for acupuncture students, alumni, faculty & friends — sponsored by AIMC Berkeley
Entry-level doctorate in OM is the wrong choice
I recently received an email from AIMC asking me to complete an AAAOM survey on whether an entry-level doctorate would be a positive step forward for the AOM profession. Several potential benefits were mentioned, from increased employment opportunities in hospitals to enhanced recognition and acceptance of the AOM profession by the general public and medical establishment.
I am strongly opposed to the idea of an entry-level doctoral program for our profession. We're experiencing a crisis in health care in this country. Millions of Americans don't have access to timely and effective health care. 15% of Americans don't have any form of health insurance. Yet the U.S. spends more than any other country in the world on health care - 16% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or an average of $7,026 per person per year. In nine years health care spending will be one-fifth of the economy. Per-person spending will nearly double.
But what do we have to show for it? The U.S. is not healthier for the money. Despite our vast resources, the U.S. ranks 34th in life expectancy (behind Boznia-Herzegovina and Jordan) and has a higher infant-mortality rate (tied with Slovakia and Poland) than many other industrialized nations. A survey by the Commonwealth Club indicated that half of Americans did not receive any preventative care in 2005, and that 100,000 deaths between 2002-2003 could have been prevented by timely access to health care.
Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine have the potential to provide affordable and effective health care to a large majority of the population. I say "potential" because the current model of how acupuncture & OM are practiced in this country make it accessible to a very small percentage of people. It has been estimated that less than 20% of the population can afford to pay for acupuncture on a regular basis. This is significant because both the classical literature and the modern scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of acupuncture clearly indicate that it must be administered at least once a week, and preferably more often, to be consistently effective. At an average cost of $75+ per treatment, acupuncture is simply not affordable for the vast majority of Americans.
An entry level doctorate will only make this worse. As the cost of education and licensing rises, so too will the the average cost of treatment. But can the market support such an increase? There are already serious doubts that the current "boutique" model of acupuncture, in which patients are treated individually in "spa-like" settings, is sustainable. A recent OCOM study revealed that the average annual income for its graduates in full-time acupuncture practice is $75k. That sounds good until you realize that this figure is for gross income, not net. Remove 50% for overhead and another 30% for self-employment taxes, and you have an average take home income of about $26,000. Another study by the AAOM showed even worse results for the acupuncture profession. 43% of respondents brought in less than $40K, gross. That means 43% are making less than $20K, which means a lot of acupuncturists are earning wages below the poverty level. And we haven't even mentioned the ugliest statistic at all: between 50-70% of acupuncturists (depending upon which study you look at) are not practicing at all five years after graduation.
Clearly neither the majority of patients nor the majority of acupuncturists are benefiting from the current "boutique acupuncture" (BA) system. Adding an entry-level doctorate program, which will escalate the costs of education, increase the already considerable average debt of OM school graduates, and increase the average treatment cost as a result, will only make the situation worse.
What we need instead is to reduce the number of hours required to receive a license to practice acupuncture, and reduce the cost of education. This would make acupuncture more affordable. Affordable acupuncture provides not only a social benefit in the form of making effective health care accessible to a greater percentage of the population, but also a stronger and more stable business model for the practitioner because they have a larger pool of potential patients to draw from.
These benefits have already been realized in the relatively new but rapidly growing model of Community Acupuncture (CA), developed by Lisa Rohleder and pioneered in her clinic Working Class Acupuncture in Portland, OR. The low-cost, high-volume CA model makes acupuncture affordable for more than 80% of the population, with sliding scale payments ranging from $15-40 - about the same cost as an insurance co-pay. And because patients can often afford to come more than once a week at this rate, CA practitioners report that they are getting much better results than they were when they saw patients once a week or even less frequently in their conventional BA practices.
