Guest guest Posted March 1, 2001 Report Share Posted March 1, 2001 Colleagues: I am writing to register my opposition to an increase in OBCE annual fees for chiropractors. In an era of increasing computerization and with a volunteer board I can not accept a fee increase. I believe in the deregulation of the chiropractic profession similar to the medical profession. Increased fees will mean increased regulation. It is my stance that increased police actions will further degrade the ability of the chiropractic profession to serve her patients. The OBCE should focus its efforts on increasing the public's access to chiropractic care. The main arenas should be access through the Oregon Health Plan - a state agency like the OBCE, the insurance commissioner - a state agency, SAIF - a state agency. I would support a fee increase for these types of public service. I have not seen hard evidence from the OBCE that chiropractors are in need of increased police or investigational activities -- no supportive facts or figures. The very idea that the OBCE needs more funding implies that chiropractors need more discipline. This is hard to accept in an era where we know that medicine is unethically ignoring research that validates chiropractic adjustment for low back pain in favor of more dangerous drug and surgical approaches (even for diabetic patients with kidney disease and pregnant patients). Does the OBCE or the OBME protect the public form this unethical medical error? Hardly. Instead we seek increase investigational fees to expunge every imperfection from the chiropractors in Oregon. While I am opposed to blatant sexual misconduct, I do not support OBCE investigations into paperwork violations, fee excesses, overutilization, and so on in the name of making the Oregon chiropractic profession more suitable for the insurance industry. Where is it written that the state's goal for the OBCE is to make the chiropractic profession a better match for insurance companies? If insurance companies don't approve of a chiropractor's billing methods then let them take it to the courts. The OBCE should stay out of such cases and decriminalize such matters as they have no effect on the essence of chiropractic practice. I do believe in full disclosure of fees and number of visits to care for a problem, but that is where the OBCE's investigation should end. The protection of the public's right to quality care should be satisfied when a doctor and a patient agree on a course of action, not when some mythical practice guidelines are employed. Sexual misconduct outside of the chiropractic office should be outside of the OBCE's interest until a conviction by the state's courts is given. Leave the cases where sexual misconduct occurs outside of the office, in a nonchiropractic setting, to the district attorneys and the courts, where the public funding is adequate to fully prosecute. If the above concepts were incorporated into OBCE policy our board would decrease the expense administering quality chiropractic in the state of Oregon. The OBCE should get out of the guideline business, it should get out of the district attorneys' business, it should cease representing the insurance industry's concern. If the OBCE wants to improve the delivery of chiropractic they should find ways to help chiropractors in training (like the boundary issues training), they should find ways to make state agencies recognize the public benefit from including chiropractic in their programs and in state supported research, they should increase ability of the public to gain access to chiropractic care, and they should take action in concert with the OBME to improve public access to chiropractic care for those conditions where research indicates to do otherwise would harm the public. Sincerely, Willard Bertrand, D.C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2001 Report Share Posted March 1, 2001 Re: OBCE Board rate increase > Willard: > > I take this opportunity to respond to your comments with a few of my own. I > had similar notions as yours prior to > serving 4 years on the peer review committee. I began that experience with > the idea I would be able to infuse a less restrictive, less > imperialistic-anal-whatever you want to call it, attitude towards our field > DCs. After all, I am a country boy similar to you...... > > The instances of ugly reality I unexpectedly encountered did not fit my > preconceptions nor my idealistic attitudes and frank naivete`..... > > In the spirit of mutual respect I would be willing to send you a more > lengthy specific response to your objections. I disagree not with your > ideals, but with your concept we can attain those goals without professional > discipline. > > Whatever we have to offer, the separate actions of some of our DCs > represent an immature minority which is so effortlessly utilized by our > enemies to demonstrate our foibles. > > If there is a way other than a stronger OBCE certainly I would be interested > in hearing your proposals. > > I encourage your inquiry into those very events you paint as " police > actions " as a way to ferret out solid information upon which you can then > more accurately base your assertions. > > The OBCE should focus its > > efforts on increasing the public's access to chiropractic care. The main > > arenas should be access through the Oregon Health Plan - a state agency > like > > the OBCE, the insurance commissioner - a state agency, SAIF - a state > > agency. I would support a fee increase for these types of public service. > > I too support this activity. However, my contention is that there are too > many schemes foisted on the public in the name of chiropractic, which do not > in fact demonstrate the most basic of clinical justification for our care. > This is a detriment to both the public and the profession. From what I've > seen of your writting abilities and verbal descriptions (such as the death > certificate situation years ago) your clinical skills and concern for your > patient are strong. If we weaken academic requirements and decrease ethical > standards along with adopting a hands-off the entrepenurial aspects of > practice thru deregulation, we infact slip ever more rapidly towards the > snake oil vendors of yore. > > Being outnumbered and outgunned, it is essential we find a more effective > response to oppostition than merely being more shrill. > > > I have not seen hard evidence from the OBCE that chiropractors are in > need > > of increased police or investigational activities -- no supportive facts > or > > figures. > > I'm sure these could be obtained should you inquire. > > > The very idea that the OBCE needs more funding implies that > > chiropractors need more discipline. > > Some of us do. > > > Does the OBCE or the OBME protect the public form this > > unethical medical error? Hardly. Instead we seek increase investigational > > fees to expunge every imperfection from the chiropractors in Oregon. > > " Every imperfection " is a simplistic misrepresentation. > > > > > While I am opposed to blatant sexual misconduct, I do not support OBCE > > investigations into paperwork violations, fee excesses, overutilization, > and > > so on in the name of making the Oregon chiropractic profession more > suitable > > for the insurance industry > > Nor do I myself. > > Where is it written that the state's goal for > > the OBCE is to make the chiropractic profession a better match for > insurance > > companies? > > Is this really your belief or just rhetoric? > > If insurance companies don't approve of a chiropractor's billing > > methods then let them take it to the courts. > > Where they can damn all of us by using the worst of us........... > > The OBCE should stay out of > > such cases and decriminalize such matters as they have no effect on the > > essence of chiropractic practice. > > Let's get together and talk about this idea. You are missing some > essential information. > > I do believe in full disclosure of fees > > and number of visits to care for a problem, but that is where the OBCE's > > investigation should end. The protection of the public's right to quality > > care should be satisfied when a doctor and a patient agree on a course of > > action, not when some mythical practice guidelines are employed. > > Again, lets get specific. You are straining at a theory of dry feet while > standing in a mud puddle. > > > > > If the above concepts were incorporated into OBCE policy our board would > > decrease the expense administering quality chiropractic in the state of > > Oregon. The OBCE should get out of the guideline business, it should get > out > > of the district attorneys' business, it should cease representing the > > insurance industry's concern. > > And perhaps we should not bother with the noisome task of licensing > requirements too........ > > If the OBCE wants to improve the delivery of > > chiropractic they should find ways to help chiropractors in training (like > > the boundary issues training), they should find ways to make state > agencies > > recognize the public benefit from including chiropractic in their programs > > and in state supported research, they should increase ability of the > public > > to gain access to chiropractic care, and they should take action in > concert > > with the OBME to improve public access to chiropractic care for those > > conditions where research indicates to do otherwise would harm the public. > > > > Noble goals. Now if the chiropractic patient knew more or less what to > expect going into one office or another down the street, or across town or > across the state, if fact the patient had a recognizable, predictible or > even vaguely similar clinical experience upon which to expect a certain > level of care, perhaps we could gain wider support for this public funding. > > yours in health, > > Jack Pedersen, DC > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.