Reason 1. This is only a ploy to kill SF1520.
The legislators have listened to every sides' arguments, and suffered from a barrage of questions from the citizens who were incited by the MNHLRP's deliberate misinformation campaign.
The Minnesota House voted 90-42 in support of the bill.
The 'workgroup' proposal is the MNHLRP's latest trick to kill SF1520.
Reason 2. The State of Minnesota has already reviewed prior legislation to
regulate naturopathic doctors. The Case Studies of Occupational
Regulation (see text below) examined the progress of legislation proposed in
1987 and 1997.
In 1987, the legislation stalled because it was thought that the 5 naturopathic
doctors then residing in Minnesota would not be able to support an independent
Board. Since then, the naturopathic doctors have sought to work under the Board
of Medical Practice, thus eliminating the core objection in 1987.
In 1997, when the legislation failed again, the most vocal opposition came from unlicensed practitioners who objected to proposed title protection for 'naturopath'.
In 2008, the naturopathic doctors amended their bill to not seek title protection
for 'naturopath', thus eliminating the stated objection from 1997. Furthermore,
the enactment of the CAM Law, Statute 146A in 1999 protects these unlicensed
practitioners. The proposed 2008 legislation, SF1520, explicitly affirms Statute 146A and acknowledges the right to practice naturopathic modalities of care
for everyone.
Reason 3. The substance of the 'workgroup' proposal itself is outrageous.
It states "A work group could provide licensed and unlicensed practitioners the incentive to sit down, discuss, and evaluate the appropriate level of education, training and regulation (registration or licensure) needed for naturopathic physicians who seek to practice naturopathic medicine".
The Minnesota Dept. Health examined the naturopathic doctors' educational
credentials in 1997 (see scanned images at the bottom, click to enlarge) and
stated: The Council on Naturopathic Medical Education is recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as the national accrediting agency for the programs leading to the Doctor of Naturopathy and Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degrees.
The U.S. Department of Education website documents every school that naturopathic doctors attend and lists all accredited programs in detail in
the U.S. Department of Education Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs, http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/.
On the other hand, the opponents of the regulation for naturopathic physicians, led by the MNHLRP in Minnesota and the Council for Natural Health nationwide (as also stated in the 1997 Dept. of Health Report, see below) represent the interests of unaccredited diploma mills such as Clayton College of Natural Health in Alabama.
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (chea.org) lists unaccredited
schools, including Clayton. Clayton also appears in various state databases and
lists of unaccredited schools available online (Oregon, Michigan, Maine).
From the the State of Michigan document, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf:
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES NOT ACCREDITED BY CHEA
This is a listing of colleges and universities which are not currently accredited by an accrediting
body of the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (www.chea.org). Degrees from these
institutions will not be accepted by the Civil Service Commission as satisfying any educational
requirements indicated on job specifications. Please note that this list is not all inclusive;
unaccredited schools will be added as we become aware of them.
*
*
*
Clayton College of Natural Health – Alabama
*
*
*
(page 5, Revised 4/23/2008)
It would be a real travesty to have the representatives of unaccredited diploma
mills dictate to those whose professional education is recognized the U.S. Dept.
of Education what constitutes "proper level of education and training".
Please support naturopathic doctors and SF1520!
Documentation:
Case Studies of Occupational
Regulation
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS IN 1997 AND 1998
APPENDIX B
http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/9905apb.pdf
NATUROPATHIC DOCTORS
Naturopathic
physicians have
sought licensure
in recent years.
Naturopathic doctors (NDs or naturopaths) are defined as “trained specialists in a
separate and distinct healing art which uses non-invasive natural medicine.”6
Naturopathic doctors are currently licensed in nine states,7 but they are not
regulated in Minnesota. Efforts of naturopaths to secure licensure in Minnesota
can be traced back to an unsuccessful proposal in 1909. However, after the
passage of the Basic Sciences Act in 1927, naturopaths who passed the Basic
Sciences Examination were entitled to registration. In 1974 much of the Basic
Sciences Act was repealed, including the registration of naturopathic doctors.8
Naturopaths have again sought licensure in recent years. In 1987 the Minnesota
Association of Naturopathic Physicians (MANP) submitted a proposal for
licensure under an independent board of Naturopathic Physician Examiners to the
then-operative Human Services Occupations Advisory Council (HSOAC).9 The
HSOAC’s final report declined to recommend state regulation, although a tie vote
by the council narrowly defeated a recommendation for the registration of
naturopathic doctors. According to the HSOAC report, the proposal failed
primarily on the cost effectiveness criterion in Chapter 214, since it would have
been difficult for the five naturopaths in Minnesota who would have qualified for
regulation at that time to provide the fee revenue necessary to support an
independent board.