At first glance it may seem that the practitioner could hardly make a living by charging $15-40 per treatment. However, because patients are treated in armchairs with distal points below the elbows and knees in a common room, and diagnosis relies heavily on tongue, pulse and a brief conversation with the patient, it becomes possible for each practitioner to treat up to six patients per hour. At an average payment of approximately $20/patient, that represents income of $120/hour (gross, of course) per practitioner. Indeed, in its fourth year of operation Working Class Acupuncture has gross revenues of over $300,000. Also consider that with hundreds of patients per week instead of 20-30 (Working Class Acupuncture currently has 450 patients/week, and other established CA clinics have 200+), there are exponentially more people that are marketing your services to their friends, family and colleagues. And whereas the loss of a few patients in a standard practice could represent a large fraction of your income, a CA practitioner would hardly even notice if a a few patients stopped coming.
The point is that CA solves two problems at once. It offers affordable and effective health care to a large percentage of the population, while providing a stable and rewarding livelihood for the CA clinic owner(s) and employees. But in order for this model to become even more viable, the cost of acupuncture education must be reduced.
In sum, the entry-level doctorate is precisely the opposite direction we should be moving in. We need to make acupuncture cheaper and more accessible to a larger number of patients. We need to create stronger and more viable business models for practitioners. And we need to reduce - not increase - the time and cost required to get a license to make those goals possible.
For thousands of years, and in most of Asia still today, acupuncture has been a "medicine for the people". In the U.S., it is in danger of becoming a luxury of the elite. An entry-level doctorate will only accelerate this disturbing trend.
I am strongly opposed to the idea of an entry-level doctoral program for our profession. We're experiencing a crisis in health care in this country. Millions of Americans don't have access to timely and effective health care. 15% of Americans don't have any form of health insurance. Yet the U.S. spends more than any other country in the world on health care - 16% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or an average of $7,026 per person per year. In nine years health care spending will be one-fifth of the economy. Per-person spending will nearly double.
But what do we have to show for it? The U.S. is not healthier for the money. Despite our vast resources, the U.S. ranks 34th in life expectancy (behind Boznia-Herzegovina and Jordan) and has a higher infant-mortality rate (tied with Slovakia and Poland) than many other industrialized nations. A survey by the Commonwealth Club indicated that half of Americans did not receive any preventative care in 2005, and that 100,000 deaths between 2002-2003 could have been prevented by timely access to health care.
Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine have the potential to provide affordable and effective health care to a large majority of the population. I say "potential" because the current model of how acupuncture & OM are practiced in this country make it accessible to a very small percentage of people. It has been estimated that less than 20% of the population can afford to pay for acupuncture on a regular basis. This is significant because both the classical literature and the modern scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of acupuncture clearly indicate that it must be administered at least once a week, and preferably more often, to be consistently effective. At an average cost of $75+ per treatment, acupuncture is simply not affordable for the vast majority of Americans.
An entry level doctorate will only make this worse. As the cost of education and licensing rises, so too will the the average cost of treatment. But can the market support such an increase? There are already serious doubts that the current "boutique" model of acupuncture, in which patients are treated individually in "spa-like" settings, is sustainable. A recent OCOM study revealed that the average annual income for its graduates in full-time acupuncture practice is $75k. That sounds good until you realize that this figure is for gross income, not net. Remove 50% for overhead and another 30% for self-employment taxes, and you have an average take home income of about $26,000. Another study by the AAOM showed even worse results for the acupuncture profession. 43% of respondents brought in less than $40K, gross. That means 43% are making less than $20K, which means a lot of acupuncturists are earning wages below the poverty level. And we haven't even mentioned the ugliest statistic at all: between 50-70% of acupuncturists (depending upon which study you look at) are not practicing at all five years after graduation.
Clearly neither the majority of patients nor the majority of acupuncturists are benefiting from the current "boutique acupuncture" (BA) system. Adding an entry-level doctorate program, which will escalate the costs of education, increase the already considerable average debt of OM school graduates, and increase the average treatment cost as a result, will only make the situation worse.
What we need instead is to reduce the number of hours required to receive a license to practice acupuncture, and reduce the cost of education. This would make acupuncture more affordable. Affordable acupuncture provides not only a social benefit in the form of making effective health care accessible to a greater percentage of the population, but also a stronger and more stable business model for the practitioner because they have a larger pool of potential patients to draw from.
