Open Letter in Opposition to ABORM

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/2007 10:23:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time,

marnae writes:

 

1. There is no demonstrated need for this

certification

 

We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual

states to treat the whole person, not a disease or

condition

 

 

Ironically, the very next topic in the CHA Newsgroup is " Patient with

advanced uterine fibroids! (sic) "

 

And many more topics on this list relate to WM diagnoses.

 

Perhaps having people concentrate in certain areas, like functional

diseases, pain control or some other classification would allow for greater

competence. Further, it might serve to forward the body of knowledge on a

specific

topic.

 

Board certification, if properly administrated can actually be a boon to the

practice of CM

 

Guy Porter

 

 

 

************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at

http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear CHAers

 

Below is an open letter written by several people,

with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very

clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage

you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer

questions etc., but I do not really want to start a

major political debate on this forum. If you agree

with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that

is fine.

 

THanks,

 

Marnae

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM

 

In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for

an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine,

administered by the newly formed, self-appointed,

American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see

ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of

Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members

of local and national acupuncture societies and

accredited certifying boards, would like to

respectfully oppose the attempts to form such

specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose

this because:

 

1. There is no demonstrated need for this

certification

 

We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual

states to treat the whole person, not a disease or

condition. Specialty certification imposes false

boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for

this other than financial gain to the parties

attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine

will be compromised.

 

2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a

board

 

With its prominent use of the words " board " and

" certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with

NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American

Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for

Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large,

independent certifying boards that comply with

nationwide standards for fairness and transparency.

ABMS defines specialty certification as “of

significance for physicians preparing for careers in

teaching, research, or practice restricted to that

field” (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand,

states that their goal is to “set the standard of care

in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized

the need for a certification to ensure that

practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental

Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing

so with a qualified knowledge and experience.” We

believe that the ABORM board is confused about the

role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading

our medicine down the wrong path.

 

 

3. There is no process supporting the content to be

provided

 

How is the content material determined? Has the board

gone through the process of making sure that their

content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous

traditions that exist? Does it give “full recognition

to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also

providing a unified set of national standards for safe

and competent practice”? (NCCAOM website). The

creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM,

implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized

protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility

issues, and opens up the potential that this will

happen to all specialties that are treated by

acupuncture and Oriental medicine.

 

4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and

exclusionary

 

In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the

exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological

conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of

practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks

of specialty boards and exams which will impose even

more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers

take such a certification into account when setting

fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on

malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our

profession if this is allowed to happen.

 

 

5. There is all likelihood that this will damage

rather than benefit our profession.

 

While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing

education classes, we find that the structure as

presented may also be misleading to the public. It

suggests that simply passing an exam structured by

self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat

fertility patients with more authority than other

practitioners. Education in western evaluative

measures can be informative, but will not necessarily

make us better acupuncturists.

 

In conclusion, while we are in full support of

practitioners being well trained in the medicine they

practice and have respect for the good intentions of

many of the ABORM board members, we believe that

self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be

exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the

profession. Although well intentioned, we find this

trend ill conceived.

 

If you would like to support this opposition, please

add your name to the petition by emailing

boycottaborm with your name, credentials,

state in which you practice, and any organization that

you represent.

[Guest guest]

, marnae ergil <marnae

wrote:

>

> Dear CHAers

>

> Below is an open letter written by several people,

> with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very

> clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage

> you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer

> questions etc., but I do not really want to start a

> major political debate on this forum. If you agree

> with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that

> is fine.

>

> THanks,

>

> Marnae

>

> AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM

>

> In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for

> an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine,

> administered by the newly formed, self-appointed,

> American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see

> ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of

> Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members

> of local and national acupuncture societies and

> accredited certifying boards, would like to

> respectfully oppose the attempts to form such

> specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose

> this because:

>

> 1. There is no demonstrated need for this

> certification

>

> We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual

> states to treat the whole person, not a disease or

> condition. Specialty certification imposes false

> boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for

> this other than financial gain to the parties

> attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine

> will be compromised.

>

> 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a

> board

>

> With its prominent use of the words " board " and

> " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with

> NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American

> Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for

> Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large,

> independent certifying boards that comply with

> nationwide standards for fairness and transparency.

> ABMS defines specialty certification as " of

> significance for physicians preparing for careers in

> teaching, research, or practice restricted to that

> field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand,

> states that their goal is to " set the standard of care

> in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized

> the need for a certification to ensure that

> practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental

> Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing

> so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We

> believe that the ABORM board is confused about the

> role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading

> our medicine down the wrong path.

>

>

> 3. There is no process supporting the content to be

> provided

>

> How is the content material determined? Has the board

> gone through the process of making sure that their

> content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous

> traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition

> to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also

> providing a unified set of national standards for safe

> and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The

> creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM,

> implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized

> protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility

> issues, and opens up the potential that this will

> happen to all specialties that are treated by

> acupuncture and Oriental medicine.

>

> 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and

> exclusionary

>

> In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the

> exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological

> conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of

> practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks

> of specialty boards and exams which will impose even

> more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers

> take such a certification into account when setting

> fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on

> malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our

> profession if this is allowed to happen.

>

>

> 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage

> rather than benefit our profession.

>

> While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing

> education classes, we find that the structure as

> presented may also be misleading to the public. It

> suggests that simply passing an exam structured by

> self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat

> fertility patients with more authority than other

> practitioners. Education in western evaluative

> measures can be informative, but will not necessarily

> make us better acupuncturists.

>

> In conclusion, while we are in full support of

> practitioners being well trained in the medicine they

> practice and have respect for the good intentions of

> many of the ABORM board members, we believe that

> self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be

> exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the

> profession. Although well intentioned, we find this

> trend ill conceived.

>

> If you would like to support this opposition, please

> add your name to the petition by emailing

> boycottaborm with your name, credentials,

> state in which you practice, and any organization that

> you represent.

>

[Guest guest]

, " Misha Cohen "

<TCMPaths wrote:

>I think the email address in my last posting got cut off. Names of

support can be sent to boycottaborm

 

Thank you,

 

Marnae

>

> , marnae ergil <marnae@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear CHAers

> >

> > Below is an open letter written by several people,

> > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very

> > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage

> > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer

> > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a

> > major political debate on this forum. If you agree

> > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that

> > is fine.

> >

> > THanks,

> >

> > Marnae

> >

> > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM

> >

> > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for

> > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine,

> > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed,

> > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see

> > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of

> > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members

> > of local and national acupuncture societies and

> > accredited certifying boards, would like to

> > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such

> > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose

> > this because:

> >

> > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this

> > certification

> >

> > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual

> > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or

> > condition. Specialty certification imposes false

> > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for

> > this other than financial gain to the parties

> > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine

> > will be compromised.

> >

> > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a

> > board

> >

> > With its prominent use of the words " board " and

> > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with

> > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American

> > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for

> > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large,

> > independent certifying boards that comply with

> > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency.

> > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of

> > significance for physicians preparing for careers in

> > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that

> > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand,

> > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care

> > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized

> > the need for a certification to ensure that

> > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental

> > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing

> > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We

> > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the

> > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading

> > our medicine down the wrong path.

> >

> >

> > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be

> > provided

> >

> > How is the content material determined? Has the board

> > gone through the process of making sure that their

> > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous

> > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition

> > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also

> > providing a unified set of national standards for safe

> > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The

> > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM,

> > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized

> > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility

> > issues, and opens up the potential that this will

> > happen to all specialties that are treated by

> > acupuncture and Oriental medicine.

> >

> > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and

> > exclusionary

> >

> > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the

> > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological

> > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of

> > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks

> > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even

> > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers

> > take such a certification into account when setting

> > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on

> > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our

> > profession if this is allowed to happen.

> >

> >

> > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage

> > rather than benefit our profession.

> >

> > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing

> > education classes, we find that the structure as

> > presented may also be misleading to the public. It

> > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by

> > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat

> > fertility patients with more authority than other

> > practitioners. Education in western evaluative

> > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily

> > make us better acupuncturists.

> >

> > In conclusion, while we are in full support of

> > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they

> > practice and have respect for the good intentions of

> > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that

> > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be

> > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the

> > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this

> > trend ill conceived.

> >

> > If you would like to support this opposition, please

> > add your name to the petition by emailing

> > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials,

> > state in which you practice, and any organization that

> > you represent.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM.

There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics,

sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to

take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small

group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's

the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will

only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In

addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will

tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board

certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the

extra work, I say great. Go for it.

 

Bob

 

, " Misha Cohen "

<TCMPaths wrote:

>

>

> , marnae ergil <marnae@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear CHAers

> >

> > Below is an open letter written by several people,

> > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very

> > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage

> > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer

> > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a

> > major political debate on this forum. If you agree

> > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that

> > is fine.

> >

> > THanks,

> >

> > Marnae

> >

> > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM

> >

> > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for

> > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine,

> > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed,

> > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see

> > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of

> > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members

> > of local and national acupuncture societies and

> > accredited certifying boards, would like to

> > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such

> > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose

> > this because:

> >

> > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this

> > certification

> >

> > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual

> > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or

> > condition. Specialty certification imposes false

> > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for

> > this other than financial gain to the parties

> > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine

> > will be compromised.

> >

> > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a

> > board

> >

> > With its prominent use of the words " board " and

> > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with

> > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American

> > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for

> > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large,

> > independent certifying boards that comply with

> > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency.

> > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of

> > significance for physicians preparing for careers in

> > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that

> > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand,

> > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care

> > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized

> > the need for a certification to ensure that

> > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental

> > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing

> > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We

> > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the

> > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading

> > our medicine down the wrong path.

> >

> >

> > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be

> > provided

> >

> > How is the content material determined? Has the board

> > gone through the process of making sure that their

> > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous

> > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition

> > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also

> > providing a unified set of national standards for safe

> > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The

> > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM,

> > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized

> > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility

> > issues, and opens up the potential that this will

> > happen to all specialties that are treated by

> > acupuncture and Oriental medicine.

> >

> > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and

> > exclusionary

> >

> > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the

> > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological

> > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of

> > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks

> > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even

> > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers

> > take such a certification into account when setting

> > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on

> > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our

> > profession if this is allowed to happen.

> >

> >

> > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage

> > rather than benefit our profession.

> >

> > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing

> > education classes, we find that the structure as

> > presented may also be misleading to the public. It

> > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by

> > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat

> > fertility patients with more authority than other

> > practitioners. Education in western evaluative

> > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily

> > make us better acupuncturists.

> >

> > In conclusion, while we are in full support of

> > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they

> > practice and have respect for the good intentions of

> > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that

> > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be

> > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the

> > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this

> > trend ill conceived.

> >

> > If you would like to support this opposition, please

> > add your name to the petition by emailing

> > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials,

> > state in which you practice, and any organization that

> > you represent.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Bob, now this is unconfirmed rumor but I saw on another internet list that the

American

Acupuncture Council will only cover " facial acupuncture " by those that have

taken the

" Facial Acupuncture certification " by Wakefield et al. The same would be true

for ABORM

on fertility cases.

I agree that ABORM and Misha's HEPC certification as well as other advanced

trainings are

valuable. However if tied to insurance coverage then we are in anti-trust and

constraint of

trade territory. If I remember correctly you offer a number of certificates.

What would

happen if they were seen as worthless.

I know all the players of ABORM. They are good people, and although ambitious I

don't

think they could have expected these actions or backlash. I imagine we will hear

from

them soon.

Doug

 

 

 

, " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

wrote:

>

> Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM.

> There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics,

> sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to

> take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small

> group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's

> the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will

> only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In

> addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will

> tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board

> certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the

> extra work, I say great. Go for it.

>

> Bob

>

> , " Misha Cohen "

> <TCMPaths@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > , marnae ergil <marnae@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear CHAers

> > >

> > > Below is an open letter written by several people,

> > > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very

> > > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage

> > > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer

> > > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a

> > > major political debate on this forum. If you agree

> > > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that

> > > is fine.

> > >

> > > THanks,

> > >

> > > Marnae

> > >

> > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM

> > >

> > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for

> > > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine,

> > > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed,

> > > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see

> > > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of

> > > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members

> > > of local and national acupuncture societies and

> > > accredited certifying boards, would like to

> > > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such

> > > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose

> > > this because:

> > >

> > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this

> > > certification

> > >

> > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual

> > > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or

> > > condition. Specialty certification imposes false

> > > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for

> > > this other than financial gain to the parties

> > > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine

> > > will be compromised.

> > >

> > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a

> > > board

> > >

> > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and

> > > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with

> > > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American

> > > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for

> > > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large,

> > > independent certifying boards that comply with

> > > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency.

> > > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of

> > > significance for physicians preparing for careers in

> > > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that

> > > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand,

> > > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care

> > > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized

> > > the need for a certification to ensure that

> > > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental

> > > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing

> > > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We

> > > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the

> > > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading

> > > our medicine down the wrong path.

> > >

> > >

> > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be

> > > provided

> > >

> > > How is the content material determined? Has the board

> > > gone through the process of making sure that their

> > > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous

> > > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition

> > > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also

> > > providing a unified set of national standards for safe

> > > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The

> > > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM,

> > > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized

> > > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility

> > > issues, and opens up the potential that this will

> > > happen to all specialties that are treated by

> > > acupuncture and Oriental medicine.

> > >

> > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and

> > > exclusionary

> > >

> > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the

> > > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological

> > > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of

> > > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks

> > > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even

> > > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers

> > > take such a certification into account when setting

> > > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on

> > > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our

> > > profession if this is allowed to happen.

> > >

> > >

> > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage

> > > rather than benefit our profession.

> > >

> > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing

> > > education classes, we find that the structure as

> > > presented may also be misleading to the public. It

> > > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by

> > > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat

> > > fertility patients with more authority than other

> > > practitioners. Education in western evaluative

> > > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily

> > > make us better acupuncturists.

> > >

> > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of

> > > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they

> > > practice and have respect for the good intentions of

> > > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that

> > > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be

> > > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the

> > > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this

> > > trend ill conceived.

> > >

> > > If you would like to support this opposition, please

> > > add your name to the petition by emailing

> > > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials,

> > > state in which you practice, and any organization that

> > > you represent.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

This has come through the Emperors curcuit. It came with an introduction from

the

founder of ABORM which I won't reproduce. Again, personally, I am not for or

against the

group just what it means for insurance and malpractice.

Doug

 

 

Dear Alumni,

I have now received this email several times and I thought that it

would be important to respond to this email and give you a

different perspective on the ABORM.

 

My practice specializes in women?s health, reproductive medicine

and fertility. The majority of my patients do a lot of research

regarding their condition and invariably they have asked me ?what

makes you a specialist in this area of medicine other than the fact

that you say you are?; as good consumers should. I struggled to

answer this question and always said the same three things: ?I

studied with several practitioners who also specialized in the

field, the majority of my patients come to me for reproductive

issues, and I fly around the country taking continuing education

classes specific to this specialty.? It was a very long winded

answer to justify my education and training, because up until this

point in time there was no certification to justify my specialty.

I have already registered for the Board Certification and am

enthusiastically in support of this process. I feel that this only

legitimizes my practice and my profession.

 

I would like to clarify that I am not involved with the ABORM but I

have been involved with the politics of this profession since I

entered it. Being involved with CSOMA for over four years allowed

me to see that state and national organizations only have the

professions best interests in mind when making decisions although

it may not always appear this way from the outside. From what I

understand of the ABORM this is no different. I can understand the

concern over the cost of the exam, but have you asked the NCCAOM

why their exam is also so expensive? Running an organization and

an exam is expensive. When I was on the board of CSOMA we

constantly received emails asking us why it was so expensive to be

a member; fighting for the professions rights and for the evolution

of this profession is not an inexpensive endeavor.

 

Lets look at the AMA. This is a national medical association just

like the AAAOM is in our profession. Affiliated with this

association are many specialty associations which legitimize, help

promote, expand awareness, and increase research within that

specialty. I see the ABORM in the same light. I would like to

remind everyone that the ABORM is not the only, and certainly not

the first, specialty board within our profession. There are

specialty certifications for orthopedic acupuncture, sports

medicine, and internal medicine - and not one of these has limited

anyone's scope of practice, nor have they resulted in higher

malpractice rates. I have never received an email from anyone

about those boards and how they are ruining our profession. I

would also like to say that if someone has an issue with any of the

malpractice companies within our profession (which I agree needs

some serious attention), that this would be best discussed in a

separate email rather than assuming that one organization is

dictating the business and pushing agendas for another.

 

I would like to remind everyone that at one point in time the

NCCAOM board were " self-appointed " , without oversight, but saw what

they felt was a need and filled it. There was also a great amount

of resistance at that time. The difference is that the NCCAOM

eventually became the required entry-level exam, the ABORM Board

Certification is purely voluntary, and the ABORM, as I understand

it, has no intention of being anything else. Just like every state

and national exam intends to certify practitioners for entry level

into the profession, so does the ABORM intend to certify entry

level understanding into the specialty of reproductive medicine.

If you are happy being a general practitioner then there is nothing

saying you cannot continue to do so. There are GP?s in every

medical profession, and ours is no different.

 

In reading over the material on their website and in the literature

I received from them after applying for the exam, I see the ABORM

as a non-profit organization that was organized to establish some

minimum standards of competency in the field of Oriental

Reproductive Medicine. It seems to me from the reference list of

sources to study for the exam that they are using a well round

amount of material from both eastern and western sources. All the

books that I refer to regularly are on the reading list. There is

nothing in the ABORM's website materials, application and

registration materials, mission statement that even hint that they

are trying to set centralized treatment protocols. To the

contrary, I see that they are using a very well rounded approach to

the certification.

 

The statement that " This process not only discredits the legitimacy

of the bodies that currently certify all practitioners " is a

mystery. If that were the case, then any M.D. who opts to get FACOG

certification as an RE would be discrediting the medical boards

that gave them their M.D. Also, the notion that " the strength of

our profession lies in it's training as generalists " flies in the

face of the way the medicine is practiced in China. This is a

uniquely American point of view that more accurately describes the

relative newness of TCM as a license profession here in the US.

 

I have many new students and practitioners call me to ask questions

regarding the profession and treatment of patients. I always

appreciate the phone calls, but the learning curve for reproductive

medicine is steep as it is in any specialty. There is a lot to

know from both the eastern and western side and I appreciate the

fact that now these individuals will be able to study and sit for

an exam that will give them the knowledge they need.

 

I hope that this sheds a new perspective on this situation. I

would encourage all of you who have questions regarding this, or

any other specialty board, to contact the boards themselves and

allow them a chance to show you that they are only looking out for

the best interest of the profession.

