About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 20, 2008 .

The previous post in this blog was California Acupuncture Board turns blind eye to regulatory role.

The next post in this blog is Venice Family Clinic receives award for innovative Chronic Pain Clinic.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by Movable Type 4.21-en and tweaked by Al.

« California Acupuncture Board turns blind eye to regulatory role | Main | Venice Family Clinic receives award for innovative Chronic Pain Clinic »

PAs and LAcs: is there a model here?

At the risk of reinforcing the "us" versus "them" stereotype (i.e., Eastern versus Western medicine) I describe my recent interaction with two primary care physicians who support acupuncture in principle and action. Despite this, they were flummoxed with a proposal I made to them that LAcs (Licensed Acupuncturists) should work as primary care providers (PCPs) in safety-net clinics where there is a tremendous need for providers available to triage the avalanche of patients seeking care every day. Here is a report on the issues confronting safety-net clinics.

I attended a dinner sponsored by the California Academy of Physician Assistants. The event was one in a series of dinners hosted by CAPA across the state to promote the utilization of PAs in group practices. Five speakers represented PAs and MDs working in group practices. I sat at a table with two physicians that occupy the role of Medical Director in safety-net community clinics. The Medical Director makes the decision whether or not to hire non-physician providers, for example LAcs.

I asked several key questions: (1) what do you know about acupuncture licensing and practice? (2) Have you hired an acupuncturist or been treated by one? (3) Are you aware acupuncture is identified as a primary care profession in California? [click to review legislative language] and (4) What do you think about hiring LAcs to function as primary care providers (PCPs) under physician supervision once they have completed a one year post licensure certificate primary care program? Their responses follow.

LAc licensing and practice? Both MDs knew nothing about the education and licensing requirements for acupuncturists. Neither accepted the suggestion that an LAc was a peer in terms of education and licensing, even if the LAc had completed a doctorate (i.e., DAOM or OMD) program.

Know any LAcs? One physician has hired an LAc in his community clinic. However, he pointed out he had to hire a supervisor who could interpret "TCM-speak" and supervise the LAc. He hired the LAc because he believed the service was in demand among safety-net clinic patients. The other MD is not exactly in a position to hire LAcs although his support would be extremely important for dozens of clinics) but sees one for his own pain issues and believes the medicine works.

Acupuncture as primary care profession? Neither MD has any knowledge of this and found the statement hard to accept.

LAcs working as PCPs in safety-net clinics?
"If they want to be MDs then go to medical school" said one. "Do they have the training to do that?" asked the other. Both found this idea very difficult to accept.

I advanced my own idea that has been percolating for a few years; LAcs working as PCPs in limited roles in safety-net clinics. The ideas are simple and straightforward.

There is a shortage of PCPs working in safety-net clinics. As one of the doctors put it, "I cannot hire a family practice physician at $120,000 when Kaiser is paying $140,000 with a superior benefits package". Recent discussion has considered expanding the scope of practice for Nurse Practitioners (NPs) so they might work as PCPs in these clinics. [read proposal to expand NP scope of practice]. While this is a great idea it is flawed by the likelihood that NPs are no more inclined than are MDs to work for wages offered by safety-net community clinics below what they make in their chosen profession, even if they could function like an autonomous physician. The market argues for self-interest.

It is widely believed that a high proportion of LAcs are unemployed or under-employed; that is they are unable to support themselves in their profession once licensed. Explanations for this phenomenon are many from blaming the AMA to blaming the AOM schools. Nobody really knows what are the employment facts for LAcs. The leading organizations in Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine appear more inclined to keep it that way. The NCCAOM conducted a recent survey for which outcomes have been forthcoming more than a year. Not only would it be nice to know what were the outcomes, it would be nice to know what was asked (items) of whom (stratification).

It is an observable truth that AOM schools are disinclined to prepare their graduates to work in mainstream medicine. This conclusion is drawn based on several axioms. There is the widespread belief actively promoted within AOM that TCM is fundamentally oppositional to mainstream medicine. It is empirically true that LAcs do not work in mainstream medicine nor do they have a place within mainstream US healthcare. Graduates of AOM schools are not trained to work in mainstream medicine.

Acupuncturists have one option upon graduation; work in private practice. A 2001 publication - the only one of its kind - carefully described the poor employment prospects for LAcs in neutral language. [review the Dower study here]. Certainly there are open-minded practice groups where LAcs work on a multi-disciplinary team however this writer would hold that these situations are the exception and not the rule.