These benefits have already been realized in the relatively new but rapidly growing model of Community Acupuncture (CA), developed by Lisa Rohleder and pioneered in her clinic Working Class Acupuncture in Portland, OR. The low-cost, high-volume CA model makes acupuncture affordable for more than 80% of the population, with sliding scale payments ranging from $15-40 - about the same cost as an insurance co-pay. And because patients can often afford to come more than once a week at this rate, CA practitioners report that they are getting much better results than they were when they saw patients once a week or even less frequently in their conventional BA practices.
At first glance it may seem that the practitioner could hardly make a living by charging $15-40 per treatment. However, because patients are treated in armchairs with distal points below the elbows and knees in a common room, and diagnosis relies heavily on tongue, pulse and a brief conversation with the patient, it becomes possible for each practitioner to treat up to six patients per hour. At an average payment of approximately $20/patient, that represents income of $120/hour (gross, of course) per practitioner. Indeed, in its fourth year of operation Working Class Acupuncture has gross revenues of over $300,000. Also consider that with hundreds of patients per week instead of 20-30 (Working Class Acupuncture currently has 450 patients/week, and other established CA clinics have 200+), there are exponentially more people that are marketing your services to their friends, family and colleagues. And whereas the loss of a few patients in a standard practice could represent a large fraction of your income, a CA practitioner would hardly even notice if a a few patients stopped coming.
The point is that CA solves two problems at once. It offers affordable and effective health care to a large percentage of the population, while providing a stable and rewarding livelihood for the CA clinic owner(s) and employees. But in order for this model to become even more viable, the cost of acupuncture education must be reduced.
In sum, the entry-level doctorate is precisely the opposite direction we should be moving in. We need to make acupuncture cheaper and more accessible to a larger number of patients. We need to create stronger and more viable business models for practitioners. And we need to reduce - not increase - the time and cost required to get a license to make those goals possible.
For thousands of years, and in most of Asia still today, acupuncture has been a "medicine for the people". In the U.S., it is in danger of becoming a luxury of the elite. An entry-level doctorate will only accelerate this disturbing trend.
Tags: accessible, acupuncture, affordable, aom, community, doctorate, entry-level, phd
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Deborah Corrente on -
Shane,
Dr. Leon Hammer will have an interesting Doctorate program unlike others that will not include research as I hear other programs will have.
You can get more info. at dragonrises.edu
Just another avenue to explore.
-
Permalink Reply by Benjamin Dierauf on -
"Acupuncture Technician" is a term being thrown around by some of the CAN people. In California "Licensed Acupuncturists" are anything but - we have a full scope of practice that includes herbs, supplements, nutrition, therapeutic exercise, lifestyle counseling, bodywork, etc., we are regarded by law as primary health care providers and as Primary Treating Physicians in the Workers' Comp code. There are lots of aspects of this that need to be more fully developed, however, such as increased insurance reimbursement for the modalities we employ, herbs that we give our patients - this is what your professional associations are working on - as well as upgrading your license title/degree title to better match what we do. What do you think it should be?
Your schooling is supposed to provide entry level competencies and get you passed the CALE, which is based primarily on TCM and Western medicine. We also provide some Japanese and Master Tong acupuncture. There is a whole universe beyond school where you can learn all kinds of fascinating and relevant topics - our CEU courses provide a taste of that.
And residencies/clerkships - you're right, those are the next development for AOM education. Unfortunately ACAOM doesn't have those as part of the FPD - yet!
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Kresser on -
Benjamin,
You mentioned earlier that you thought the FPD would increase employment opportunities in hospital settings. It seems to me that there are more obstacles to be overcome there than simply giving ourselves a new title. Chiropractors and naturopaths aren't allowed anywhere near hospitals despite the fact that they've had a professional doctorate for many years. Physical and occupational therapists are more closely integrated with the allopathic medical system, but this was true long before they had their doctorate.
