2005 MMA (Minnesota Medical Association) Report lists objections to licensing naturopathic medicine

Naturopathic Physician Licensing Proposal
The committee considered a proposal to establish licensure for naturopathic physicians. Efforts
by naturopaths to obtain state licensure date back to at least 1997. At that time, legislation was
introduced, but it failed to pass because of opposition primarily from the “lay naturopath”
community, many of whom would have been restricted from practice due to the legislation’s
education and training standards. In 2000, renewed interest in establishing some level of state
oversight of “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) led to the passage of the
complementary and alternative health care practices act (M.S. § 146A).
The proposed legislation would charge the Board of Medical Practice (BMP) with licensing
responsibilities for “naturopathic physicians.” A “naturopathic physician” (abbreviated as either
ND or NMD) would be defined as one who is authorized and licensed to practice naturopathic
medicine, which is defined as follows:
“A system of primary health care practiced by naturopathic physicians for the prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of human health conditions, injuries, and diseases that uses education,
lifestyle counseling, nutrition, naturopathic obstetrics, naturopathic physical medicine, natural
derived medicines, minor surgery, and pharmaceutical agents.” (Section 1 of 147E.01 – draft
legislation).
Committee members reviewed the specifics of the legislation and the proposed scope of practice
under the legislation, and discussed the proposal with representatives from the naturopathic
community.
The committee acknowledged that licensure and its concomitant educational and training
standards might offer some protection to the public by distinguishing more formally trained
naturopaths from “lay” or untrained naturopaths. Licensure, however, also carries with it
perceived state “endorsement” of the practice. The significant expansion in the scope of practice
for licensed naturopaths was a noted and significant concern.
Ultimately, the committee concluded (and the Board agreed) that the MMA should oppose the
naturopathic licensure proposal because of five (5) primary concerns:
1. The proposed scope of practice for licensed naturopaths is a significant expansion and an
infringement on many of the central components of the practice of medicine.
2. The committee failed to see how the licensure proposal would protect the public.
3. Citing increased pressure on physicians to deliver reliable care and reduce variation in
practice, committee members were disappointed to hear representatives from the Minnesota
Association of Naturopathic Physicians assert the unique and individualized nature of
naturopathy and, essentially, to dismiss suggestions for standardization.
4. The committee found the proposed use of the term “naturopathic physician” and the
abbreviation “ND or NMD” to be both inappropriate and confusing to the public.
5. Noting concerns with rising health care costs and the push for greater “evidence-based”
health care, the committee was concerned that licensure (and the admitted desire for thirdparty
reimbursement) would put pressure on limited health care dollars at the possible
expense of more critical health care services.