 

All of my patients are very happy to hear that this board is being

formed. Why? Because it is only in their best interest. My

patients and the medical doctors I work with are all enthusiastic

about the ABORM and the fact that I am going to be certified in the

field of reproductive medicine. I am excited for the possibilities

that this will bring to my practice and the profession as a whole.

 

Respectfully yours,

Marc Sklar

 

--

Marc Sklar, LAc, DA (RI), MSTOM

Clinical Director & Founder

Reproductive Wellness

msklar

www.reproductivewellness.com

877-843-7100 - 619-265-0291

[Guest guest]

I am in agreement with you. It raises the bar. And I believe that

specialization is in our future.

 

but I do think that in the future the board should be voted in by public

vote.

 

Cara

 

 

Bob Flaws <pemachophel2001

 

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:09:51 +0000

 

Re: Open Letter in Opposition to ABORM

 

 

 

 

 

Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM.

There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics,

sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to

take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small

group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's

the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will

only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In

addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will

tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board

certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the

extra work, I say great. Go for it.

 

Bob

 

 

<%40> , " Misha Cohen "

<TCMPaths wrote:

>

>

>

<%40> , marnae ergil <marnae@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear CHAers

> >

> > Below is an open letter written by several people,

> > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very

> > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage

> > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer

> > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a

> > major political debate on this forum. If you agree

> > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that

> > is fine.

> >

> > THanks,

> >

> > Marnae

> >

> > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM

> >

> > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for

> > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine,

> > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed,

> > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see

> > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of

> > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members

> > of local and national acupuncture societies and

> > accredited certifying boards, would like to

> > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such

> > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose

> > this because:

> >

> > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this

> > certification

> >

> > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual

> > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or

> > condition. Specialty certification imposes false

> > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for

> > this other than financial gain to the parties

> > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine

> > will be compromised.

> >

> > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a

> > board

> >

> > With its prominent use of the words " board " and

> > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with

> > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American

> > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for

> > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large,

> > independent certifying boards that comply with

> > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency.

> > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of

> > significance for physicians preparing for careers in

> > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that

> > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand,

> > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care

> > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized

> > the need for a certification to ensure that

> > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental

> > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing

> > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We

> > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the

> > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading

> > our medicine down the wrong path.

> >

> >

> > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be

> > provided

> >

> > How is the content material determined? Has the board

> > gone through the process of making sure that their

> > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous

> > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition

> > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also

> > providing a unified set of national standards for safe

> > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The

> > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM,

> > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized

> > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility

> > issues, and opens up the potential that this will

> > happen to all specialties that are treated by

> > acupuncture and Oriental medicine.

> >

> > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and

> > exclusionary

> >

> > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the

> > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological

> > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of

> > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks

> > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even

> > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers

> > take such a certification into account when setting

> > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on

> > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our

> > profession if this is allowed to happen.

> >

> >

> > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage

> > rather than benefit our profession.

> >

> > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing

> > education classes, we find that the structure as

> > presented may also be misleading to the public. It

> > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by

> > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat

> > fertility patients with more authority than other

> > practitioners. Education in western evaluative

> > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily

> > make us better acupuncturists.

> >

> > In conclusion, while we are in full support of

> > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they

> > practice and have respect for the good intentions of

> > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that

> > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be

> > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the

> > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this

> > trend ill conceived.

> >

> > If you would like to support this opposition, please

> > add your name to the petition by emailing

> > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials,

> > state in which you practice, and any organization that

> > you represent.

> >

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Bob-

 

I know of the orthopedics and the sports medicine specialty boards in

acupuncture. What is the internal medicine specialty board? Thanks.

 

-Steve

 

 

On Aug 8, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM.

> There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics,

> sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to

> take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small

> group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's

> the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will

> only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In

> addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will

> tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board

> certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the

> extra work, I say great. Go for it.

>

> Bob

>

> , " Misha Cohen "

> <TCMPaths wrote:

> >

> >

> > , marnae ergil <marnae@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear CHAers

> > >

> > > Below is an open letter written by several people,

> > > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very

> > > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage

> > > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer

> > > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a

> > > major political debate on this forum. If you agree

> > > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that

> > > is fine.

> > >

> > > THanks,

> > >

> > > Marnae

> > >

> > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM

> > >

> > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for

> > > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine,

> > > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed,

> > > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see

> > > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of

> > > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members

> > > of local and national acupuncture societies and

> > > accredited certifying boards, would like to

> > > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such

> > > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose

> > > this because:

> > >

> > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this

> > > certification

> > >

> > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual

> > > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or

> > > condition. Specialty certification imposes false

> > > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for

> > > this other than financial gain to the parties

> > > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine

> > > will be compromised.

> > >

> > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a

> > > board

> > >

> > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and

> > > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with

> > > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American

> > > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for

> > > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large,

> > > independent certifying boards that comply with

> > > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency.

> > > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of

> > > significance for physicians preparing for careers in

> > > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that

> > > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand,

> > > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care

> > > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized

> > > the need for a certification to ensure that

> > > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental

> > > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing

> > > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We

> > > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the

> > > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading

> > > our medicine down the wrong path.

> > >

> > >

> > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be

> > > provided

> > >

> > > How is the content material determined? Has the board

> > > gone through the process of making sure that their

> > > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous

> > > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition

> > > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also

> > > providing a unified set of national standards for safe

> > > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The

> > > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM,

> > > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized

> > > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility

> > > issues, and opens up the potential that this will

> > > happen to all specialties that are treated by

> > > acupuncture and Oriental medicine.

> > >

> > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and

> > > exclusionary

> > >

> > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the

> > > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological

> > > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of

> > > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks

> > > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even

> > > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers

> > > take such a certification into account when setting

> > > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on

> > > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our

> > > profession if this is allowed to happen.

> > >

> > >

> > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage

> > > rather than benefit our profession.

> > >

> > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing

> > > education classes, we find that the structure as

> > > presented may also be misleading to the public. It

> > > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by

> > > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat

> > > fertility patients with more authority than other

> > > practitioners. Education in western evaluative

> > > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily

> > > make us better acupuncturists.

> > >

> > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of

> > > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they

> > > practice and have respect for the good intentions of

> > > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that

> > > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be

> > > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the

> > > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this

> > > trend ill conceived.

> > >

> > > If you would like to support this opposition, please

> > > add your name to the petition by emailing

> > > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials,

> > > state in which you practice, and any organization that

> > > you represent.

> > >

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

Stephen Bonzak, L.Ac., Dipl. C.H.

sbonzak

773-470-6994

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The problems of someone establishing a board is multifold. If this is truly

a board that speaks for the acupuncturists of this country, it should be

approved by them prior to any authority being granted. Otherwise, anyone

and everyone can create a board specialty of their own with no legitimacy

whatsoever. How confusing that will be to the general public who is

completely unaware of the politics and standards of care and treatment

methods and styles that exist. Other problems with board certification as

I see it are:

1. Who determines the standard of competency and the specific " curriculum "

for training? Of course, the ones establishing the board are going to

determine the " standard " based upon their experience and their training.

But what about the vast number of " experts " out there who don't specifically

practice that way? What about the non-TCMers and the non-Westernized

practitioners of Chinese medicine?

2. While many people have specialties and specific skillsets and have

practices dedicated to a few major areas, shouldn't we be focusing training

and certifications on diagnosis as the hallmark. It's all well and good to

memorize patterns and learn about different areas, etc, but in my opinion,

this does not necessarily create a well-defined diagnosis which treatments

should be based upon. Diagnosis in Chinese medicine revolves around the 4

Examinations, not western biomedicine or blood work or sonograms. Weaving

that information into our paradigm is one thing, but replacing it is

another. Setting up board sanctioned specialties, in my opinion, goes a

long way to legitimize the western approach to practicing medicine. It will

not be long for the disintegration of our medicine should that continue.

3. Other issues have already been raised such as insurance,

misrepresentation to the public, etc.

4. Another problem is that the majority of patients being seen are women.

One of the largest reasons is gynecology. To try to legitimize treating

women's disorders with a board certification seems quite redundant.

Especially, as fertility disorders are becoming epidemic in this society for

tons of reasons, getting tons of press, etc., board certification has the

appearance of trying to establish a small group as the 'experts' and the

ones to treat this booming industry.

5. Lastly, I encourage people to not seek degrees and board certifications

solely to provide " legitimacy " to the public. I think it sends a poor

message, one that denigrates our profession. If one has an interest in any

given area, study it, practice it, take CEUs, become an expert in it. Your

patients will notice the difference and you will earn a reputation based

upon it.

 

Just my two cents,

Ross

--

Ross Rosen, LAc, CA, Dipl OM (NCCAOM)

Center for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine

166 Mountain Ave.

Westfield, NJ 07090

(908) 654-4333

www.acupunctureandherbalmedicine.com

http://rossrosen.blogspot.com

http://rangnangogminling.blogspot.com

 

 

This email contains confidential information intended for the person(s) to

whom it is addressed. If you should receive this in error please contact us

immediately by return mail, or at the above phone number. Unauthorized use

of this information may be in violation of criminal statutes or HIPAA

regulations. Under no circumstances shall this material be retained,

transmitted, or copied by anyone other than the addressee(s).

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello Bob, Cara and others -

 

Thank you for your input. I think that there are

several things that need to be very clear here.

 

1. I am absolutely not against certification in a

subspecialty, offered in conjunction with an

educational component. ABORM is not this. There is

no educational component associated with the exam,

there is simply an exam that will then give " board

certification " in reproductive medicine.