Yet, if LAc's received the kind of training a PA undergoes, it is entirely feasible that LAcs might be sufficiently prepared to work in safety-net clinics where the need is greatest for PCPs.

How?

Enroll LAcs with PCP experience and/or knowledge to complete a one year long training program wherein the student is immersed in 4 week clerkships in primary care and selected specialty care mainstream medicine settings. Include didactic training in primary care medicine leveraging online educational models and graduate with a certificate in primary care practice. Locate the primary care clerkships in safety-net clinics that agree to hire program graduates. The PC LAc works full-time, under physician oversight, like a PA, triaging patients for specialty clinics (diabetes, ophthalmology) and treating within his own scope of practice.

Why would this work?

Safety-net clinics need primary care providers to break the log jams in clinical triage. The clinics need to hire at salary levels below that of MDs ($120,000) and NPs ($90,000). Unemployment among LAcs is so high that a waiting workforce would jump at the opportunity to earn a living. Additionally, there is a cadre of dissenting LAcs who actually believe working within mainstream medicine is a good idea.

I recognize many of the same characteristics in AOM today as when I joined the USC PA program in 1986. The PA profession was divided.

One faction wanted to remain isolated, under the radar. This group was populated by PAs for whom medicine was a 2nd or 3rd career. They were older and happy to be practicing medicine instead of selling real estate or teaching middle school. They feared facing off with NPs for stature on the multidisciplinary medical team. They wanted to retain the 16 month certificate program that prevailed among at least a third of PA training programs. They easily found jobs. Life on the periphery of mainstream medicine was not so bad.

The other faction wanted a BS entry level professional degree. They wanted to write prescriptions. They liked working with physicians and aimed for autonomy in practice. They were "pre-med drop outs" who did not want to give up their dream to work in medicine.

The PA profession changed during the next decade. Today the BS is the entry level degree while two-thirds of PA programs offer master level training. PAs are on par with NPs in every aspect.

AOM is caught in a similar struggle. The isolationists want to maintain a nominal "peer" status with physicians, a belief unsupported by the most basic metrics of success. Instead of focusing efforts on finding an entry point for LAcs into mainstream medicine, AOM leadership - co-opted by the AOM schools - is focused on maintaining the status quo where the odds a licensee will be able to make a living is the same as tossing a coin.

The opportunity to join mainstream medicine is right there right now. Who will seize the moment and blaze a new path leading to membership in the medical profession?

The National Guild of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NGAOM) is pursuing initiatives that lead to more work opportunities in mainstream medicine. NGAOM is also working to redirect the California Acupuncture Board towards this goal, along with constructing a curriculum leading to the PC LAc certificate. Positions taken by the NGAOM are in the distinct minority within the profession. Hopefully, that will change as opportunities to work in mainstream medicine open up for LAcs.

Comments (1)

al:

However, he pointed out he had to hire a supervisor who could interpret "TCM-speak" and supervise the LAc. He hired the LAc because he believed the service was in demand among safety-net clinic patients.

In the Chinese medicine teaching clinic where I have supervised intern acupuncturists, there were those who were bilingual (Chinese medicine and biomedicine) and those who weren't. Most of the Chinese trained practitioners are bilingual in this sense. This is a skill that best arises out of necessity, as are most linguistic skills.

If people want to hire acupuncturists who are bilingual, they need only ask. However, being bilingual is not correlated to improved clinical outcomes. I guess it comes down to what you need in a clinic. We all take classes in biomedical terminology, but we don't often use it until we're working in a biomedical clinic. Since I stopped working in "los restaurantes" I've lost most of my Spanish too.

This "TCM Speak" is an essential part of what TCM is. We don't need to speak Chinese, but understand theoretical points that serve as a cross-reference to biomedical diagnosis. Deke Kendall advocates that we no longer use this language, even between ourselves [1]. This is tremendously ill-advised. If we stop speaking the language (even the English equivelant), we lose our ability to diagnose. As an example, when a patient presents with genetal herpes in the biomedical clinic, an anti-viral treatment is prescribed. There is only once cause for this kind of herpes. However, there are (at least) two different TCM presentations for this herpes. There is the damp-heat type and the yin-deficiency type. Lacking those terms, we lack that ability to differentiate between the two and everybody gets the damp-heat formula (considered by some to include anti-viral functions) even though some may need the yin nourishing formula. Just about every biomedical diagnosis has multiple presentations within TCM. This is our strength, to further differentiate that which biomedicine generalizes as a pathology, we see as many as ten different syndromes that can explain (and treat) that biomedical disease.

there is a cadre of dissenting LAcs who actually believe working within mainstream medicine is a good idea.