Another proposal for licensing naturopaths was presented to the Legislature in
1997.10 The proposal was modeled after the acupuncturists’ practice act and
proposed regulation through an advisory board to the Board of Medical Practices.
This proposal was partially motivated by disciplinary actions brought by the
Board of Medical Practices against a practicing ND. This particular ND
acknowledged that she was performing activities reserved by statute for medical
doctors, but correctly pointed out that the practice act for physicians is extremely
broad. She argued that as a graduate of a four-year post-graduate program in
naturopathy her training was rigorous and adequately prepared her to provide the
services that she had provided. Indeed, the extensive training required by the
National Council on Naturopathic Education serves as the basic justification
92 OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION
offered by proponents of licensure. Ironically, the educational requirements also
served as the greatest impediment to the 1997 proposal. Among the most forceful
opposition to the bill was a diverse group of alternative medical practitioners,
many who use the title “naturopath.” Most if not all naturopaths who actively
opposed the proposal would not have met the educational requirements, and
feared possible restrictions on their practices if the proposal passed. Ultimately,
the 1997 proposal received hearings but did not win approval. However, it did
provide impetus for a report on Complimentary and Alternative Medicine by the
Minnesota Department of Health, which concluded that there is not presently
enough information to justify government regulation of naturopaths or other
alternative medical providers.11
The case of naturopathic doctors reveals some of the difficulty that smaller
professional groups face in attempting to gain state regulation. Given that the
most vocal opposition to the bill came from other practitioners of naturopathy, the
proposal to license “qualified” naturopathic doctors also illustrates the way
occupational regulation can be used to “fence out” potential competitors.
However, the same could be said of the long-established regulation of medical
doctors: the medical doctors’ practice act effectively prevents naturopathic
physicians from exercising the full scope of practice in which they have been
trained.
The case of naturopaths also provides an example of the Legislature using a report
to inform its decisions regarding occupational regulation. In some ways this
demonstrates the ability of the Legislature to implement studies on an “as needed”
basis, which would seem to negate the need to establish a more institutionalized
sunrise review process, as we recommend in Chapter 3. However, the report
casted a broad net and concluded with a blanket recommendation against
regulating any of the professions providing complementary and alternative
medical services. While the report does represent a laudable attempt to bring
more objective reasoning to bear on the issue, it was not focused on the particular
proposal at hand, as was the more useful HSOAC report issued in response to the
1987 proposal.
APPENDIX B 93
6 Wendell W. Whitman, N.D., M.Di., “What is a Naturopath,” WWW document, URL
http://www.cnra.org/what.is.a.naturopath.html, December 8, 1998. Mr. Whitman is an associate
of the Council on Naturopathic Registration and Accreditation, based in Washington D.C. His
definition of Naturopathic Doctors continues: “... Naturopathic doctors are conventionally trained
in subjects such as anatomy, physiology, counseling, dietary evaluations, nutrition, herbology,
acupressure, muscle relaxation and structural normalization, homeopathy, iridology, exercise
therapy, hydrotherapy, oxygen therapy and thermal therapy. Some practitioners are also trained in
additional specialties such as acupuncture or natural childbirth.”
7 Smith-Peters, The Directory of Professional and Occupational Regulation in the United
States.
8 Complementary Medicine: A Report to the Legislature, (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department
of Health, Health Economics Program, January 15, 1998).
9 Human Services Occupations Advisory Council Recommendations on the Regulation of Naturopathic
Physicians, (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Health, October 27, 1988). The
Staff Recommendation and Commissioner’s Determination that normally accompanied HSOAC
reports were not made in this case since funding for the study was stopped prior to completion.
10 H.F. 396/S.F. 523 and H.F. 780/S.F. 561.
11 Complementary Medicine: A Report to the Legislature. The study was mandated through an
amendment to the 1997 Omnibus Health and Human Services Appropriations Act - Minn. Laws
(1997) ch. 203, sec. 3, subd. 2.
Complementary medicine : final report to the Legislature.