 

2. Board certification is a very specific thing. The

American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) says the

following:

 

" Since 1933, specialty boards have been approved

jointly by action of ABMS and the American Medical

Association Council on Medical Education (AMA/CME).

This determination begins with a review by the Liaison

Committee for Specialty Boards (LCSB), an organization

sponsored by ABMS and AMA/CME. The function of LCSB is

to receive and evaluate applications for approval of

new specialty boards according to standards and

procedures agreed upon by both ABMS and AMA. "

 

The ABORM " board " and other boards have not gone

through this process. There is no oversight of the

board, and there is no clear consensus that this is an

area that requires board certification. If we, as a

field, after appropriate discussion, ideally,

organized by the AAAOM decide that that indeed we want

to begin to establish " board certification " in our

field, then let's do it right. Boards should not be

able to just pop up and say, we exist. Maybe, as Bob

says, that is how the NCCAOM began, but not really -

the NCCAOM began at the request of the profession and,

in order to help us gain licensure throughout the US,

and why re-invent the wheel? We have organizations

that can be useful in this process - lets use them!

 

Again, as the ABMS says:

 

The definitions of each of the specialties and of the

educational and other requirements leading to

eligibility for board certification have been

developed by consensus within the medical profession

and, to date, the certification of a medical

specialist has remained separate and distinct from

licensure

 

It is considered the gold standard because of its

unique physician-directed approach for assessing

qualifications.

The process for initial certification, whether in a

specialty or subspecialty, involves a rigorous process

of testing and peer evaluation that is designed and

administered by specialists in that specific area of

medicine.

 

It is important to note that there is no requirement

or need for a certified physician in a recognized

specialty to hold special certification in a

subspecialty of that field in order to be considered

qualified to include aspects of that subspecialty

within a specialty practice. Under no circumstances

should this physician be considered unqualified to

practice within an area of a subspecialty solely

because of lack of subspecialty certification.

 

Specialty certification in a subspecialty field is of

significance for physicians preparing for careers in

teaching, research, or practice restricted to that

field. Such special certification is recognition of

exceptional expertise and experience and has not been

created to justify a differential fee schedule or to

confer other professional advantages over other

physicians not so certified.

 

ABORM, on the other hand says:

 

We have recognized the need for a certification to

ensure that practitioners who are treating patients

with Oriental Medicine in the field of Reproductive

Health are doing so with a qualified knowledge and

experience

 

But, they do not explain how they set their standards,

who is qualified to take the exam or what the

educational standards are. There is no training

component associated with the exam, just an exam.

This, to my mind, is not appropriate, nor is it at all

similar to the types of advanced certification that

individuals or companies such as Blue Poppy offer.

Again, I have no problem with certifications based on

an specific educational experience, but that is not

what ABORM is.

 

Additionally, no where on the website does it say if

the board is not-for-profit or for profit, nor is it

clear how the exam is being overseen, written,

analyzed for quality and psychometric appropriateness.

 

 

Finally, although ABORM may not realize it, they are

setting us up for a dangerous possibility. We already

know that our liability insurance coverage is

restricted in terms of treatment of OB/reproductive

issues, without purchasing the rider. Who is to say

that the insurance companies will not use this exam as

a pre-requisite for purchase of the rider, thus

requiring us to pay additional for the rider, and to

pay $765.00 for the exam (with no educational

component) and then an regular, unspecific amount for

renewal of our certification. Does this mean that

eventually, I will have to pay to take an exam in

Dermatology, Pediatrics, Reproductive Medicine, GYN,

and who knows what else in order to be considered

" qualified " to treat in these areas, all of which I

consider to be areas of specialty for me?

 

Just some food for thought!

 

Marnae

Marnae C. Ergil, M.A., M.S., L.Ac.

Associate Professor / Academic Coordinator

School of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine

New York Chiropractic College

2360 State Route 89

Seneca Falls, NY 13148

(315) 568-3685

marnae / mergil

[Guest guest]

I think both points are very appropriate from Doug & Cara.

Psychologists around the country are lobbying for prescription

privileges. In some cases, there are board members who are fighting

for exclusive rights for particular training programs of said

psychologists seeking the privilege. In order to have a meaningful

certification, an independent third party audit should be done to

investigate potential conflicts of interest. Doug's post below shows

this isn't limited to other professions.

 

Like it or not, 99.9% of the population doesn't understand that

there's a difference between C.Ac.'s (DC weekend acupuncturists) and

L.Ac.'s (NCCAOM acupuncturists) - both are listed under acupuncture in

the phone book.

 

Pretty soon, we could have Chinese style business cards, with our name

followed by 5 lines of title acronyms.

Geoff

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Bob, now this is unconfirmed rumor but I saw on another internet

list that the American

> Acupuncture Council will only cover " facial acupuncture " by those

that have taken the

> " Facial Acupuncture certification " by Wakefield et al. The same

would be true for ABORM

> on fertility cases.

> I agree that ABORM and Misha's HEPC certification as well as other

advanced trainings are

> valuable. However if tied to insurance coverage then we are in

anti-trust and constraint of

> trade territory.

---

Posted by: " Cara Frank " herbbabe baguablader

Thu Aug 9, 2007 5:05 am (PST)

I am in agreement with you. It raises the bar. And I believe that

specialization is in our future.

 

but I do think that in the future the board should be voted in by public

vote.

 

Cara

[Guest guest]

Doug,

 

Blue Poppy Institute's courses are simply CEU/CME/PDA distance

learning courses. We changed the names of our formerly " certification "

courses years ago.

 

Bob

 

 

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Bob, now this is unconfirmed rumor but I saw on another internet

list that the American

> Acupuncture Council will only cover " facial acupuncture " by those

that have taken the

> " Facial Acupuncture certification " by Wakefield et al. The same

would be true for ABORM

> on fertility cases.

> I agree that ABORM and Misha's HEPC certification as well as other

advanced trainings are

> valuable. However if tied to insurance coverage then we are in

anti-trust and constraint of

> trade territory. If I remember correctly you offer a number of

certificates. What would

> happen if they were seen as worthless.

> I know all the players of ABORM. They are good people, and although

ambitious I don't

> think they could have expected these actions or backlash. I imagine

we will hear from

> them soon.

> Doug

>

>

>

> , " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM.

> > There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics,

> > sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to

> > take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small

> > group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's

> > the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will

> > only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In

> > addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will

> > tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board

> > certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the

> > extra work, I say great. Go for it.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > , " Misha Cohen "

> > <TCMPaths@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > , marnae ergil <marnae@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear CHAers

> > > >

> > > > Below is an open letter written by several people,

> > > > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very

> > > > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage

> > > > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer

> > > > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a

> > > > major political debate on this forum. If you agree

> > > > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that

> > > > is fine.

> > > >

> > > > THanks,

> > > >

> > > > Marnae

> > > >

> > > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM

> > > >

> > > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for

> > > > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine,

> > > > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed,

> > > > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see

> > > > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of

> > > > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members

> > > > of local and national acupuncture societies and

> > > > accredited certifying boards, would like to

> > > > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such

> > > > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose

> > > > this because:

> > > >

> > > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this

> > > > certification

> > > >

> > > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual

> > > > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or

> > > > condition. Specialty certification imposes false

> > > > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for

> > > > this other than financial gain to the parties

> > > > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine

> > > > will be compromised.

> > > >

> > > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a

> > > > board

> > > >

> > > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and

> > > > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with

> > > > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American

> > > > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for

> > > > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large,

> > > > independent certifying boards that comply with

> > > > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency.

> > > > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of

> > > > significance for physicians preparing for careers in

> > > > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that

> > > > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand,

> > > > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care

> > > > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized

> > > > the need for a certification to ensure that

> > > > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental

> > > > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing

> > > > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We

> > > > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the

> > > > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading

> > > > our medicine down the wrong path.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be

> > > > provided

> > > >

> > > > How is the content material determined? Has the board

> > > > gone through the process of making sure that their

> > > > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous

> > > > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition

> > > > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also

> > > > providing a unified set of national standards for safe

> > > > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The

> > > > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM,

> > > > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized

> > > > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility

> > > > issues, and opens up the potential that this will

> > > > happen to all specialties that are treated by

> > > > acupuncture and Oriental medicine.

> > > >

> > > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and

> > > > exclusionary

> > > >

> > > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the

> > > > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological

> > > > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of

> > > > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks

> > > > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even

> > > > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers

> > > > take such a certification into account when setting

> > > > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on

> > > > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our

> > > > profession if this is allowed to happen.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage

> > > > rather than benefit our profession.

> > > >

> > > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing

> > > > education classes, we find that the structure as

> > > > presented may also be misleading to the public. It

> > > > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by

> > > > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat

> > > > fertility patients with more authority than other

> > > > practitioners. Education in western evaluative

> > > > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily

> > > > make us better acupuncturists.

> > > >

> > > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of

> > > > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they

> > > > practice and have respect for the good intentions of

> > > > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that

> > > > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be

> > > > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the

> > > > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this

> > > > trend ill conceived.

> > > >

> > > > If you would like to support this opposition, please

> > > > add your name to the petition by emailing

> > > > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials,

> > > > state in which you practice, and any organization that

> > > > you represent.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Steve,

 

It's a board created by a group of people including Bruce Robinson.

I'd Google his name and see if there's a link. I can't tell you

anything more about this board other than that it exists.

 

Bob

 

, Stephen Bonzak

<stephenbonzak wrote:

>

> Bob-

>

> I know of the orthopedics and the sports medicine specialty boards in

> acupuncture. What is the internal medicine specialty board? Thanks.

