|
July 2006, Vol. 16, No. 3
Table of Contents
Autism and Glutathione • CBP® Nonprofit has 24 publications in 12 months • CBP® Research Presented at the International Spine Conference in Norway • CBP® to File Lawsuit Against Quackwatch • CCE Weathers the Storm • Chiropractic Culture • Dr Don Harrison is ICA's Chiropractor of the Year • Dr Jim Gudgel to Co-Instruct With Neuromechanical Innovations • Dr Deed Harrison Speaks at Palmer West • Experimental or Medical Necessity • Fine Tune Patient Communication • From Screening to the Value of Proper Posture • ICA at the Table • ICA's Newly Elected Board Members • Instrument Adjusting's Mechanical Advantage • It's Don's Opinion • Letters to the Editor • My New Whiplash Text is Available • Patient Expectation and Retention • Principles, Ethics and Other Bygone Ideals • Problematic Decision Spectrum • Research Corner • Triano and CCGPP's Will Give You Six Visits
back to front page
Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor:
I have completed Dr. Dan Murphy’s Certified Chiropractic Spinal Trauma (CCST) program through the International Chiropractic Association three times. In each class I attend, I learn more and more about the science of chiropractic, I become a better clinician, and I am increasingly proud of our chiropractic profession.
I have just finished reading Murphy’s Early Life Infections Improves the Function of the Immune System, and I have been reading his articles for more than 15 years. I have concluded that the chiropractic profession needs Dan Murphy, that it needs the International Chiropractic Association, and that it needs the American Journal of Clinical Chiropractic.
Thank You,
M. Schaer, DC
Logan Chiropractic College 1985
Certified Chiropractic Spinal Trauma 2002
Mesa, AZ
Dear Dr. Schaer:
We are sure that Dr. Dan Murphy appreciates your compliments. He works hard constantly, for what we believe, is minimal reward.
Sincerely,
Sang Harrison, DC
Dear Dr. Don,
Please allow me to address and clarify some items concerning Dr. Sig Miller in your “It’s Don’s Opinion” in the April 2006 issue of AJCC.
As you may know, the Association of New Jersey Chiropractors (ANJC) was formed approximately two years ago by bringing together six New Jersey chiropractic organizations. The unique organizational structure that has allowed the ANJC to succeed is based on the concept that autonomous organizations can work together for the benefit of the profession without the need to merge. The ANJC can therefore comfortably accommodate chiropractors with differing chiropractic viewpoints and practice beliefs. The ANJC is one of the profession’s most diverse chiropractic organizations boasting members with dual membership in a host of other organizations including ACA, ICA, WCA, and others.
Several months after the formation of the ANJC, Sig Miller was hired for the position of Executive Director. During the interview process, Miller detailed his previous work experience and fully disclosed that he owned a California company that performed record reviews on chiropractic claims. While I have no knowledge to address Miller’s activities while he was in California, I would like to share some first hand information about his activities since becoming ANJC’s Executive Director. As a Board member of the organization, I have worked closely with Miller on a day to day basis over the last two years. Please allow me to comment on some of the concerns that were raised in the article.
The article mentions that Miller was “leading the way for the different New Jersey Chiropractic Associations to join one large group”. In fact, the progression of the groups coming together was completely accomplished before Miller was hired; he had absolutely no involvement with the process.
The article raises concerns that Miller may “start slipping in National College philosophy (and 6-12 visits for pain) into New Jersey Chiropractic practicing protocols”. As previously mentioned, the ANJC Board is extremely diverse and includes vigilant members that represent the chiropractic philosophy of ACA, ICA and others. I can personally attest that Miller has in no way pushed or leaned the ANJC into the direction of National College philosophy or any other philosophy. Quite the contrary, Miller has continuously publicly defended all chiropractic philosophies, techniques, and viewpoints. Some of Miller’s initiatives include:
• Developing and personally conducting statewide programs detailing effective methods to avoid, appeal, and overturn adverse paper review decisions based on his intimate knowledge of the process. These programs are free to members and have garnered wide acclaim in NJ.
• Strongly supporting all chiropractic viewpoints and chiropractic philosophies within the ANJC. Without Miller’s support, it is doubtful the ANJC would exist in its current successful form.
• Established meetings between ANJC committees and managed care organizations including Landmark, Triad, and others to discuss inappropriate policies, procedures and fees.
o Has grown the ANJC into one of the largest chiropractic organizations in the Nation. The resultant income is being used in part to file lawsuits against insurance companies, start a PR campaign focused on chiropractic (not back pain), and fund continuous statewide seminars and programs.
