may have disagreed with your windmill choice. To our benefit, AAOM's much smaller windmills have pretty much panned out and the NCCAOM and the ACAOM have become as favorable to the advance of our profession as any non-profit organizations can be, and the CCAOM seems to have seen the writing on the wall regarding the FPD, finally. So. I have some glimmer of hope that the independent OM profession may survive. Don't get me wrong, Richard. I have respect for all you have done in political circles. My hope is that you do not let your self prevent furtherance of the profession by your disagreement with the particular way it is done. David of AAOM (in my day, acupuncture was a modality of Oriental Medicine and didn't need to be distinguished as its own field) PS Was RICO one of Lucille Ball's husbands? On Apr 18, 2010, at 7:35:30 PM, acudoc11 wrote: I have asked and never received any response from David while he was still at AAAOM as to WHY not ONE state association or for that matter even the AAAOM ever sued in a Class Action RICO lawsuit.... ALL of the top insurance reimbursement carriers for practicing discriminatory reimbursement practices AGAINST the only truly qualified licensed acupuncturists? Why was I the ONLY one who ever even tried? And maybe more importantly - WHY was there not one state association or the AAAOM to have JOINED in on my class action Anti-Racketeering lawsuit? The system SAW that the leadership was as apathetic as the rank and file. Just like we have seen that 27,000 stakeholders out of 30,000 failed to respond to ACAOM's call regarding FPD. Apathy from top to bottom. As to a 2010 attempt by the PTs in Florida during this current legislative session to practice acupuncture by removing PROHIBITIVE language in their statute...........I made sure that bill was KILLED. Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 Yes, the process of a takeover is already under way. I didn't see your name on the board of directors of the AAAOM even though they barely got enough folks to run. Someone who had ideas and energy could easily have had a seat and done some good. At the very least work in your state to keep the hounds at bay there. These people care little for competency, only for payment, and one more modality to bill for on top of others is a few bucks more. As far as enlightenment, if you haven't seen it yet, then your blinders (of some material I don't know you well enough to discern) render it invisible to you. Perhaps it is that you think of what we do as singly acupuncture instead of a field of medicine. Oriental Medicine is a field of medicine which provides the best background for gaining an ability to do a variety of things better than any other provider, one of which is acupuncture. Acupuncture is merely a modality, but it is one that requires a study of Oriental Medicine precepts to understand its capability and function enough to do it well. As you can see, I am no longer involved with the national organization and being bound by rules which limit personal views. If someone practices acupuncture without the understanding of food medicine and the use of herbal medicine, they are doing their patients a disservice due to poor choices and perhaps personal dogmatism. Do I feel that this is ok? It is personal choice, just as an MD makes the choice to do surgery when Oriental Medicine or even acupuncture alone will do the job in many cases. It is not my choice because I do not wish to limit myself just as I refer out to a MD when it is indicated and let them know what I think is going on. Was I taught this in college, or even is this taught now? I am hopeful that at least one college will provide a FPD education that will provide someone with a majority of the skills that I had to required over decades so they can do well for patients. I'll refer to that college, and you will refer students to the one that best suits your proclivities. And yes. A full first professional doctorate level education is necessary for this sort of interaction with patients, for their benefit. David Molony On Apr 18, 2010, at 6:55:27 PM, " Kim Blankenship " <kuangguiyu wrote: David - You appear to be suggesting that if we don't create an FPD then within a decade practitioners of other modalities will take over acupuncture. To my knowledge this process is already well under way - and the fact that this is already occurring has way more to do with a lack of opposition on the part of our leadership than the fact that we don't have an FPD. (Please enlighten me and accept my apology if I am in error in my belief that there is no concerted defense of our profession at the national and state levels as I may be out of the loop here. I seem to remember hearing of some successful opposition at the state level, but don't have that info at hand now.) And how exactly will a new degree within our profession stop the subsumption of acupuncture by PTs, etc.? I agree that we cannot survive without growth, but cannot agree that the full practice of Chinese medicine is only attainable through the FPD. I believe that there are plenty of people employing the full practice of OM now without the benefit of the FPD. In what way do you feel that the FPD will somehow complete the full practice of Chinese medicine? What's missing and what will it add? Thanks. Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 David I am sure you remember that in 1998 I volunteered my time and actually worked on the AAOM-AAAOM's " Doctor of Oriental Medicine " program. After AAOM-AAAOM scrapped it, sold it off or succumbed to the powers that be..........you should remember telling me to MIND MY OWN BUSINESS IN FLORIDA and to stay out of national affairs. Which strangely enough I thought GOOD advice. So please don't give the impression that I did not want to be involved or never was just because I didn't care to be on ANY Board of Directors. It was obvious that my involvement was not wanted. Richard In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:41:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, acuman1 writes: Yes, the process of a takeover is already under way. I didn't see your name on the board of directors of the AAAOM even though they barely got enough folks to run. Someone who had ideas and energy could easily have had a seat and done some good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 Michael Bowser Richard is not in CA or NM. Richard is in Florida involved in Florida APs destiny. IF other states would follow there would be a lot less problems in the overall profession. Richard In a message dated 4/19/2010 11:32:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: This is exactly the conflict we have in our profession that divides us. What is the overall vision of our profession versus small local group's vision, usually influenced by the state acupuncture associations. Many times the smaller, local groups know little about legal aspects related to legislation and fail to see the bigger picture related to their legal decisions, which may be why they have given acupuncture to others. These groups, of course, have every right to encourage and participate in acupuncture legislation creation but this is the major reason why we are having this discussion. If Richard moved to another state, other then CA or NM, he would be in for a real treat. He enjoys practice in one of the better states, although it is not perfect either. I noticed a huge difference in how well LAc's were doing after moving from CA to the midwest. Practices in the midwest are very small and many appear to work only part-time. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 Kokko Impressions are just what we don't need. That's why ACAOM has been requested nicely to PRODUCE the figues and so far there has been nothing. That is what moves a complaint forward. Can YOU show proof of ACAOM's numbers which caused you to have such an IMPRESSION? Please do so.......the 2,100 stakeholders that were recorded against FPD are waiting. Richard not Robert In a message dated 4/19/2010 11:02:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, johnkokko writes: Robert, can you show proof of these numbers? I was under the impression that it was the other way around. K On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:32 PM, <acudoc11 wrote: > > > M > > Obviously some simple math is being evade or made to not exist....... > 30,000 stakeholders > minus 3,000 responses > equals 27,000 missing majority > > 3,000 response > 2100 against (70% against) > > Bottom Line......ZERO CONSENSUS. > > Lets stop playing this broken record. > > R > > > In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:09:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > naturaldoc1 <naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com> writes: > > R, > > You are welcome. Of course you can contribute but in the end we must also > realize when things are changing. > > There have already been a couple of studies and likely there will be in > the future, as nothing has yet been truly decided (this appears to be an > issue for some). In reverse, where are the studies that show overwhelming > rejection? I have not see any. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- " when you smile, you defy gravity " www.tcmreview.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 MWB Where is the havoc in legislation. Each state is different for just about every profession except MDs. Just look at your Chiropractic profession....all over the Board. Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:04:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: My point exactly. You might want to connect the dots about how the small groups in our profession helped to create havoc in legislation. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 David Windmill to you not to me especially with all the advances we have made since 1998 in Florida. I owe you a debt of gratitude of turning me away from the national issues to focus on Florida. Thanks so very much. By the way...if you and AAOM-AAAOM had cared to even ASK, the Class Action RICO lawsuit cost absolutely NOTHING. As to NOT knowing about it......please. Tell that story to someone else. Everyone reads Acupuncture Today. It was clearly published in 2004: _http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=28468_ (http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=28468) Florida even at the start (1980) with the two year program was ALWAYS Oriental Medicine. Funny that you mention this because when we saw the move in the late 1990's to totally restrict the profession to needles-only............ by STATUTUTORY changes we MADE Oriental Medicine a subset of Acupuncture. Kind of ass backwards but it got the job done of protecting the profession here in Florida. It appears that other state oprganizations were not watching the ball in their respective states and neither were the national organizations. And those national orgs interested in the school cottage industry of making big bucks were watching their own pockets and not the professions best interests. Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:10:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, acuman1 writes: Everyone has their windmills...Every Ours was to hold the schools and the powers that be (NCCA, NASCAOM and etc) feet to the fire regarding our profession. You know, those with the money in our profession at the time. As usual, with little money and relatively few members to provide any (we did charge membership fees so we had fewer members, bless everyone who cared enough to participate) we had to work to stimulate the others to get ethical. The RICO deal was perhaps not considered to be a useful use of our very limited time and or money, I guess. I don't even remember much discussion about it. Sorry that others may have disagreed with your windmill choice. To our benefit, AAOM's much smaller windmills have pretty much panned out and the NCCAOM and the ACAOM have become as favorable to the advance of our profession as any non-profit organizations can be, and the CCAOM seems to have seen the writing on the wall regarding the FPD, finally. So. I have some glimmer of hope that the independent OM profession may survive. Don't get me wrong, Richard. I have respect for all you have done in political circles. My hope is that you do not let your self prevent furtherance of the profession by your disagreement with the particular way it is done. David of AAOM (in my day, acupuncture was a modality of Oriental Medicine and didn't need to be distinguished as its own field) PS Was RICO one of Lucille Ball's husbands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 MWB Small groups are what MAKE up the overall profession if you hadn't noticed. And in a democracy (we still for the moment live in one) EVERYONE has an equal voice which it appears you would like to see be circumvented. Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:04:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: My point exactly. You might want to connect the dots about how the small groups in our profession helped to create havoc in legislation. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 MWB LAcs can practice needling in almost all the states. So What? And what does that analogy have to do with the important issues which the DCs don't have and are havoc? DCs are all over the Board other than back-cracking. Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:21:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: There is some variability within the chiro community but the DC's are primarycare in all 50 states and are allowed to practice spinal adjusting fully as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 Come on MWB Don't try to pawn off AAAOMs statistics as if they were ACAOMs!! Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc It is boring to continue to try to discuss these issues....so I will not bother the group anymore. In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:17:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: Kim, Here are the numbers from ACAOM's recent study, http://www.aaaomonline.info/FPD_Survey_Report_Results.pdf. Now where is your study showing huge opposition? Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 At all times the numbers which were asked for from ACAOM and in this group were the ones ACAOM tallied of which 2,092 were against FPD out of 3,000. So lets stop playing games. You guys can continue this insanity between yourselves..........count me out of this. And the complaint (Both CANs and mine) will move forward toward a much needed INVESTIGATION. In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:30:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, don83407 writes: Who is trying to con whom? These are the numbers you were talking about. But it appears they were misquoted. 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.