>

> -Steve

>

>

> On Aug 8, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

>

> > Although I am not a member or in any way affiliated, I'm for ABORM.

> > There are now several specialty boards in our field: orthopedics,

> > sports medicine, internal medicine. Someone has to be the first to

> > take on a project such as this. Even the NCCAOM was started by a small

> > group of people who had the get up and go to tackle the job. That's

> > the way things happen in this world. IMO, such specialty boards will

> > only serve to raise the quality of practice within each specialty. In

> > addition, being board certified is completely voluntary. No one will

> > tell you that you can't treat this or that if you are not board

> > certified. For those that want to go the extra distance and do the

> > extra work, I say great. Go for it.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > , " Misha Cohen "

> > <TCMPaths@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > , marnae ergil <marnae@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear CHAers

> > > >

> > > > Below is an open letter written by several people,

> > > > with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very

> > > > clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage

> > > > you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer

> > > > questions etc., but I do not really want to start a

> > > > major political debate on this forum. If you agree

> > > > with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that

> > > > is fine.

> > > >

> > > > THanks,

> > > >

> > > > Marnae

> > > >

> > > > AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM

> > > >

> > > > In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for

> > > > an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine,

> > > > administered by the newly formed, self-appointed,

> > > > American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see

> > > > ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of

> > > > Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members

> > > > of local and national acupuncture societies and

> > > > accredited certifying boards, would like to

> > > > respectfully oppose the attempts to form such

> > > > specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose

> > > > this because:

> > > >

> > > > 1. There is no demonstrated need for this

> > > > certification

> > > >

> > > > We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual

> > > > states to treat the whole person, not a disease or

> > > > condition. Specialty certification imposes false

> > > > boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for

> > > > this other than financial gain to the parties

> > > > attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine

> > > > will be compromised.

> > > >

> > > > 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a

> > > > board

> > > >

> > > > With its prominent use of the words " board " and

> > > > " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with

> > > > NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American

> > > > Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for

> > > > Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large,

> > > > independent certifying boards that comply with

> > > > nationwide standards for fairness and transparency.

> > > > ABMS defines specialty certification as " of

> > > > significance for physicians preparing for careers in

> > > > teaching, research, or practice restricted to that

> > > > field " (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand,

> > > > states that their goal is to " set the standard of care

> > > > in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized

> > > > the need for a certification to ensure that

> > > > practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental

> > > > Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing

> > > > so with a qualified knowledge and experience. " We

> > > > believe that the ABORM board is confused about the

> > > > role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading

> > > > our medicine down the wrong path.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 3. There is no process supporting the content to be

> > > > provided

> > > >

> > > > How is the content material determined? Has the board

> > > > gone through the process of making sure that their

> > > > content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous

> > > > traditions that exist? Does it give " full recognition

> > > > to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also

> > > > providing a unified set of national standards for safe

> > > > and competent practice " ? (NCCAOM website). The

> > > > creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM,

> > > > implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized

> > > > protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility

> > > > issues, and opens up the potential that this will

> > > > happen to all specialties that are treated by

> > > > acupuncture and Oriental medicine.

> > > >

> > > > 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and

> > > > exclusionary

> > > >

> > > > In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the

> > > > exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological

> > > > conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of

> > > > practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks

> > > > of specialty boards and exams which will impose even

> > > > more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers

> > > > take such a certification into account when setting

> > > > fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on

> > > > malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our

> > > > profession if this is allowed to happen.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage

> > > > rather than benefit our profession.

> > > >

> > > > While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing

> > > > education classes, we find that the structure as

> > > > presented may also be misleading to the public. It

> > > > suggests that simply passing an exam structured by

> > > > self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat

> > > > fertility patients with more authority than other

> > > > practitioners. Education in western evaluative

> > > > measures can be informative, but will not necessarily

> > > > make us better acupuncturists.

> > > >

> > > > In conclusion, while we are in full support of

> > > > practitioners being well trained in the medicine they

> > > > practice and have respect for the good intentions of

> > > > many of the ABORM board members, we believe that

> > > > self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be

> > > > exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the

> > > > profession. Although well intentioned, we find this

> > > > trend ill conceived.

> > > >

> > > > If you would like to support this opposition, please

> > > > add your name to the petition by emailing

> > > > boycottaborm@ with your name, credentials,

> > > > state in which you practice, and any organization that

> > > > you represent.

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> Stephen Bonzak, L.Ac., Dipl. C.H.

> sbonzak

> 773-470-6994

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Just a small difference here in that psychologists currently don't have

prescribing in their

scope of practice whereas we do have fertility within ours. Theirs privileges

would be a big

step up.

Doug

 

 

, " G Hudson " <crudo20 wrote:

>

> I think both points are very appropriate from Doug & Cara.

> Psychologists around the country are lobbying for prescription

> privileges. In some cases, there are board members who are fighting

> for exclusive rights for particular training programs of said

> psychologists seeking the privilege. In order to have a meaningful

> certification, an independent third party audit should be done to

> investigate potential conflicts of interest. Doug's post below shows

> this isn't limited to other professions.

>

> Like it or not, 99.9% of the population doesn't understand that

> there's a difference between C.Ac.'s (DC weekend acupuncturists) and

> L.Ac.'s (NCCAOM acupuncturists) - both are listed under acupuncture in

> the phone book.

>

> Pretty soon, we could have Chinese style business cards, with our name

> followed by 5 lines of title acronyms.

> Geoff

>

[Guest guest]

From what I know about ABORM so far, I think ABORM does represent a

fairly wide spectrum of practitioners and interests. As I said before,

someone has to get the ball rolling. If enough people join in, then

the board will truly become broad-based and representational. Also,

look at the by-laws to see how power will change hands over time. If

you work from the inside, over time, you yourself may be one of the

people steering such a board. Basically, a person can piss and moan

from the outside or join and have a say and, more importantly, a vote

from the inside. This is not some cabal who is trying to grab power

for themselves.

 

Bob

 

, " Ross Rosen "

<rossrosen wrote:

>

> The problems of someone establishing a board is multifold. If this

is truly

> a board that speaks for the acupuncturists of this country, it should be

> approved by them prior to any authority being granted. Otherwise,

anyone

> and everyone can create a board specialty of their own with no

legitimacy

> whatsoever. How confusing that will be to the general public who is

> completely unaware of the politics and standards of care and treatment

> methods and styles that exist. Other problems with board

certification as

> I see it are:

> 1. Who determines the standard of competency and the specific

" curriculum "

> for training? Of course, the ones establishing the board are going to

> determine the " standard " based upon their experience and their training.

> But what about the vast number of " experts " out there who don't

specifically

> practice that way? What about the non-TCMers and the non-Westernized

> practitioners of Chinese medicine?

> 2. While many people have specialties and specific skillsets and have

> practices dedicated to a few major areas, shouldn't we be focusing

training

> and certifications on diagnosis as the hallmark. It's all well and

good to

> memorize patterns and learn about different areas, etc, but in my

opinion,

> this does not necessarily create a well-defined diagnosis which

treatments

> should be based upon. Diagnosis in Chinese medicine revolves around

the 4

> Examinations, not western biomedicine or blood work or sonograms.

Weaving

> that information into our paradigm is one thing, but replacing it is

> another. Setting up board sanctioned specialties, in my opinion, goes a

> long way to legitimize the western approach to practicing medicine.

It will

> not be long for the disintegration of our medicine should that continue.

> 3. Other issues have already been raised such as insurance,

> misrepresentation to the public, etc.

> 4. Another problem is that the majority of patients being seen are

women.

> One of the largest reasons is gynecology. To try to legitimize treating

> women's disorders with a board certification seems quite redundant.

> Especially, as fertility disorders are becoming epidemic in this

society for

> tons of reasons, getting tons of press, etc., board certification

has the

> appearance of trying to establish a small group as the 'experts' and the

> ones to treat this booming industry.

> 5. Lastly, I encourage people to not seek degrees and board

certifications

> solely to provide " legitimacy " to the public. I think it sends a poor

> message, one that denigrates our profession. If one has an interest

in any

> given area, study it, practice it, take CEUs, become an expert in

it. Your

> patients will notice the difference and you will earn a reputation based

> upon it.

>

> Just my two cents,

> Ross

> --

> Ross Rosen, LAc, CA, Dipl OM (NCCAOM)

> Center for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine

> 166 Mountain Ave.

> Westfield, NJ 07090

> (908) 654-4333

> www.acupunctureandherbalmedicine.com

> http://rossrosen.blogspot.com

> http://rangnangogminling.blogspot.com

>

>

> This email contains confidential information intended for the

person(s) to

> whom it is addressed. If you should receive this in error please

contact us

> immediately by return mail, or at the above phone number.

Unauthorized use

> of this information may be in violation of criminal statutes or HIPAA

> regulations. Under no circumstances shall this material be retained,

> transmitted, or copied by anyone other than the addressee(s).

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sure, but the point was that certifications setup to accept only one

specific company's training, and not a standardized level of training

that many could provide - sounds bogus to me.

 

Geoff

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Just a small difference here in that psychologists currently don't

have prescribing in their

> scope of practice whereas we do have fertility within ours. Theirs

privileges would be a big

> step up.

> Doug

[Guest guest]

I am not for or against at this point, but am wondering if the governing

board has to take their own exam? It looks like most of the individuals

involved are acupuncturists like the rest of us, who through practice, extra

reading, ceu’s have chosen a specialty. On the whole, I am not seeing

higher levels of qualification that allows them to differentiate themselves

from the rest of the profession. I agree though, that it is true for things

like this to get going it is generally done by a small group of people, but

a lack of differentiation in training between them and the rest of the

profession is certain to draw some animosity.