• Has supported efforts to publish articles on any chiropractic topic regardless of philosophic viewpoint.
One specific new committee that Miller was instrumental in establishing within the past few months is the ANJC Literature Search Committee. This committee is charged with reviewing relevant chiropractic research, studies, guidelines, insurance policies, etc., and providing rebuttals or support as the need may be. As chairman of this new committee, our first tasks include reviewing and commenting on the CCGPP document and also refuting a March 31, 2006 “Aetna Insurance Clinical Policy Bulletin Update.” This bulletin references numerous chiropractic procedures and techniques that Aetna has deemed “experimental, investigational, and/or not necessary.” As you may be aware, CBP is one of the techniques listed. The committee goal, with Miller’s full support, is to refute with whatever research is available as many as possible of the chiropractic techniques and procedures that are improperly listed. If Aetna refuses to modify its list in response to valid research, the ANJC will use its legal resources to help remedy the problem.
In summary, the Dr. Sig Miller that was described in the AJCC article is certainly not the same Dr. Sig Miller that has helped the ANJC become one of the largest, most diverse, chiropractic organizations in the nation.
Sincerely,
Thomas Sidoti, D.C.,
ANJC Board of Directors
Dear Dr. Sidoti:
Thank you for “correcting” the facts. However, what you wrote does not change the fact that Dr. Miller has negatively impacted the claims of hundreds of chiropractors in California over the past 20 years.
Sincerely,
Don Harrison, PhD, DC, MSE
Dear Editor and Dr. Zingone:
I recently read your article in Clinical Chiropractic regarding the dispute between the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) and LUCC. In this article you state:
“I request that the USDE terminate CCE’s recognition based on its history of multiple USDE violations, failures to acknowledge the damage it has caused, and its continued public statement of denial. CCE has abused its power and failed in its responsibility to the students and the public it serves.”
I have little doubt you are passionate about the subject. However, it may be terribly irresponsible to call for such an action, absent the facts regarding the impact such an action would have. Please understand, I am not taking any position with regard to the dispute between the college, the CCE, or students. I am only going to deal with the impact of your proposal. To put this in perspective, you must be aware of three things:
1. There are over 8000 students enrolled in the 16 chiropractic
colleges in this country.
2. All of these colleges are CCE accredited.
3. All, or nearly all of the states REQUIRE CCE accreditation in their statutes in order for a candidate to become licensed in their state.
Therefore, if CCE’s approval was rescinded in June of ‘06, ALL (or nearly all) OF THESE 8000 STUDENTS WOULD HAVE NO CHANCE OF GETTING A LICENSE ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY!! (A caveat to this is there may be a couple of states that have contingencies...however under no circumstances would they be able to accommodate such a load of applicants, so it’s a moot point.) While one may argue that the statutes should be changed to adapt to this, the reality is that it often takes many years for a state statute to be changed. Additionally, you may have forgotten another issue. For colleges to be able to access federal grants and loans, they must be federally accredited. So, this action may also wipe out the entire student loan availability for these students. How long can the schools survive without their primary source of income? The chaos that would occur as a result of this would be pandemic, and likely irretrievable for many years to come if at all. Given the need to keep an influx of new practitioners into the profession to continue to fight the good fight, it is unlikely the profession would survive in its current state...in fact it would now be likely that it would be subsumed by other (perhaps medical) interests.
I contend that while many students were impacted by this dispute, far more would be injured to a much greater degree should your proposal prevail. I am not convinced that this is your intent. To call for reform, perhaps...to call for annihilation... reckless.
One must be aware of all the ripples created by the stone tossed into the pond.
Respectfully,
Larry A. Spicer, DC
Executive Director
Minn. Board of Chiropractic Examiners
2829 University Ave. SE, Su. 300
Minneapolis, MN 55414
(w) 612-617-2222 (f) 612-617-2224
email: Larry.spicer@state.mn.us
Response #1
Dear Dr. Spicer:
As a State Board member, you are quite badly informed. First of all, if CCE lost their accreditation with DOE, CCE can continue to function as an unaccredited agency. This is quite common. Docs would still be able to get their licenses.
Second, only approximately 37/50 states require DCs to be graduates of CCE approved Chiropractic Colleges.