My sense is that the level of integration of a particular modality/profession with the Western medical establishment has a lot more to do with how doctors perceive that particular modality than it does with its professional license.
PTs, OTs, and podiatrists are all coming from the same Western perspective on health and disease that doctors come from. Not true with acupuncturists. So we have that challenge to overcome above and beyond what the other professional specialties have already had to deal with.
Of course what acupuncture does have going for it is that it works, and it's safe. New studies continue verify this. Perhaps the efficacy of acupuncture will be enough to justify its use in hospitals, and perhaps not. With some exceptions, my experience with the Western medical community in general is that if they don't understand how something works, they write it off as "placebo" (as if that isn't worth considering) or dismiss it as chance.
There's another issue, which is the desirability of being integrated into a so-called "health care" system that is so badly broken it may be beyond repair. But I'll save that one for another day. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Benjamin Dierauf on
-
You're correct - the change in title won't increase our employability, but changes in learning competencies will, as we'll have graduates that can explain how the medicine works in biomedical terms, describe the studies that prove its efficacy, be able to communicate in biomedical language what is going on with our patients, chart progress properly, etc.
The system is broken and will hopefully be repaired/replaced by an Obama adminstration, and we need to be able to demonstrate that we can work together with other providers if we want to be a part of what comes along.
The bottom line is that these new competencies are going to become a part of the MS regardless of whether a FPD gets approved or not. I'd rather have the FPD than continue with a bloated MS.
-
Permalink Reply by Dawna on -
Thanks Benjamin for jumping into the discussion. Students are often left in the dark when it comes to these kinds of issues. Im glad we now have some clarification on the subject.
It seems that there will be an increase in classes regardless of the title change. If this is the case, we might as well get the title change too. I like the idea of being able to speak about Chinese medicine in biomedical terms. We have to be able to communicate with western doctors and after taking all the IM classes at AIMC, I don't completely feel that I am qualified to do so. Improvement in this area is a must!
Do you have an estimation of when this change might occur? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? Just curious!
-
Permalink Reply by Benjamin Dierauf on
-
From a regulatory standpoint, these changes will probably become required for students starting in 2-5 years. We have already started most of these here at AIMC Berkeley and will continue to tweak things and make improvements. For example we are considering carving out 1 unit from the Anatomy & Phys series and having a class that just focuses on learning the scientific perspective on how AOM works.
-
Permalink Reply by Suzanne Friedman on -
I'd like to share my two cents as someone who has a "boutique" practice where I try to cultivate a peaceful, spa-like setting. This approach works very well for how I practice Chinese medicine. (I practice a pre-TCM and occasionally Daoist shamanistic style of medicine; I am not a technician). I tried practicing community acupuncture style, and it did not work for me. My interactions with patients were significantly impacted by the presence of others in the room. While a group setting works well for some, it does not work well for others. This leads me to my point: there are many paths up the mountain. Find the one that works for you and do that!
While I am not wedded to titles, I agree with Benjamin regarding the doctorate. We are already practicing primary care medicine, and why get a bloated master's when you can get a streamlined doctorate? (This is more of a rhetorical question-- please don't tell me!)
No matter what you learn in school, you will learn so much more once you are out. School makes you a safe entry-level practitioner. Mindful practice in the clinic makes you the practitioner you are destined to become. How you practice is determined only by you, so treat yourself with respect and that's exactly what you'll get.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Kresser on
-
Thanks for sharing your perspective and experience, Suzanne. It's interesting to hear from someone who has tried both models.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Kresser on
-
Hi everyone,
Daniel and I had a meeting with Benjamin last Tuesday about the FPD. Benjamin estimated that the increase in tuition hours would be no more than one trimester, and that AIMC is already very close to providing the core competencies that would be required for the FPD.
There will be a program for grandfathering former graduates in, but they will probably need to complete additional hours or take challenge exams for the competencies they didn't cover in their school programs.
If the FPD can be accomplished without adding significant extra time and cost to the existing program, then I wouldn't be opposed to it. But I would also like to see the AAAOM engage in patient education and other activities that can further our profession, and I hope that the FPD won't distract from those important tasks.