This is not a dissenting position. If you look at how the Chinese medicine schools are tripping over themselves to get their student interns into hospitals for both educational and marketing purposes, you can't think of this goal of further integration as a dissenting position. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. (I was a tad surprised that I only found seven mentions of integrated clinics, so it is somewhat lower than I expected, but still prevalent.)

Where the dissent comes from is the unnecessary ideas that NGAOM, NOMAA and Deke Kendall promote. They suggest that the entire Chinese medicine paradigm is so much hocus-pocus, that biomedicine has figured it all out, so why hang on to these medieval Chinese concepts that are bogus, metaphysical, and have no objective reality [1,2,3]. This is why the "dissenters" have been marginalized by the AOM profession. They have said many times on their websites and journal pieces that CM is no longer of any benefit as a medical paradigm, that there is no God but Allapathy. The rest of the AOM profession has a problem with this, and rightly so.

Many L.Ac.s would love to work in an integrated environment, even as primary care physicians. This is not a dissenting view at all. Of course there are those who want to do their own proprietary thing in private practice, more power to them, but at no point should you consider the goal of integration to be a dissenting opinion. That's just wrong.

Positions taken by the NGAOM are in the distinct minority within the profession. Hopefully, that will change as opportunities to work in mainstream medicine open up for LAcs.

Are they telling you that those who want to work in mainstream medicine are a minority? That's not at all accurate. What the profession has a problem with is them wanting to do away with the paradigm on which the profession sits. This is like telling a Chinese restaurant chef to put his famous whatever on a bun so it sells better in America. If he puts it on to a bun, it isn't Chinese cuisine anymore. Its fast food. The NGAOM website promotes biomedical research. I don't know of anybody who has a problem with this. However to turn these studies into practice guidelines, which they do advocate, is quite limiting as there are oodles of allopathic issues that simply have no viable treatment lacking a mechanistic reductionist understanding. TCM is pretty good at differentiating problems even in the absence of biomedical mechanisms. But the Guild would have us shove all of that aside in favor of the scanty biomedical proof of Chinese medicine that does exist.

Chinese medicine has a lot to offer the modern world and the world of the future. These theories have withstood the test of 5,000 years clinical outcomes. Biomedicine has been going strong since the discovery of "germs" maybe 150 years ago. If the "dissidents" have their way in removing Chinese medicine from the educational model, all the discoveries that we have yet to make in the fields of infectious medicine will be lost. The Wen Bing Xue (Warm Disease School) is only beginning to be appreciated for its depth in addressing new communicable viruses. Its impact on the future of health care could be unprecedented given how easy it is for a virus to spread via the human vector in our modern mobile world. This is just one area that the Chinese are taking very seriously in terms of public health (SARS patients taking Wen Bing formulas were among those who best survived the epidemic a few years back [4, 5]).

There are many other reasons to protect Chinese medicine. The dissidents are willing to throw it all away for a job in a biomedical clinic. Nothing needs to be thrown away, but the idea that those in favor of integrated opportunity are "dissidents".

REFERENCES

1. Kendall, D.E. Energy-Meridian Misconceptions of Chinese Medicine. Schweiz. Zschr. GanzheitsMedizin 2008;20(2):112-117

The energy-meridian misconceptions need to be replaced with physiologically correct understanding to best serve public interest and to provide a solid basis for valid research.

2. NOMAA Curriculum Development. http://www.nomaa.org/Documents/NOMAA_Curriculum_Development.pdf. Accessed, August 23, 2008

This seems to be a dramatic paradigm shift from the popular but impossible idea of Chinese medicine being based on energy and blood circulating by means of invisible meridians.
Hanging on to these metaphysical concepts is the reason why present training in oriental medicine has not seriously entertained biomedical science education and why oriental medicine is still not yet integrated into the mainstream of medicine.
Fear or apprehension about physiologically based oriental medicine may be contributing to some of the opposition to the NOMAA programmatic criteria.
[Acupuncturists] Practice metaphysically explained ‘meridian theory’ acupuncture using needles to supposedly remove blockages of a hypothesized substance ‘Qi’.

NGAOM Code of Ethics. Accessed August 23, 2008

(from Article I: I will maintain my qualifications and improve my skills by constant study of Oriental medicine using the scientific basis of evidence and proof...

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)