Chiropractic Professional's Association: Why?
Written by Editor   
Tuesday, September 06, 2016 12:00 AM

Why support your state chiropractic association?

  • No one is as concerned about the chiropractic profession as are the professional DC themselves. Professional doctors (doctors associated with a profession) support their profession (occupation involving prolonged training and formal qualification in which they declare their belief). Doctors who do not profess confidence in their practice are not acting professionally.
  • State agencies are mostly concerned with government problems, not the problems of the chiropractic doctor. State agencies can not be relied upon to seek the best interests of the profession.  State agencies seek the best interests of the "public."  State agencies define what is in the best interest of the public when state associations do not.
  • Practice managers and business promotors are primarily concerned with the business of their clients.  They generally seek what is best for 1) their business, 2) your business.  Patients, public, and the profession may take a secondary place.
  • Those interested in the plights and problems of the DC are DCs themselves. The state chiropractic association offers a regional and statewide voice where these plights and problems may be shared and where association leadership may set out to find solutions to those problems.
Chiropractic $aves:  Patterns of Utilization and Charges Low Back Pain in North Carolina
Written by Editor   
Friday, September 02, 2016 12:00 AM

Chiropractic care alone or doctor of chiropractic (DC) with medical doctor (MD) care incurred appreciably fewer charges for uncomplicated low back pain (ULBP) than MD care with or without PT care. This finding was reversed for complicated low back pain (CLBP). Adjusted charges for both ULBP and CLBP patients were significantly lower for DC patients.

The Future is Looking Down
Written by Editor   
Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:00 AM

A preliminary study in the 2011 edition of Applied Ergonomics shows a relationship between mobile device use and musculoskeletal neck pain.  The average person looks at a smartphone 221 times a day for a total of about three hours and 15 minutes – about once every four minutes for 16 hours straight. A chiropractor should find this to be worrying because in one year the average person will spend almost 1,200 hours – 50 days – staring down at a screen.  The magnitude of this number of repetitions could become responsible for decades of chronic neck pain. 

Why Can’t We Just Forget About Medicine and Just Do Our Own Thing? Competency
Written by Editor   
Tuesday, August 30, 2016 12:00 AM

For those who promote “Let’s forget organized medicine and just do our own thing,” what will you do about those who espouse the following policies?

Comment:  Competence of non-physician reviewers and the availability of same-specialty peer review must be delineated and assured in utilization review, but physicians, apparently, are not required to be competent.

Decision in Acupuncture V. Chiropractic
Written by Editor   
Monday, August 29, 2016 12:00 AM

In Brief:

  • The appeals court affirms the denial of the Acupuncturist's motion for summary judgment except for one part.
  • The appeals court affirms the upholding of Chiropractic's motion for summary judgment.
  • The court says dismissal of the portion of the Acupuncturist's claim to the validity of TBCE Rule 78.14 was not correct because both parties "failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law."
  • The Parties may appeal the decision to the Texas Supreme Court or let the case return to the trial court so that the last question can be decided.
  • The court opined that the history of the legislative and legal tug-of-war between chiropractic and other medical providers “underscores that the scope of chiropractic vis-a-vis other healthcare fields is a puzzle best solved by the Legislature in a clear and precise manner, rather than leaving these policy-laden issues to the Judiciary for a determination of legislative intent from statutory language that is, to say the least, not the model of clarity. We respectfully request that the Legislature solve this problem.”
  • The Court stated "Because each statute serves the purpose of defining and regulating a separate health-care field ... We cannot conclude that the Legislature necessarily intended for the respective regulatory authorities ... to apply the same meaning to the term “incisive,” and accordingly, we will not construe the Chiropractic Act as if it includes the Acupuncture Act’s definition 'acupuncture.'”
  • On the acupuncturist's claim that the Chiropractic Act violates the Texas Constitution to the extent it permits chiropractors to practice acupuncture, the court stated, "because we cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the Chiropractic Act authorizes chiropractors to practice acupuncture, we need not decide" this issue.

The Texas Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (the Acupuncture Association) sued the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (the Chiropractic Board) asserting that certain chiropractic rule provisions are void because they authorize chiropractors to perform acupuncture, impermissibly expanding the scope of practice for chiropractors beyond that permitted by statute.  In 2015 the district court rendered its final order.  The TAAOM filed for a Summary Judgement, but was denied. The TBCE also filed a motion for summary judgement and the court granted the TBCE’s motion.  The Acupuncture Association filed the appeal considered by the appeals court.

<< first < Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next > last >>

Page 19 of 86