 

 

 

Lots of western education requirement in many of these board specialties.

You would think that given the trend it would at some point just be added

into the core training (like requiring an anatomy and physiology with

cadaver lab) ?

 

 

 

 

 

Sean

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Bob Flaws

Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:23 PM

 

Re: Open Letter in Opposition to ABORM

 

 

 

From what I know about ABORM so far, I think ABORM does represent a

fairly wide spectrum of practitioners and interests. As I said before,

someone has to get the ball rolling. If enough people join in, then

the board will truly become broad-based and representational. Also,

look at the by-laws to see how power will change hands over time. If

you work from the inside, over time, you yourself may be one of the

people steering such a board. Basically, a person can piss and moan

from the outside or join and have a say and, more importantly, a vote

from the inside. This is not some cabal who is trying to grab power

for themselves.

 

Bob

 

@ <%40>

, " Ross Rosen "

<rossrosen wrote:

>

> The problems of someone establishing a board is multifold. If this

is truly

> a board that speaks for the acupuncturists of this country, it should be

> approved by them prior to any authority being granted. Otherwise,

anyone

> and everyone can create a board specialty of their own with no

legitimacy

> whatsoever. How confusing that will be to the general public who is

> completely unaware of the politics and standards of care and treatment

> methods and styles that exist. Other problems with board

certification as

> I see it are:

> 1. Who determines the standard of competency and the specific

" curriculum "

> for training? Of course, the ones establishing the board are going to

> determine the " standard " based upon their experience and their training.

> But what about the vast number of " experts " out there who don't

specifically

> practice that way? What about the non-TCMers and the non-Westernized

> practitioners of Chinese medicine?

> 2. While many people have specialties and specific skillsets and have

> practices dedicated to a few major areas, shouldn't we be focusing

training

> and certifications on diagnosis as the hallmark. It's all well and

good to

> memorize patterns and learn about different areas, etc, but in my

opinion,

> this does not necessarily create a well-defined diagnosis which

treatments

> should be based upon. Diagnosis in Chinese medicine revolves around

the 4

> Examinations, not western biomedicine or blood work or sonograms.

Weaving

> that information into our paradigm is one thing, but replacing it is

> another. Setting up board sanctioned specialties, in my opinion, goes a

> long way to legitimize the western approach to practicing medicine.

It will

> not be long for the disintegration of our medicine should that continue.

> 3. Other issues have already been raised such as insurance,

> misrepresentation to the public, etc.

> 4. Another problem is that the majority of patients being seen are

women.

> One of the largest reasons is gynecology. To try to legitimize treating

> women's disorders with a board certification seems quite redundant.

> Especially, as fertility disorders are becoming epidemic in this

society for

> tons of reasons, getting tons of press, etc., board certification

has the

> appearance of trying to establish a small group as the 'experts' and the

> ones to treat this booming industry.

> 5. Lastly, I encourage people to not seek degrees and board

certifications

> solely to provide " legitimacy " to the public. I think it sends a poor

> message, one that denigrates our profession. If one has an interest

in any

> given area, study it, practice it, take CEUs, become an expert in

it. Your

> patients will notice the difference and you will earn a reputation based

> upon it.

>

> Just my two cents,

> Ross

> --

> Ross Rosen, LAc, CA, Dipl OM (NCCAOM)

> Center for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine

> 166 Mountain Ave.

> Westfield, NJ 07090

> (908) 654-4333

> www.acupunctureandherbalmedicine.com

> http://rossrosen. <http://rossrosen.blogspot.com> blogspot.com

> http://rangnangogmi <http://rangnangogminling.blogspot.com>

nling.blogspot.com

>

>

> This email contains confidential information intended for the

person(s) to

> whom it is addressed. If you should receive this in error please

contact us

> immediately by return mail, or at the above phone number.

Unauthorized use

> of this information may be in violation of criminal statutes or HIPAA

> regulations. Under no circumstances shall this material be retained,

> transmitted, or copied by anyone other than the addressee(s).

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Folks:

I think that this issue is both complex and not complex.

I have read the pros and cons and have also gone to the ABORM Web site to see

what the

offering is directly.

I think for some folks part of the issue is that there is not a course that is

connected to the

" Board certification " . I also think that the problem for some people is to call

it a " Board " as

it has not come out of the gathering of the accredited schools, practitioner

organizations

or state agencies who create Boards and their certifications. If it were not

called a " Board " I

think people would probably be less inclined to think that the certification is

a problem.

Also, there is no indication on the Web site that ABORM is lobbying to have

people

excluded from malpractice insurance for fertility treatment unless they are

ABORM

certified--I am not sure where that information arose.

If there is any info out there regarding that, please anyone who knows respond.

The ABORM members are clearly practitioners who have expertise in fertility

assessment

and treatment and have gone out of their way (of course, like other fertility

experts) to be

additionally trained outside of the basics taught in Chinese medicine school. It

would be

great for them to set up a certification course for those who have not had the

ability or

opportunity to do so as well. This is what may be the missing link.

Some of you know that at our nonprofit Quan Yin Healing Arts Center, we offer a

Hepatitis

C Professional Certification Course. It is a course from our perspective of

Chinese

medicine and Western medicine in combination to help people manage HCV. The

course

also offers 33+ CEUS whether or not someone passes the exam. The teachers are

all

specialists in HCV from several disciplines-- MD hepatologists, naturopaths,

community

leaders and activists and Chinese medicine practitioners. While this is not a

huge amount

of time to study and become certified it gives practitioners a beginning

understanding and

they are given huge amount of resources to access to continue their education.

We are also

now offering advanced course as well. This is much more than is offered in the

typical

Chinese medicine schooling.

However, we are not a " Board " of any type and offer the certification based on

taking our

course and exams. The main goal is to train people to have competency in HCV as

well as

provide a list of trained HCV practitioners around the world.

I do not know if this adds anything to the discussion, however I hope that this

issue can

be discussed in a manner that helps the whole profession.

Yours,

Misha

[Guest guest]

Misha, I think you've hit many of the points. I know Yosan was going to give a

class in

conjunction with ABORM, and as a matter of disclosure, when the Dean said he

needed

helped with the syllabus I volunteered although it was not needed as it turned

out. I

believe that class is still on in the Fall in Los Angeles.

 

I think Ray Rubio, the founder of ABORM, has all the best intentions, however

obviously

could not have imagined the implications of the term " Board " and the objections

it might

bring. In a email to me he was rather disturbed that no one from the petition

had

contacted him and instead he felt it was an attack without dialogue. It may also

be that

being here in Los Angeles we know the people involved and as the petition seemed

to

have more steam on the East Coast they felt disconnected from the organization.

 

Sorry, I have no real information about insurance. Usually, I run into Marilyn

Allen on

Thursday nights, she teaches in the next room, but managed to miss her this

week. Does

anyone want to make a call to AAC next week and report back?

Doug

 

 

, " Misha Cohen " <TCMPaths wrote:

>

> Hi Folks:

> I think that this issue is both complex and not complex.

> I have read the pros and cons and have also gone to the ABORM Web site to see

what the

> offering is directly.

> I think for some folks part of the issue is that there is not a course that is

connected to

the

> " Board certification " . I also think that the problem for some people is to

call it a " Board "

as

> it has not come out of the gathering of the accredited schools, practitioner

organizations

> or state agencies who create Boards and their certifications. If it were not

called a

" Board " I

> think people would probably be less inclined to think that the certification

is a problem.

> Also, there is no indication on the Web site that ABORM is lobbying to have

people

> excluded from malpractice insurance for fertility treatment unless they are

ABORM

> certified--I am not sure where that information arose.

> If there is any info out there regarding that, please anyone who knows

respond.

> The ABORM members are clearly practitioners who have expertise in fertility

assessment

> and treatment and have gone out of their way (of course, like other fertility

experts) to

be

> additionally trained outside of the basics taught in Chinese medicine school.

It would be

> great for them to set up a certification course for those who have not had the

ability or

> opportunity to do so as well. This is what may be the missing link.

> Some of you know that at our nonprofit Quan Yin Healing Arts Center, we offer

a

Hepatitis

> C Professional Certification Course. It is a course from our perspective of

Chinese

> medicine and Western medicine in combination to help people manage HCV. The

course

> also offers 33+ CEUS whether or not someone passes the exam. The teachers are

all

> specialists in HCV from several disciplines-- MD hepatologists, naturopaths,

community

> leaders and activists and Chinese medicine practitioners. While this is not a

huge

amount

> of time to study and become certified it gives practitioners a beginning

understanding

and

> they are given huge amount of resources to access to continue their education.

We are

also

> now offering advanced course as well. This is much more than is offered in the

typical

> Chinese medicine schooling.

> However, we are not a " Board " of any type and offer the certification based on

taking our

> course and exams. The main goal is to train people to have competency in HCV

as well

as

> provide a list of trained HCV practitioners around the world.

> I do not know if this adds anything to the discussion, however I hope that

this issue can

> be discussed in a manner that helps the whole profession.

> Yours,

> Misha

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks: I will respond as one of the primary authors, in conjunction with many

including

Marnae, to try to answer some questions posed here as the dialogue continues.