Third, the schools would have 18 months to find alternative accrediting for their student loan programs (called Title One). All but 2 schools already have Title One backup with their regional accrediting agencies (SACS is the one for Life, for example). The other 2 schools would have 18 months to get a regional agency. If they cannot get one in time, the Department of Education (Feds) have agreed to assist with special student loan through private funding. This was last used in chiropractic when Sherman lost SCASA, but it took longer than expected to get their CCE standing.
Response #2
Dear Dr. Spicer:
I was recently forwarded a copy of your e-mail comments regarding an article recently appearing in Clinical Chiropractic. Having researched the CCE and related topics for the past several years, I have some insights regarding this topic and would like to share them.
Regarding your assertion that:
“*Therefore, if CCE’s approval was rescinded in June of ‘06, ALL (or nearly all) OF THESE 8000 STUDENTS WOULD HAVE NO CHANCE OF GETTING A LICENSE ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY!!”*
I would respectfully suggest that this is a common misconception. As you correctly state, *”...nearly all of the states REQUIRE CCE accreditation in their statutes in order for a candidate to become licensed in their state.”* However, should the Department of Education take an extremely adverse action (unlikely but possible) against the CCE in June, it would have NO effect on the ability of these states to continue to issue licenses. All colleges would continue to have accreditation with CCE, the only change would be that accreditation would be from an agency that is not recognized by USDOE. There are many accrediting agencies that conduct their accreditation without such recognition. I am not aware that any state statutes require CCE to be recognized by the Department of Education.
Concerning the suggestion that:
“*So, this action may also wipe out the entire student loan availability for these students.”*
Again, I would respectfully suggest that this is also common misconception. As you correctly state* “For colleges to be able to access federal grants and loans, they must be federally accredited.”
*More accurately, they must be accredited by an agency which is recognized by the United States Department of Education. Fourteen of the sixteen chiropractic colleges are also accredited by a regional accrediting agency which has that same recognition. Should CCE lose their federal recognition, only two schools (which depend on CCE for institutional accreditation) would be faced with a problem. The other fourteen, which depend on CCE for programmatic accreditation, would not have their federal loan status placed in jeopardy. The remaining two institutions would have a “transition period” (probably 18 months), in which to seek alternate accreditation by another agency.
Regarding your contention that:
“*I contend that while many students were impacted by this dispute, far more would be injured to a much greater degree should your proposal
prevail.”*
I would respectfully suggest your concerns, while well intentioned, may be influenced by “misinformation”.
“*To call for reform, perhaps...to call for annihilation... reckless.”*
I happen to agree with your final conclusion, however, for different reasons. Unfortunately, most of our state regulators have assumed that the CCE has just been doing its job and has done so with the highest level of integrity. Those who have devoted the time and effort to review the activities of the CCE in detail have found signs of significant problems.
The Doctors for Excellence in Chiropractic Education filed a complaint with the Department of Education in November, 2003. On July 5, 2005 the Department of Education, in a letter to CCE, announced the findings of their review of that complaint and CCE was found to be non-compliant with four regulations.
I have attached a copy of the comments filed by DECE on March 8, 2006. I invite you to review this and other information that has recently entered the public domain and join me in calling for REFORM at CCE.
If I can be of any assistance or you would like to discuss any of the issues in further detail, I can be reached at 770-355-3344.
Thank you for your concerns for our profession,
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Welsh, D.C.
Director of Research
Doctors for Excellence in Chiropractic Education (DECE)
Dear Editor:
I enjoy reading your “American Journal of Clinical Chiropractic” newspaper and noted that you have a research publication list that does not include JVSR (Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research). With over 90 CBP published projects, why is it that the top chiropractic peer reviewed journal does not seem to be listed, along with the other 18 Journals?
Sincerely Yours,
Mark H. Sussin, DC
Poughkeepsie, New York
Dear Dr. Sussin:
In the beginning of JVSR, they (Rondberg & McCoy) made some political mistakes with us (CBP NP). Since that time, things have been working out. However, about a decade ago, we (CBP NP) decided to try to publish more of our papers in the Index Medicus journals for more “impact” world-wide and JVSR is CINAHL indexed. However, just recently we have been preparing two studies that we are going to submit to JVSR. When writing the new ICA X-ray Guidelines (Practicing Chiropractors’ Committee on Radiographic Protocols = PCCRP), CBP Members of that Committee noticed that some good evidence on chiropractic clinical x-ray usage was found in JVSR. JVSR is to be commended for that.
Sincerely,
Don Harrison, PhD, DC, MSE
| 