-
Permalink Reply by Sara Szmodis on -
AAAOM is currently engaged in hiring a professional lobbyist to oversee the concerns of our profession at the federal governmental level. It is my perception of AAAOM that while FPD is an important matter, it is certainly not the only matter on the table. In particular, seeing that acupuncture receives wider and more accurate exposure amongst the medical profession and the general public is one of the major issues being dealt with in the general organization and the student organization. The student organization (AAAOM-SO) is one of the largest and strongest sources behind this push. Beginning with this coming term, I will be moving toward forming our own chapter of the AAAOM-SO here at AIMC. If we move quickly, we can have an active, involved chapter by the next AAAOM conference in April.
You can PM me for more details if you are interested in this or other AAAOM matters.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Fonte on -
Hello all,
Aside from the information discussed with Benjamin, other interesting facts became apparent. There are several fractions within the acupuncture associations. They operate without a solid,straight forward,and concise vision. The issues are varied from acupuncturists trained in China being disappointing in the lesser amount of education for American accreditation therefore pushing for more equality via longer programs, unequal state qualifications to become an acupuncturist, to what should be the standard curriculum that allows an acupuncturist to practice.
The importance of belonging to an organization that is the governing body of our field is immense. With increased membership comes an increase in the organizations treasury. That allows thing such as a lobbyist to defend and promote our profession. The need to protect our ability to dispense our herbal medicines is already a real threat from the FDA. The issue of the blind practitioner in Florida is another right we need to be aware of. A strong organization is required for our career success. You can become a member with any level of participation and I urge all of us to join.
There are a few professional organizations in existence. I have not looked into them to see what their missions promote, therefore at this time I cannot recommend one. At this time it appears that AAOM and AAOM-SO are a good way to start.
-
Permalink Reply by Sara Szmodis on
-
You're absolutely right. One of the things that hobbles us most professionally is the fractured nature of our profession.
The best way to mend this is to get involved. I represent us (by us, I mean AIMC students) to the AAAOM-SO, most recently at the annual AAAOM conference this year in Chicago. During the conference, the student organization holds a caucus discussing the issues at hand. Folks, I'm here to tell you that there are some fantastic people in the SO. People from big schools and tiny ones, 5E and TCM and many others. And they're excited--to meet each other, to see what we do move forward, to make good things happen. Getting to meet them and see what other people are up to was easily one of the highlights for me last year.
I can't recommend enough getting involved either here in California or on a national level. We're all in this together and the sooner we get hip to that, the more powerful we will become as professionals.
Events
-
Special Japanese Acupuncture Clinic with Atsuki Maeda!
May 6, 2010 at 6pm to August 12, 2010 at 8:30pm – Annex B
-
Northern Tibetian Gong Fu School. Classes will be taught in East Bay Area
May 13, 2010 at 6pm to May 13, 2011 at 7pm – East Bay Area
-
TCM PLANTS OF THE BAY AREA: Lecture and Field Exploration
July 31, 2010 from 10am to 5pm – American College of Traditional Chinese Medicine
-
PLANT FAMILIES OF CALIFORNIA: A MEDICINAL PERSPECTIVE
August 1, 2010 all day – Blue Wind Botanical Medicine Clinic
-
Suzanne Friedman Cancer Fundraiser
August 1, 2010 from 11am to 5pm – AIMC Berkeley
-
NATURE’S PHARMACY: MEDICINE MAKING WORKSHOP SERIES
August 14, 2010 all day – Blue Wind Botanical Medicine Clinic
Groups
-
AIMC Berkeley Students
48 members
-
Medical Qigong group
41 members
-
Future Students
31 members
-
Herb Garden Project
30 members
-
hiking
30 members
-
AIMC Berkeley Alumni
29 members
-
Dr. Tan Method Study Gro…
26 members
-
Japanese Acupuncture Gro…
11 members
-
Student Council
10 members
-
Web Committee
10 members
Acupuncture & Integrative Medicine College, Berkeley
© 2010 Created by Ken Berry.