Several of

the members of ABORM were contacted without response and there was a growing

group

of practitioners here in the East Coast who either 1. knew nothing about this

until the AT

ad came out 2. thought it was a bad direction for the profession for many

reasons or 3.

were not willing to take a stand. We went out on a limb and conjectured that

this was too

important a topic to be discussed soley amongst the ABORM board and a few

practitioners

that thought it was a bad idea and decided that widespread attention would be

more likely

to come from a full page advertisement of this letter so that the profession as

a whole

could decide if they wanted this. A few TCM purists out here think it is

pretentious and

misleading to offer such a specialization as we have all the tools we need

already in our

training and have been adequately prepared to practice our medicine by NCCAOM

and the

States, and that knowing the difference between and HSG and FSH would not guide

you to

the choice of better herbs or points in treeating infertility. The malpractice

fears were

founded in the previous battles to get gyn removed as an exclusion and the

recent

attempts of AAC to impose on PCOM the requirement that any practitioner

performing

" facial acupuncture " would not be covered by malpractice UNLESS they had taken

and been

certified in the M E Wakefield course of the same topic, which led to an

outright rebellion

by the faculty. I have been practicing and teaching in NYC for 12 years and have

received

unprecedented support for this opposition. So from here we go forth.

 

Best, Caroline

[Guest guest]

I respect those of you who wish to keep high standards in our

profession. I completely understand and respect the sentiment that

we, as a profession, must continue to raise standards and improve

our place in the medical community. I simply cannot see how it hurts

us to form Boards of specialization. This is what is done in the

medical field all the time.

 

Even in Western Reproductive Medicine, there are Board Certified

specialists, and there are doctors who call themselves 'specialists'

who are NOT board certified. The Reproductive Endocrinoliogist that

I work with in San Antonio is Board Certified in Reproductive

Endocrinology and Infertility. He is an Infertility Specialist.

However, there are several other OB/GYN's in our area that perform

IVF and treat Infertility and call themselves specialists that ARE

NOT Board Certified in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility.

 

This is the same model that ABORM seems to be adopting. Any licensed

practitioner is free to claim to be a specialist. As things

currently stand - ANY acupuncturist can represent themselves as a

Fertility Specialist - whether they have any specialized knowledge

or training of any kind. Just because they SAY they are. And nobody

can tell them to do any differently. With ABORM certification,

anybody can STILL call themselves a reproductive specialist, whether

they are certified by ABORM or NOT.

 

Here is the differI respect those of you who wish to keep high

standards in our

profession. I completely understand and respect the sentiment that

we, as a profession, must continue to raise standards and improve our

standing in the medical community. I simply cannot see how it hurts

us to form Boards of specialization. This is done in the medical

field all the time.

 

Even in Western Reproductive Medicine, there are Board Certified

specialists, and there are doctors who call themselves 'specialists'

who are NOT board certified. The Reproductive Endocrinologist that I

work with in San Antonio is Board Certified in Reproductive

Endocrinology and Infertility. He is an Infertility Specialist.

However, there are several other OB/GYN's in our area that perform

IVF and treat Infertility and call themselves specialists that ARE

NOT Board Certified in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility.

Both have the same rights and benefits when it comes to scope of

practice.

 

This is the same model that ABORM seems to be adopting. Any licensed

practitioner is free to claim to be a specialist. As things currently

stand - ANY acupuncturist can represent themselves as a Fertility

Specialist - whether or not they have any specialized knowledge or

training of any kind.

 

Anyone is free to represent themselves as a qualified reproductive

acupuncturist JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY that they are. And nobody can

tell them to do any differently. With ABORM certification, anybody

can STILL call themselves a reproductive specialist, whether they are

certified by ABORM or NOT.

 

Here is the difference: With the formation of ABORM, consumers now

have some reference point, some means of distinguishing from among

the so called, " specialists. " ABORM may not be perfect. How could it

be? It is in its infancy. ABORM may look very different in ten

years. But for right now, I hardly see how setting a minimum bar for

specialized knowledge is detrimental to our profession. And I

CERTAINLY do not see how it is ill begotten, unethical, or bogus, as

some of our colleagues would have you believe.

 

ABORM is not a vehicle to get a few fancy letters after our names. It

is a legitimate test of basic understanding of the principles that

govern the practice of modern Oriental Reproductive Medicine. Without

ABORM, how will the infertile consumer possibly distinguish one so

called " specialist " from another??

 

SUPPORT ABORM. It is not perfect, but it is good. It is not harmful

to our profession, it is of great benefit. Like all things

organizational, it will take time to develop and mature. But we must

start somewhere and we must start now. If we wait until such

certifying boards are without flaws and satisfy the needs and

concerns of everybody................well, we all know that day will

never come.

 

Support ABORM NOW. Instead of complaining and trying to tear down

this intrepid effort, get involved and help shape it into the

regulating agency that best represents your views. DO something

constructive instead of trying to stop what is being done.

 

David Karchmer

The Texas Center for Reproductive Acupuncture

Registered for the 2008 ABORM Exam

 

 

 

, marnae ergil <marnae

wrote:

>

> Dear CHAers

>

> Below is an open letter written by several people,

> with over 150 signatories so far. While this is very

> clearly a difficult political issue, I would encourage

> you to start thinking about it. I am happy to answer

> questions etc., but I do not really want to start a

> major political debate on this forum. If you agree

> with the letter, please join us. If you do not, that

> is fine.

>

> THanks,

>

> Marnae

>

> AN OPEN LETTER TO OPPOSE ABORM

>

> In response to the recent ad in Acupuncture Today for

> an exam in Oriental Reproductive Medicine,

> administered by the newly formed, self-appointed,

> American Board of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (see

> ABORM.org), we, the undersigned, as practitioners of

> Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, educators, members

> of local and national acupuncture societies and

> accredited certifying boards, would like to

> respectfully oppose the attempts to form such

> specialty boards and exams within our field. We oppose

> this because:

>

> 1. There is no demonstrated need for this

> certification

>

> We are board certified by the NCCAOM and individual

> states to treat the whole person, not a disease or

> condition. Specialty certification imposes false

> boundaries and there is neither need nor precedent for

> this other than financial gain to the parties

> attempting to impose it. The integrity of our medicine

> will be compromised.

>

> 2. There is no oversight or accountability for such a

> board

>

> With its prominent use of the words " board " and

> " certification " , ABORM invites confusion not only with

> NCCAOM certification, but also with the ABMS (American

> Board of Medical Specialties) Board Certification for

> Medical Doctors. NCCAOM and ABMS are large,

> independent certifying boards that comply with

> nationwide standards for fairness and transparency.

> ABMS defines specialty certification as ?of

> significance for physicians preparing for careers in

> teaching, research, or practice restricted to that

> field? (italics added). ABORM, on the other hand,

> states that their goal is to ?set the standard of care

> in this field. (italics added). [They] have recognized

> the need for a certification to ensure that

> practitioners who are treating patients with Oriental

> Medicine in the field of Reproductive Health are doing

> so with a qualified knowledge and experience.? We

> believe that the ABORM board is confused about the

> role of specialty boards in medicine and is leading

> our medicine down the wrong path.

>

>

> 3. There is no process supporting the content to be

> provided

>

> How is the content material determined? Has the board

> gone through the process of making sure that their

> content is unbiased and represents all of the numerous

> traditions that exist? Does it give ?full recognition

> to the diversity of acupuncture in the US, while also

> providing a unified set of national standards for safe

> and competent practice?? (NCCAOM website). The

> creation of ABORM, and the exam offered by ABORM,

> implies the intention of monopolizing a centralized

> protocol for the treatment of patients with fertility

> issues, and opens up the potential that this will

> happen to all specialties that are treated by

> acupuncture and Oriental medicine.

>

> 4. Malpractice coverage may become prohibitive and

> exclusionary

>

> In 2005, our profession was successful in removing the

> exclusion in malpractice coverage for gynecological

> conditions. Now, we are hoping the community of

> practitioners will also recognize the inherent risks

> of specialty boards and exams which will impose even

> more stringent restrictions on practice if insurers

> take such a certification into account when setting

> fees. We are convinced that the virtual monopoly on

> malpractice coverage will only continue to limit our

> profession if this is allowed to happen.

>

>

> 5. There is all likelihood that this will damage

> rather than benefit our profession.

>

> While we enthusiastically advocate for continuing

> education classes, we find that the structure as

> presented may also be misleading to the public. It

> suggests that simply passing an exam structured by

> self-interested parties somehow qualifies one to treat

> fertility patients with more authority than other

> practitioners. Education in western evaluative

> measures can be informative, but will not necessarily

> make us better acupuncturists.

>

> In conclusion, while we are in full support of

> practitioners being well trained in the medicine they

> practice and have respect for the good intentions of

> many of the ABORM board members, we believe that

> self-appointed " boards " without oversight can be

> exclusionary and possibly even harmful to the

> profession. Although well intentioned, we find this

> trend ill conceived.

>

> If you would like to support this opposition, please

> add your name to the petition by emailing

> boycottaborm with your name, credentials,

> state in which you practice, and any organization that

> you represent.

>

[Guest guest]

To all those opposing the formation of ABORM,

 

With respect, I would like to state that I simply do not understand how the

formation of a specialty board would in any way damage the profession of TCM

in America. The group of practitioners who are vocalizing this dissent seem

to be forgetting one basic notion: that it is our job as healthcare

professionals to provide our patients with the best possible care, and above

all, to do no harm. Suggesting that it is not important to know the

difference between HCG and FSH, because it would not impact the choice in

herbs we might prescribe, is flagrantly irresponsible, and in and of itself

demonstrates a need for a board like ABORM. Simply put, the treatment of

infertility requires detailed knowledge of Western Medicine, due to the fact

that a vast number of fertility patients will be SIMULTANEOUSLY USING

WESTERN FERTILITY MEDICATION WHILE WE ARE TREATING THEM!! Ignoring a

patients western diagnosis in this case could inhibit or even ruin her

chances of having a baby. The ABORM exam will at least show a basic level

of competence in the realm of western fertility treatments, which should

bring patients peace of mind while dealing with this costly, emotional and

often painful issue.