St. Paul, Minn. : Health Economics Program, Minnesota Dept. of Health
OCLC Number: 38946716
Minn. Pub. Number: 98-0251
http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/pre2003/mandated/980251.pdf
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Support Naturopathic Doctors and SF1520! 3 reasons the "workgroup" proposal from the MNHLRP is groundless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
As an MD, I often talk to patients and their families about their treatment choices. Sometimes they hear something from a neighbor or their barber and ask for my informed opinion. What prevents me from giving insane advice such as drink horse urine to fight AIDS, or swallow some sort of snake venom elixir and your blindness will be cured? The board of medical licensing and my accredited education prevents this sort of behavior. Imagine if your car salesman had equal status in determining your medical training and standard of care: "Honest Joe's cars cure diabetes." Need evidence to support that claim? If the breaks failed and you died, your diabetic problems would be cured. Another claim which could also be statistically verifiable: Prius drivers are less likely to get AIDS (of course they are less likely to get a date too). Joking aside, professional regulation does ensure that medical doctors' advice will be somewhat more pertinent than your hairdressers, or perhaps, your
friendly neighborhood colonic hydrotherapist's.
doctors' advice
The site bellow is a great source of information on alternative medicine.
http://www.mindbodyspiritjournal.com/holistic-health/naturopathy
They seem to agree with your article.
How weird, this whole blog seems to be devoted to SF 1520. What will happen to this blog when the measure is voted on?
I think Vinny makes some valid points but as a physician I am skeptical of the whole ideology of naturopathy. Furthermore, you want to be able to prescribe real drugs like antibiotics and blood pressure pills, you need to be trained in pharmacology, physiology, and take courses specific to use of these drugs. Finally, if you prescribe drugs, you should also pay malpractice insurance premiums; why should I have to pay 30k/year for malpractice and you pay less or nothing at all if we will have the same prescribing privileges?
Naturopathic medical education curriculum does cover pharmacology
and physiology.
In my view, it is not antithetical
to allopathic medicine, there is
a bias against over subscription, which is rampant in pharmacological medicine, and focus on diet and lifestyle modification.
There is nothing wrong with antibiotics or blood pressure meds of
themselves, in fact, they are excellent, in some cases "just what the doctor ordered".
Overprescibing medicines? Much of my time is spent explaining to patients why they don't need antibiotics for their runny nose. Some jerks won't leave the office until I give them a delayed script. This is a baseless accusation used to scare unknowing puplic about medical doctors in the USA; if you want support of MD's cast your aspersions elsewhere.
As a side observer of this and a solid supporter of licensure efforts of medically qualified and trained ND's efforts in Minnesota, and as an old political operative with a lot of time on his hands these days I would just like to say this to any senator, rep. or assistant looking at this blog.
I will actively work to get you unelected this coming election if you vote against registration or for this travesty of an amendment [study group - what a pathetic attempt] , in monetary, grassroots organizing for your opponent, and letters to the editors. In short,
I will spend every waking hour of my retired life making your political life as short as possible.
Please take me seriously and vote for what the evidence says and not Big Billy Bob's Used Cars and Colonics says.
Signed,
A concerned and pissed off senior with time on his hands.
Real McCoy,
First of all I love the reference to ST:TOS if you moniker is indeed a reference to that.
Second as a business manager at a ND clinic, I must say that you are right that it is not good to cast aspersions at MD's as over-prescribing maniacs bent on world domination [OK - I added the world domination part but it sounded good on paper [John Williams music heard in the background]].
We work with many MD's who have an allopathic philosophy and who do not overprescribe. McVey was likely using a broad brush, although s/he did say that pharmacologicals are a good thing in their place.
I will take exception to you comment about prescribing and malpractice, but not too much because those comments, much like McVeys are based on misinformation and broad generalizations.
The ND's looking to be registered do have training in pharmacology in similar although lesser amounts than some MD's. They pass board tests in this subject as well, which is, I imagine, just like you.
Further, malpractice insurance is not available to anyone who is not registered or licensed. As soon as there is registration and a policy becomes available, believe me, we will be taking one out.
So. There you have it. Let's all keep playing nice together and keep talking.
I know it can be hard to discuss some of these fundamental issues without writing something that may be taken the wrong way. And it is hard to read something and give it the most charitable interpretation you can and ask for clarification if you feel the meaning of what someone else wrote is unclear. But doing those things is really the best way for respectful adults to behave.
All my best,
Wolfgang.
Post a Comment