 

Of course, for the patient who is only using TCM in their efforts to

conceive, one might argue that we as herbalists can differentiate between

yin, yang or qi deficiency, etc., but what argument can be set in place to

oppose knowing the effects of our herbs on the endocrine system and

fertility medications? Additionally, should we not know when to refer out

for structural tests, so that we don't waste our patient's time and money?

Is it not our job to work with our patients, and to guide them through their

health crisis' with grace? I ALWAYS recommend that my fertility patients

get baseline blood work and ultrasound, so that I know where I am starting

from. It is my opinion that we should be striving to integrate with and

educate our MD colleagues about the effects of TCM on fertility, so that we

can provide the most comprehensive care possible to our patients. Having a

board such as ABORM puts in place a basic level of competency that one

should have in order to go forth as a " specialist " in the area of fertility.

 

The notion that we are provided with a sufficient body of knowledge in

school to treat ALL conditions as GP's is preposterous. I went to great

lengths for the duration of my clinical internship to specialize in women's

health, and still feel that it was just the tip of the iceberg. Of course,

general practitioners are of great benefit to the public, but so are people

who are drawn to know their particular niche in great detail. Those who

take the time, and spend the energy and money to specialize, should be so

credited. I would advocate for specialty boards for many of the conditions

that we commonly treat, as the professional community sees fit.

 

I truly hope that those who are leading this opposition will re-consider

their position, and ask themselves what motivates it in the first place? It

is clearly in the best interest of our patients to create ways to measure

competence, especially when it comes to specialties that require integrative

knowledge in order to be successful.

 

Sincerely,

Laura Erlich, LAc, MTOM

 

_______________

More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail.

http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us & ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM\

_mini_2G_0507

[Guest guest]

Laura,

 

An important issue to remember is insurance reimbursal, as well as malpractice

insurance. When you have a licensure in place such as ABORM, people on the

outside tend to consider those not licensed by them to be not necessarily on the

same level of competence or expertise. That can lead to denials of claims or

exemptions to coverage. I would have much less of a problem if there was an

association (however loose) with a national organization such as NCCAOM, and the

licensure would be accompanied by specific courses and a test. That would level

the playing field.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Laura Erlich <lauraerlich wrote:

To all those opposing the formation of ABORM,

 

With respect, I would like to state that I simply do not understand how the

formation of a specialty board would in any way damage the profession of TCM

in America. The group of practitioners who are vocalizing this dissent seem

to be forgetting one basic notion: that it is our job as healthcare

professionals to provide our patients with the best possible care, and above

all, to do no harm. Suggesting that it is not important to know the

difference between HCG and FSH, because it would not impact the choice in

herbs we might prescribe, is flagrantly irresponsible, and in and of itself

demonstrates a need for a board like ABORM. Simply put, the treatment of

infertility requires detailed knowledge of Western Medicine, due to the fact

that a vast number of fertility patients will be SIMULTANEOUSLY USING

WESTERN FERTILITY MEDICATION WHILE WE ARE TREATING THEM!! Ignoring a

patients western diagnosis in this case could inhibit or even ruin her

chances of having a baby. The ABORM exam will at least show a basic level

of competence in the realm of western fertility treatments, which should

bring patients peace of mind while dealing with this costly, emotional and

often painful issue.

 

Of course, for the patient who is only using TCM in their efforts to

conceive, one might argue that we as herbalists can differentiate between

yin, yang or qi deficiency, etc., but what argument can be set in place to

oppose knowing the effects of our herbs on the endocrine system and

fertility medications? Additionally, should we not know when to refer out

for structural tests, so that we don't waste our patient's time and money?

Is it not our job to work with our patients, and to guide them through their

health crisis' with grace? I ALWAYS recommend that my fertility patients

get baseline blood work and ultrasound, so that I know where I am starting

from. It is my opinion that we should be striving to integrate with and

educate our MD colleagues about the effects of TCM on fertility, so that we

can provide the most comprehensive care possible to our patients. Having a

board such as ABORM puts in place a basic level of competency that one

should have in order to go forth as a " specialist " in the area of fertility.

 

The notion that we are provided with a sufficient body of knowledge in

school to treat ALL conditions as GP's is preposterous. I went to great

lengths for the duration of my clinical internship to specialize in women's

health, and still feel that it was just the tip of the iceberg. Of course,

general practitioners are of great benefit to the public, but so are people

who are drawn to know their particular niche in great detail. Those who

take the time, and spend the energy and money to specialize, should be so

credited. I would advocate for specialty boards for many of the conditions

that we commonly treat, as the professional community sees fit.

 

I truly hope that those who are leading this opposition will re-consider

their position, and ask themselves what motivates it in the first place? It

is clearly in the best interest of our patients to create ways to measure

competence, especially when it comes to specialties that require integrative

knowledge in order to be successful.

 

Sincerely,

Laura Erlich, LAc, MTOM

 

_______________

More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail.

http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us & ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM\

_mini_2G_0507

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including a

practitioner's directory and a moderated discussion forum.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Laura: With all due respect, you may have missed the point of the

petition. We are in no way suggesting that knowledge of Western

medicine is not crucial to giving your patients the best service and

treatment. An exam without appropriate training is pointless as it

does not clearly identify that knowing what the tests are in a

multiple choice format means that one understands the implications of

this in relation to our TCM treatments. It is actually a disservice

to patients to suggest that more letters after your name because you

passed an exam without appropriate advanced training (which you also

identified is lacking in the basic training of practitioners) makes

you somehow better qualified then someone who may have done the work

and study to understand what the implications are of western tests in

the context of our medicine, despite not having the " stamp of

approval " from a board.

 

Of course this exam is optional, but we are concerned that this is a

dangerous trend, because someday it may not be and do you want to be

required to take an exam for every thing you treat or pay malpractice

premiums or dues to specialty groups to do what you already do? We

are advocating for training and want the word to be out there for all

practitioners to judge. If the profession decides that this is a

trend they need to have in order to be accepted by Western Medicine

(by following them as a role model) then let the entire community

decide this, not a few well-qualified and well-intentioned folks who

may not have considered all the possible implications of the

structure they have proposed.

 

Caroline Radice, MS LAc CA NCCAOM (which is plenty)

 

 

, " Laura Erlich "

<lauraerlich wrote:

>

> To all those opposing the formation of ABORM,

>

> With respect, I would like to state that I simply do not understand

how the

> formation of a specialty board would in any way damage the

profession of TCM

> in America. The group of practitioners who are vocalizing this

dissent seem

> to be forgetting one basic notion: that it is our job as healthcare

> professionals to provide our patients with the best possible care,

and above

> all, to do no harm. Suggesting that it is not important to know

the

> difference between HCG and FSH, because it would not impact the

choice in

> herbs we might prescribe, is flagrantly irresponsible, and in and

of itself

> demonstrates a need for a board like ABORM. Simply put, the

treatment of

> infertility requires detailed knowledge of Western Medicine, due to

the fact

> that a vast number of fertility patients will be SIMULTANEOUSLY

USING

> WESTERN FERTILITY MEDICATION WHILE WE ARE TREATING THEM!! Ignoring

a

> patients western diagnosis in this case could inhibit or even ruin

her

> chances of having a baby. The ABORM exam will at least show a

basic level

> of competence in the realm of western fertility treatments, which

should

> bring patients peace of mind while dealing with this costly,

emotional and

> often painful issue.

>

> Of course, for the patient who is only using TCM in their efforts

to

> conceive, one might argue that we as herbalists can differentiate

between

> yin, yang or qi deficiency, etc., but what argument can be set in

place to

> oppose knowing the effects of our herbs on the endocrine system and

> fertility medications? Additionally, should we not know when to

refer out

> for structural tests, so that we don't waste our patient's time and

money?

> Is it not our job to work with our patients, and to guide them

through their

> health crisis' with grace? I ALWAYS recommend that my fertility

patients

> get baseline blood work and ultrasound, so that I know where I am

starting

> from. It is my opinion that we should be striving to integrate

with and

> educate our MD colleagues about the effects of TCM on fertility, so

that we

> can provide the most comprehensive care possible to our patients.

Having a

> board such as ABORM puts in place a basic level of competency that

one

> should have in order to go forth as a " specialist " in the area of

fertility.

>

> The notion that we are provided with a sufficient body of knowledge

in

> school to treat ALL conditions as GP's is preposterous. I went to

great

> lengths for the duration of my clinical internship to specialize in

women's

> health, and still feel that it was just the tip of the iceberg.

Of course,

> general practitioners are of great benefit to the public, but so

are people

> who are drawn to know their particular niche in great detail.

Those who

> take the time, and spend the energy and money to specialize, should

be so

> credited. I would advocate for specialty boards for many of the

conditions

> that we commonly treat, as the professional community sees fit.

>

> I truly hope that those who are leading this opposition will re-

consider

> their position, and ask themselves what motivates it in the first

place? It

> is clearly in the best interest of our patients to create ways to

measure

> competence, especially when it comes to specialties that require

integrative

> knowledge in order to be successful.

>

> Sincerely,

> Laura Erlich, LAc, MTOM

>

> _______________

> More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live

Hotmail.

> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-

us & ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507

>